You are correct that they don't care enough to hate us!
Nothing about this current or any historical civil cycle of humanities rise and fall allows for " winners". Psychopaths and their puppets are not leading happy lives either, and their end is ouroborosly linked to the rest of us.
Tucker's "black and white" take requires winners and losers. These are temporal values that require people's division in a machine that is eternally captured in the human mold. The human mold is the machine.
" Only the Sith deal in absolutes" Star wars quote.
The question I always ask when assessing one of these players like Tucker as to whether they are controlled opposition is
" Why are they ALLOWED to speak on the podium, when so many other dissident voices are sensored, silenced or jailed?"
Why is he "fearless"?
Don't look into his background if he is saying things you agree with?
How did he get to interview Putin?
" The scum always floats to the top" -Leunig.
"Clive has brought out international Covid medical experts like Drs Peter McCullough "
Alex Jones of InfoWars interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough on June 17 with some breaking news about an unapproved medical intervention that Dr. McCullough started prescribing for his patients. The pharmaceutical drugs contains mRNA gene editing nanotechnology.
Dr. McCullough is suggesting that some novel pharmaceutical mRNA drugs can eradicate spike proteins from the human body.
"There are thousands of nameless people who try to live within the truth and millions who want to but cannot, perhaps only because to do so in the circumstances in which they live, they would need ten times the courage of those who have already taken the first step.
If several dozen are randomly chosen from among all these people and put into a special category, this can utterly distort the general picture. It does so in two different ways.
Either it suggests that “dissidents” are a group of prominent people, a protected species who are permitted to do things others are not and whom the government may even be cultivating as living proof of its generosity; or it lends support to the illusion that since there is no more than a handful of malcontents to whom not very much is really being done, all the rest are therefore content, for were they not so, they would be “dissidents” too.
But that is not all. This categorisation also unintentionally supports the impression that the primary concern of these “dissidents” is some vested interest that they share as a group, as though their entire argument with the government were no more than a rather abstruse conflict between two opposed groups, a conflict that leaves society out of it altogether.
But such an impression profoundly contradicts the real importance of the “dissident” attitude, which stands or falls on its interest in others, in what ails society as a whole, in other words, on an interest in all those who do not speak up.
If “dissidents” have any kind of authority at all, and if they have not been exterminated long ago like exotic insects that have appeared where they have no business being, then this is not because the government holds this exclusive group and their exclusive ideas in such awe, but because it is perfectly aware of the potential political power of living within the truth rooted in the hidden sphere, and well aware too of the kind of world “dissent” grows
out of and the world it addresses: the everyday human world, the world of daily tension between the aims of life and the aims of the system."
I think Tucker's being fired from his network despite being the most popular host suggest he wasn't 'allowed' ... however it does appear that X is a spanner in the machine for the time being (for whatever reason) ...
You think they didn't know Tucker's popularity would increase by " firing" him?
The question I ask is why. Why are these influencers " allowed" and others " not allowed".
The only answers I can come up with are-
1. They are not a threat to the agenda.
2. They are a useful distraction for an apathetic masses.
3. They are tools of the agenda to keep dividing people, that are already divided.
These influencers are part of the predictive programming and normalising of conflict. Given that there is no one to " stand up" against except your fellow human who happens to be an unwitting accomplice in the system.
They provide no solutions, just collect our attention. ( Crowd gets the clap)
This morning I woke up to the news that a Senator has been suspended because she refuses to vote in line with the Caucus. It shows us that Senators we vote for are not able to decide for us but are captured by the party.
Agree totally Rebekah.
One of the positives of Covid for me was completely weaning off the media.
I have not bought a newspaper nor watched any news for 4 years now.
I have not watched a single ABC program over that time.
I read The Spectator, Quadrant, plenty of books, and Substack has arrived.
I listen to Dark Horse and Jordan Peterson Podcasts.
The quality and variety of information from these sources dwarfs anything I previously read in MSM.
No wonder politicians of the Uniparty are united in a desire to censor.
I recommend adding Trish Wood’s podcast to the mix! ‘Trish Wood is Critical’
Will do.
🙏 we don't have to agree on everything just respect others differences
You are correct that they don't care enough to hate us!
Nothing about this current or any historical civil cycle of humanities rise and fall allows for " winners". Psychopaths and their puppets are not leading happy lives either, and their end is ouroborosly linked to the rest of us.
Tucker's "black and white" take requires winners and losers. These are temporal values that require people's division in a machine that is eternally captured in the human mold. The human mold is the machine.
" Only the Sith deal in absolutes" Star wars quote.
The question I always ask when assessing one of these players like Tucker as to whether they are controlled opposition is
" Why are they ALLOWED to speak on the podium, when so many other dissident voices are sensored, silenced or jailed?"
Why is he "fearless"?
Don't look into his background if he is saying things you agree with?
How did he get to interview Putin?
" The scum always floats to the top" -Leunig.
"Clive has brought out international Covid medical experts like Drs Peter McCullough "
https://open.substack.com/pub/drloveariyana/p/dr-peter-mcculloughs-snakeoil-sales?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tz1pu
Alex Jones of InfoWars interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough on June 17 with some breaking news about an unapproved medical intervention that Dr. McCullough started prescribing for his patients. The pharmaceutical drugs contains mRNA gene editing nanotechnology.
Dr. McCullough is suggesting that some novel pharmaceutical mRNA drugs can eradicate spike proteins from the human body.
https://open.substack.com/pub/outraged/p/why-does-mccullough-md-treats-nanotechnology?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tz1pu
The Power of the Powerless
Written in 1978 by Havel.
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/1979/01/the-power-of-the-powerless.pdf.
P.40
"There are thousands of nameless people who try to live within the truth and millions who want to but cannot, perhaps only because to do so in the circumstances in which they live, they would need ten times the courage of those who have already taken the first step.
If several dozen are randomly chosen from among all these people and put into a special category, this can utterly distort the general picture. It does so in two different ways.
Either it suggests that “dissidents” are a group of prominent people, a protected species who are permitted to do things others are not and whom the government may even be cultivating as living proof of its generosity; or it lends support to the illusion that since there is no more than a handful of malcontents to whom not very much is really being done, all the rest are therefore content, for were they not so, they would be “dissidents” too.
But that is not all. This categorisation also unintentionally supports the impression that the primary concern of these “dissidents” is some vested interest that they share as a group, as though their entire argument with the government were no more than a rather abstruse conflict between two opposed groups, a conflict that leaves society out of it altogether.
But such an impression profoundly contradicts the real importance of the “dissident” attitude, which stands or falls on its interest in others, in what ails society as a whole, in other words, on an interest in all those who do not speak up.
If “dissidents” have any kind of authority at all, and if they have not been exterminated long ago like exotic insects that have appeared where they have no business being, then this is not because the government holds this exclusive group and their exclusive ideas in such awe, but because it is perfectly aware of the potential political power of living within the truth rooted in the hidden sphere, and well aware too of the kind of world “dissent” grows
out of and the world it addresses: the everyday human world, the world of daily tension between the aims of life and the aims of the system."
I think Tucker's being fired from his network despite being the most popular host suggest he wasn't 'allowed' ... however it does appear that X is a spanner in the machine for the time being (for whatever reason) ...
X is an obvious COG in the machine.
You think they didn't know Tucker's popularity would increase by " firing" him?
The question I ask is why. Why are these influencers " allowed" and others " not allowed".
The only answers I can come up with are-
1. They are not a threat to the agenda.
2. They are a useful distraction for an apathetic masses.
3. They are tools of the agenda to keep dividing people, that are already divided.
These influencers are part of the predictive programming and normalising of conflict. Given that there is no one to " stand up" against except your fellow human who happens to be an unwitting accomplice in the system.
They provide no solutions, just collect our attention. ( Crowd gets the clap)
A brilliant piece beautifully written Rebekah. Truth over tribe indeed.
Thanks Jacqui :)
This morning I woke up to the news that a Senator has been suspended because she refuses to vote in line with the Caucus. It shows us that Senators we vote for are not able to decide for us but are captured by the party.
I saw that too. I thought good on her.