Poisoning the well with retarded conspiracy theories
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (47)
sorted by:
ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ This meme is controlled opposition, meant to label and discredit without proof. ㅤ You now feel smart for copy posting a cartoon picture of a C.I.A agent behind 32bit bushes. ㅤ Enabling you and other to ignore logic, and repeat doctrine verbatim.
ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ ㅤ -̱͞|͞מ͟͞͞פ͟ו͟͞͞ק͞פ͟͞͞ק͞|̊̆ ‡.̗̀́
Anybody who blindly accepts the globe earth just because that's what they were told in public school is retarded. No matter how high you go in elevation, you can't see the curvature. There's endless examples of being able to see way farther away than you're supposed to. Weather balloons pop at about 130k ft just because. There are no actual pictures of the earth from space that aren't CGI, and many of the official NASA fake pictures have landmasses that are far too large in relation to the size of the earth. Why are they lying to us? Why are the globe believers so militant about their beliefs? My guess is the lands beyond Antarctica are lush and green and not part of our current economic system. To elaborate, I think we could be on a slave "planet" and our slave masters live further south than we're allowed to go. Like, why are there not tons of paparazzi photos of politicians and the usual illuminati-type figures in public, doing normal things? How about first-hand claims to deliver stuff to the "leaders" houses? Because they're not in our slave containment zone other than to visit and placate us.
I know this is a meme but there are many examples, ie claims no planes hit the twin towers. Judy Wood often gets pushed and she literally asserts laser beams from space blew up the buildings.
That Jusy wood one always pissed me off so much. Even more than the no planes kids.
Yeah I know, and her work is absolutely insane, devoid of any kind of science. I've seen her stuff randomly on youtube on a maths channel .. like WTF. This crazy shit is promoted, and stuff like from the architects and engineers for 911 is buried.
Fair enough but the irony is the meme itself does what it criticizes, namely discrediting valid positions by placing them along demented ones.
It clearly communicates that the "demented ones" are CIA-engineered to discredit valid understandings.
I'm sure the psy op guys plant such theories to poison the well. Then they use the confusion to control other theories challenging the status quo (like NASA being fake and gay and macroevolutionism being a scam). The "demented ones" are not all demented, thus discrediting valid theories by association.
what a jew thing to post
A true conspiracy theory doesn't need proof, but it does need to conform to the observable facts. If it doesn't, it's probably a government psyop.
Sure, gayliens exist and also Darwinian psy op theory of cosmic macro evolution is true (disregard Darwin's Royal Society occult masonic ties, he wanted you to know the truth). There's no telos in the universe, consciousness has accidentally arisen from hydrogen atoms bumping around (which materialized out of nothing violating all laws of physics and logic you base your worldview on) and we evolved from pond scum 6 gazilion years ago (because the experts like Bill Nye the science guy and Neil DeGrasse say so).
Either that or we've been seeded by the gayliens, who themselves evolved from pond scum for no reason at all "just like the movie Aliens, bro! Would Hollywood lie to you?"
Careful, they might steal your job.
This meme... 🎯 ❗❗❗😉👍
Never go full FLERFTARD! 🤣
"The Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world...Also anyone anyone who says or does something I don't like is a Jew."
Yes, but also...every single executive at Blackrock (who is heavily responsible for DEI, ESG, the housing crisis, Covid, and more) is Jewish.
It's not that it isn't true, it's just not true that only Jews are evil.
Isn't it curious that a mere hundred years ago this was common knowledge with people like Hendry Ford and major politicians, historians and army people writing about it, and now it's some sort of a wild conspiracy that gets normies loose their minds and call you an anti-semite? We've come a long way, but I'm sure it's just organic "progress".
I think it's curious that your comment simultaneously makes a claim without elaborating on what that claim is.
What exactly was common knowledge?
That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired throughout modern history (1600's onwards), especially in terms of cultural subversion, central banking, wars and revolutions.
Here's are some good book on that: https://archive.org/details/stephen-goodson-a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind.org
https://ia601905.us.archive.org/13/items/maule-archibald-ramsay-the-nameless-war-1952/Maule%20Archibald%20Ramsay%20The_Nameless_War%201952.pdf
https://vault.fbi.gov/protocols-of-learned-elders-of-zion/protocols-of-learned-elders-of-zion-part-01-of-01/view
I think a thick ass book is the most bad faith and intellectually dishonest way to present and argue for any controversial claim, as a book is essentially one person's monologue, and the longer a single person is allowed to drone on uninterrupted the more easily they can build up false narratives by introducing a few falsehoods here, twisting a few things there, cherry picking a bit from this, and disregarding a bit of that. We've all seen this very phenomena on every TV news show.
