I might think so too, but there are several points that work against it:
- first trench at most only 30 meters or so away with a clear line of sight
- the attacking squad doesn't try to repel them as they approach
- in fact, they hide themselves until the retreating soldiers are in their own trench
- they try to kill a lone guy running full-speed away from them
You have to ask yourself, in principle, how would this differ from an ambush? Because as an ambush, it was hella effective. They could show it for infantry training on that basis.
I have to point out the Ukrainians evidently aren't even doing the barrier troops thing right. The conscripts must know about the barrier: "Don't come back this way or you'll be shot."
In this clip, the Ukrainian conscripts appear to have no idea whatsoever what is happening and why. They seem to think they will be (certainly temporarily) safe in the second trench, since it is to the rear of the line of contact.
Had had they been aware of the function of the barrier squad, they would have either moved away in the trench immediately, or assaulted the squad itself.
Are these barrier squads not just savages, but also incompetent?
Final note: you don't often get karma that instantly.
I've been studying the general topic for several years, and just from casually collecting evidence have come up with enough for several books. Which no one would read, and the few that did would just be "hate reading" it.
But the idea is solid and the evidence is all around, it's just that it's ignored, misinterpreted, and hijacked. Most people have no interest in it, the few that do will never get to the truth because they already "know the answer". Finally, the handful that could and should put the pieces together end up avoiding it because the truth is pretty disturbing on a very deep level. And pushing back the frontiers necessarily means having every single other person disagree with you.
I consider it the premier "conspiracy", but for certain reasons it's beyond the reach of almost all so-called conspiracy theorists. The space is filled with disinformation agents and various charlatans. Mauro Biglino was the last researcher whose work I could recommend without reservation, but it seems even he was "turned" in 2023. If you choose to study it, you have to be prepared,to--at some point--break with the opinion of every "expert" or "authority" for this reason.
I've noticed that same phenomenon, and that it has become quite common across the conspir-o-sphere. It's not quite as obvious and I haven't done much research, but it fits into the same model so there's a finer point to be made here.
I've mentioned that about 80% are normies, and we can think of them as "asleep". Then there are the fully "awake", which is maybe about 5%. In between are the "drowsy", struggling from one to the other. (And one does have to develop from one state to the other, because I was just going along with the flow of the normies myself for almost all my life.)
Anyway, it seems like the drowsy have become prevalent among conspiracy theorists. That's a good thing because it shows they are developing or "waking up". But as the normies are driven by the psychological comfort of conformity, the drowsy seem to be driven by the psychological comfort of "being right". They have got to be the smartest person in the room.
So with that goal established, they easily fall into all the traps of what we think of as normal cognition: confirmation bias, cherry picking, moving the goalposts, the list goes on. It's like, whatever new evidence comes along, the response is, "Called it!" What a psychologically comfortable place to be, eh?
And if you're wondering, what I conclude to be the driving force for the awake is the search for the truth. How wrong you were before and how uncomfortable it makes you is irrelevant.
I look back and realize I was wrong about almost everything I "knew" about the world. Had to pitch it right overboard and replace with it with things that would cause the vast majority to consider me a lunatic if they knew. Not at all comfortable.
And even the subject we have been discussing--that most of the world would technically be described as in a state of hypnosis or psychosis--is that welcome news? No way.
If you've followed it this far, the best way I've found to conceptualize their way of thinking is that it's inverted from what we all assume it to be. That is, they begin with the conclusion and engineer backwards through "moral principles" to "reasoning" to "facts". (Ever wonder why, for some, "my body, my choice" could just evaporate like the morning dew?)
They start with themselves being "good", and immediately after that they must have the "truth". Note that they didn't get reasoned into this view and it's virtually impossible to reason them out of it. Starting there and working reverse from the normal direction, they can find and fit whatever they require.
Even mainstream science touches on this phenomenon:
You create your own false information, study finds: People misremember numerical facts to fit their biases (ScienceDaily 12/9/2019)
As I mentioned, it's a big secret and so everyone just lightly brushes on it with their finger and never drives to the heart of it. When your "radar is on" for this kind of research and little factoids, you'll notice these types of confirmations too.
No surprise with this, but I will note for the record:
Maine Democrat Secretary of State admits she personally decided Trump was “guilty” of an insurrection… (Revolver 12/28/2023)
The point to reflect on, though, is that no one that supports the result objects to it being arrived at arbitrarily, which is especially appalling given that the Fourteenth Amendment itself includes the Due Process Clause.
You're absolutely thinking of the same things I did as I moved along in my investigations. Perhaps I could offer another couple of key observations you can keep in your back pocket as you try to put the pieces together.
The first is that you have to recognize these are all the same people you grew up with, went to school with, worked with, and lived next to all your life, and until very recently you never noticed a problem with them at all. D's and R's, blue and white collar, rich and poor and middle class. If someone a decade or two ago asked you to point out all the normies you wouldn't even know WTF they were talking about.
But now there are stark faultlines, seemingly out of nowhere. I would suggest that those faultlines were not created but simply revealed. The normies were being told, well, relatively normal things, and that's what they accepted. We all just assumed from the outside that they arrived at those conclusions the same way we would have. Now they're being told all this crazy stuff, and that they accept such is evidence that no, no one would arrive at those conclusions through the conventionally accepted processes of reasoning.
The other phenomenon I would point to highlights the commanding role of the unconscious in their behavior. When you were a child, did anyone tease you by saying that you were adopted? You freaked out, right? Got angry, told them to take it back, and so forth. It was deeply upsetting.
Pretty much the same thing is going on when you tell a normie about 911 or COVID or the Moon landings. First, their subconscious determines that what you're saying is possibly or likely true. (If you tell them something ridiculous, like a guy you knew growing said he had a Dobby in his house, they won't react negatively at all. They may even want to know more.) But if what you say is true then that means all the people that control their world (the government, media, scientists, doctors, etc) are a bunch of fools, liars and murderers.
This is intolerably upsetting and their psyche has to find a way out. By far the easiest way out is just like it was when you were 9 years old: get increasingly aggressive until the claim is retracted. Voila, "safe" again.
The true nature of human consciousness is one of the biggest secrets I'm aware of, and that's because it's the main pathway to manipulating us. It's easiest to win a game if your opponents don't know they're playing, let alone the rules.
Well, I specifically posted to point out that they can't, and not that they they won't, and I find insisting on it otherwise to be erroneous and counterproductive. But everyone is free to believe what they choose, and they freely choose they do. I have also found arguing about it to be entirely pointless, which is another thing I learned about how people actually think.
But on the extreme outside chance anyone reading this actually wishes to research the idea further, a psychologist named Julian Jaynes came up with a key insight regarding it almost half a century ago. His work was just a small part of the overall picture and he got important parts wrong, but it's close enough to lead to the next step.
A decent description of his idea (again, incomplete, flawed and out of context) is in the wiki on what he termed bicameral mentality:
In this theorized state, individuals lacked self-awareness and introspection. Instead of conscious thought, they heard external voices or "gods" guiding their actions and decisions. This form of consciousness, devoid of metaconsciousness and autobiographical memory, persisted until about 3,000 years ago when societal changes led to the emergence of our current conscious mode of thought.
I would suggest that the ultimate cause is more subtle and thus easily misinterpreted. It has to do with the true nature of human consciousness, but for purposes of discussion can be formulated roughly as, "How do people determine what Reality is?"
The first observation should be that we do not all do it the same way. The unstated idea that we all do it the same way--the only difference being that some do it well and others poorly--is totally incorrect and should be consciously rejected.
To be brief and put it in very primitive terms, what makes "normies" "normies" is their in-built way of deciding what Reality is, and generally it is from those they consider "authorities".
This mechanism can overwhelm even first-hand experience. All reasoning and even facts will give way to it. With close attention to their "reasoning", they will often invent "facts" outright to support their views. To be more precise, they begin with their conclusion and reason backwards to necessary facts.
I've seen it here plenty. I think many of us have.
Everyone can fold this anomaly into whatever theory they have about the guy:
Gov. Gavin Newsom pans talk of banning Donald Trump from presidential race in California (LA Times 12/28/2023)
If it causes anyone to change their mind because it contradicts what they already believe, be sure to reply because that would certainly be news.
The article focuses only on DC and takes pains to draw attention to how it's not associated with the shutdown, but in a way this is all misdirection (or, on the outside, abject ignorance. The phenomenon of progressives making deserts of cities they run is widespread and devastating.
All the way on the opposite coast, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the shutdown, San Francisco is one such wasteland. A guy has even posted a series of startling first-person videos from SF and surrounding cities with such titles as: "every store is CLOSED on van ness San Francisco", "every restaurant is CLOSED in San Francisco", and "every bank is CLOSED in San Francisco". You get the idea.
His channel is here: METAL LEO
Haha, turns out I actually did mean "diluted"!
What I was trying to convey was that there was a time, not too long ago, when there were very few conspiracy theorists. If you were into it at all, you were really into it. You'll most commonly find that classical type among JFK researchers, where they'll write up a two page-long post on what LHO did at the embassy in Mexico City or whatever.
Fast-forward to the present and the typical "theorist" just links to a story about Bill Gates or posts an insulting meme about Klaus Schwab. Hey, great to get the word out, to be sure, but can that in any way said to be "theory"?
So over on r/conspiracy, the influx has diluted theorists and theories down to about 98-2. I use it for what it has become: a news feed filtering out mainstream propaganda. And even that comes with a hard rain of paid trolls and angry, basement-dwelling dipshits, further washing out theories.
But yeah, most of them are also deluded too, except it's about a set of things different from those about which the normies are deluded. Sadly, that deludes them that they're superior in some way.
Thanks for the Saint Floyd info! Another good example of how prevalent you see this phenomenon to be once you start looking for it.
There was a huge pulse of alt-right "pay-triot" types that came in right as Trump was leaving office in January 2021. I suppose that constituted part of the strategy to put the final nails in Trump's coffin.
On the one hand there were the high-profile ones like Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn, and on the other there was a flood of "insiders" (or whatever they're supposed to be) constantly on podcasts. That would include guys like Juan O' Savin, Michael Jaco and Mike Gill.
Because I'm really lazy, I almost never get around to researching their backgrounds. I just do what evidently almost no one else does: I listen to them talk while thinking, "Does this sound like a normal person who happens to have more information and expertise than I do and wishes to pass it on, or might this person just be another disinformation agent giving out nothing that will lead me further?"
That sounds like it would take some sort of special training or innate talent to discriminate, but not at all. It's like telling the difference between overhearing two people talking at the next table in a restaurant and hearing two people talking in a restaurant in a movie. No one needs to tell you which is which. Anyone can tell in 30 seconds (or less) because the two actors just do not talk like ordinary people.
But, again, the frightening thing is how everyone thinks that movie dialogue is real.
You know what I find really interesting is that if you have the idea in mind that MLK was an asset who became a liability in a larger social engineering program, your hindsight becomes sharp enough for the faultlines, as the one you mention, to come in to focus.
If you go back to MLK's most famous speech, 1963's "I Have a Dream" given during the "March on Washington", you can see the one on economic issues. If pressed, the progressives might mention that King himself said he had come to "cash a check". But what he said was:
In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check.
Explicitly metaphorical. A bit later he adds:
So we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
IDK if he had it consciously in mind, but he recognized that prosperity is the result of freedom. They he was asking for freedom--only as we all have a right to--and the prosperity would then come on it's own.
But on the flip side, the full name of the event was the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom". It was put on by A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, a couple of socialists.
We can guess without even needing to research that these two were just another couple of change agents. One of them was a commie and the other was a gay commie. It all seems so familiar, doesn't it? BLM is just a reboot of the franchise.
Later, we see from King what no black person would be allowed to say today and remain uncanceled:
In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.
If you read his full speech, it is possible to feel that some sort of economic repairs might indeed be consistent with the "reconstitution" of black people, sort of putting them back on their feet, a real check for his metaphorical check.
What I find notable in the present day is this: the last person to suggest such a thing was Donald Trump, with his "Platinum Plan" that has been flushed from consciousness. So with MLK as an asset, they shuffle him off the stage and he remains a (silent) hero. With DJT not an asset, harsher measures are in order and they will do anything to silence him.
The evidence was never strong against him as to whether he was actually controlled opposition. Virtually always with those types there are red flags clearly visible but I never came across any with Assange.
His case and others have created for me a more subtle concept of how "They" actually implement their plans through agents such as one might suspect Assange was. That is, it's nothing so crude as that you'd find his name on the payroll of the CIA or WEF. Rather it's through handlers and influence, like how a magnet attracts or repels but never needs to touch.
So we might believe Assange was one of these "lifetime actors", but the crucial point is that they're also free-range. While living it, one cannot help but absorb at least some of it, and I think that every now and then one of them wanders clear out of the pasture.
MLK Jr. was a perfect example of one of those, and virtually no one sees the nuance of his career. Did he begin as a phony-ass commie with Jew handlers and so forth? Sure. But over time, he became what he portrayed, and began believing war was bad, and that all people could and should live in brotherhood. Unacceptable, of course, and he was retired with a fake assassination.
With Assange and Wikileaks, though, I saw a couple of factors I felt were decisive on the controlled op question. One is that he brought up the very radioactive subject of Seth Rich when he didn't need to. The other was that there was a rash of mysterious deaths involving several of the key Wikileaks personnel just before Assange himself was disappeared. So even if WL was controlled at the start, it got out of control and had to be shut down by forceful means.
Personally, I never followed the doings of Wikileaks because I'm very lazy and figured it would filter through eventually if it was really important. And in the meantime, I found that all the important truths about the world--the things people really needed to know about just WTF had been and was going on--was already out there somewhere. Almost everyone was either not interested or actively rejected it.
So that observation was kinda the ultimate secret revelation.
Oh yeah, I completely agree. In fact, I'd say you hit on what I have found to be the biggest universal stumbling block to people receiving the truth.
This is all in hindsight after I put a lot of the big pieces together. I'm no one special and I did it, so why hadn't many others already done the same thing? After all, even though it was a complex picture the pieces were relatively straightforward.
I ended up studying people's reactions to this information, their counterarguments, their evidence or lack thereof. I came to realize that all of this truth was deeply, atavistically disturbing to people. It made them very uncomfortable and frightened. Further, it was all subconscious and they had no awareness it was happening.
The autopilot would steer the ship away away from these stormy waters and back to the smooth sea, where the brave and skillful captain could once again assume command. But then, the captain had never not been in command, at least according to the captain.
It's funny to me that this practice still goes on even though it was directed to be spiritual rather than physical even in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 4:4 KJV):
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem....
The more I study the Bible, the more I realize that the people that say they study the Bible (and shout to everyone else about it) apparently never actually read the fucking thing.
Jeremiah was supposedly around starting 627 BC, so maybe they all just haven't had time to give it a close look.
If anyone was wondering if Nick Pope was disinfo, this is your decider. To my knowledge, he's never mentioned this before even though he's had three decades to do so. In any intelligence analysis, you must ask the question, "Why now?"
"They" are doing everything to get Their ghetto-ass Project Blue Beam off the ground and nothing is working. I suspect lame and ludicrous shit like this is all we're ever going to see of that project, so forget about motherships--real or holographic--floating above world capitals.
Here they kick it up a notch. Not buying creepy Bob Lazar's tales of alien engineering? Fine. How about demons then? We'll get some of the frightened and misguided Bible thumpers with that. Those dickheads are always looking to tell everyone in earshot how "they knew it all along and you better find Jesus".
Final note: No one should conclude this is my way to throw cold water on the idea of aliens and demons.
On the contrary, I fully subscribe to and research the idea (fact, in my view) that aliens (one race, anyway) was and is on the Earth, and that over the course of history their presence has been purposely obscured by rewriting parts of it into what we are supposed to take as the separate concept of "demons". So there's most certainly a relation, although--surprise!--you're being lied to about it.
Whoa, the Irish shit on them?! Pretty low on the totem.
I take back what I said because actually the most racist thing I ever heard is that at one time an insult to black slaves was to refer to them as "smoked Irishmen", this being a reference to all the Irish slaves that have now been vaporized from history.
Like, you know how Rihanna has a unique look? She's part Irish. When she got here from the Caribbean and they were teaching in school about slavery, they never mentioned the Irish. She was like, "Wut?"
A lot of this--I mean a lot--is very relative, and also it's very easy to make incorrect assumptions about all kinds of facts and circumstances. As you describe, people do it all the time and thus have all kinds of erroneous ideas.
Like Genghis Khan, classic Asiatic, right? Wrong. Tall white guy, light-colored eyes. Mansa Musa, richest guy that ever lived, from the Mali Empire. Black like DMX, right? Nope, another white guy. Everything is so far off it actually blocks an understanding of history, just sends it off the rails.
As far as the relativism, I came across something from Ben Franklin about immigration to the US. He said something like, "English, you bet. French, I guess so. But Germans? Forget it, we don't need that kind of pollution." Most racist thing I ever read, relatively speaking. The guy probably thought Swedes had too much race-mixing with Laplanders and were practically Finns.
You have to wonder precisely what orders were given to these cops. If anything, I'd guess it was something like, "Make sure no bad guys step out of line."
What I really suspect is that nothing of the sort had to be written down or even said out loud. What I fear--what we should all fear--is that exactly this phenomenon underlies all historical outrages and atrocities..