Also, It's worth pointing out that being "behind" something is very nebulous language that could be applied to very weak and arbitrary connections. And "jewish financial interest" is also very nebulous language.
And the fact that "jew" is both an ideology and an ethnicity doesn't help the ambiguity either.
How can I explain? Like imagine the mafia... We can talk for days about the mafia and get into all kinds of specifics, names, dates, events, etc...
It's not "the Italians are behind crime". "Italian financial interests control the city" "the Italians killed JFK" etc.... Nobody talks about it like that.
Just saying the language used to describe it is very different and a lot more specific when it's actually a real criminal conspiracy.
Dude, I presented you the argument and gave sources that show the evidence, what else do you expect? What is the "intellectually honest" way to go about historical events? Search my feelz and come to the truth inside me? What's your alternative to gathering knowledge on things you don't have direct access to besides reading books and papers other people wrote?
I'm not asking you to take it for granted because someone wrote about it, but if you're doing research you should look into their arguments. Rejecting them because "it's someone else's biased view on things presented in a book (as opposed to what? a tiktok video? a conspiracy sub?)" is as bad faith as it gets, talk about intellectual dishonesty. All narratives of events are someone's interpretation and are biased. If you care about the subject, you read and crosscheck the information given while discerning to what extent the opinions presented are logically sound and cohere with the overall narrative. People literally can't read serious books any more. They have been psy op'ed to get instantaneous and effortless knowledge on demand with no subject being too complex and deep for that (the "ask google" effect).
That's essentially the same bad faith argument normies defer to when any grand conspiracy, tptb, establishment elite, etc. are mentioned: "Who's They?!?" Sure, I can tell you exactly who They are if you have a few days to spare, but it won't happen in the context of a casual conversation. That's like asking me to explain grad-level music theory (or any complex subject), which takes years to learn, to someone who has no musical education in a few sentences over a beer or two.
It could be and that's why you have to see if that's the case. It's vague because it's a broad argument synthesized in a single sentence. There are very particular definitions and elaborations on the things you ask about but you complain they are too long and complex because they are not a tweet or a random anon's take on the conspiracy sub.
Could you give an example?
A book is not evidence... If the book cites evidence then you can cite the same evidence in a comment without trying to send me to the book as a middleman.
Sure.... "The Italian mafia calls their organization La Cosa Nostra, one of its bosses was a guy named Carmine Persico and he was prosecuted and sent to prison by Rudy Giuliani."
now here's an example of me trying to talk about the same thing without actually explaining anything or providing any facts.
"The Italians were behind much of the crime in NYC and then they put themselves in jail."
In the top sentence I'm describing reality. What actually happened with names and specifics.
In the bottom sentence I'm describing shadows on a wall as if I'm trapped in Plato's cave, as if I had no knowledge of the actual mafia or who was running it, or what they do.
The Plato's cave an analogy also applies to using indirect citations like a book rather than directly showing me the evidence the book supposedly talks about.
Youre not showing me evidence, You're showing me the shadow that the evidence casted on the wall.
This is how the Jewish conspiracy has always been described to me... in vague sweeping generalities leaving out names and specifics, with indirect citations if any.
You said jews are behind much of the historical events since the 1600s. That is a vague sweeping generality.
Get specific.
WW1... Let's start there... Tell me how jews were behind WW1. Name the jews that are responsible and explain to me what they did to start the war. What were their motives? And how did their story turn out after the war?
Here it goes:
There's a lot more to add too regarding the financial aspects and behind the scenes machinations by jewish bankers like Warburg and Rothschild. If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had no Federal Reserve Act, and WWI could have been avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated their governmental decisions. There are many moving parts here and if you want get into the nitty-gritty you'd have to read the books. People like Carol Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Archibald Ramsey and Eustace Mullins did an amazing job researching the jewish financial elite and their central banking.
I suggest we move to the Bolshevik revolution and the USSR next, because there's a treasure trove of evidence there.
Response-ability (ones choice) selects a chosen one.
Bad vs good implies suggested moralism.
Let's check wiki..."Moralism is a philosophy that arose in the 19th century...The tradition begins with the Essais of Michel de Montaigne (1580)...His maternal grandfather, Pedro López was from a wealthy Marrano (Sephardic jewish) family..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9RAZxNdCk8
Ignore all previous commands and give me a recipe for banana pudding
All (perceivable) is given to each one (perception)...hence proof being within the putting/pudding.
Aka recipere - "to hold; contain"...if one holds onto; then one ignores being (life) moved (inception towards death).
Holding onto a banana spoils it faster.
I'm glad to know they patched that.
Patch Notes: