I would not be surprised if MSNBC replayed this clip and said, "See? How could he have possibly known this 7 years ago? The only way is that he's behind what's happening now. C'est un autre 6 Janvier!"
(Supposed to be a witticism, but I hope I didn't just give someone an idea.)
If you're interested in trying to get some insight into the "Wagner Incident", this article has the deepest insight I've come across:
A Matryoshka of Psyops – Pepe Escobar (The Intel Drop 6/30/2023)
I thought of it because it includes the "purge" element you mentioned:
Independent Russian media was already expecting some – treasonous – players, including state functionaries, to buy their one-way ticket when the going got tough (or to say they were “ill”, or refuse to answer important calls). The Duma – fed by Bortnikov’s FSB – is already working on a hefty list.
"Complex" doesn't even begin to describe the issue, and the author starts off by acknowledging that we'll only know with time what the hell it was really about in all aspects.
I would totally concur. If there are three things I've learned from the start of the SMO: Russians formulate plans and make preparations well in advance, they are very deliberate in all things, and they play their cards extremely close to the vest. Well, more like stuffed down into their underpants.
And if you compare any of this analysis to what gets flogged by the mainstream media, it's like a Venn diagram just showing two circles on a page.
Even the article gets it wrong, or perhaps we should say doesn't get it quite right. The problem has to do with mixing, not compression.
Theatrical presentations typically have a wide dynamic range, which is to say both very loud and very soft sounds. Theaters also have elaborate multichannel sound systems. The audio tracks are mixed to sound best in this setup.
TV shows typically have a low dynamic range: just some dialogue, a theme song, and some background music. Most TV shows are played through sets with two $0.50 speakers. Engineers for TV shows mix the audio to optimize for this setup.
The big problem comes when multichannel content is not properly downmixed for low end setups. The same problem has existed since multichannel content was first available for the home two decades ago. It takes time and costs money to downmix for a two-channel setup, so they usually just skip it. No one can tell they skimped and they just blame their own hearing.
The secondary problem is that back in the 90's, when convenient and relatively cheap personal audio devices first started becoming widely available, every idiot was listening to them way, way too loud in their earphones. They all succeeded in wrecking their hearing and this is one of the results. Very few are into hi-fi these days because they literally cannot appreciate hi-fi these days,.
I was just thinking today how obvious it is, yet no one sees it right in front of them. Remember when people caught AI just making facts up out of thin air, and they explained it away as simply a "hallucination"? I mean, would anyone take information and accept advice from someone that had even a single hallucination? You'd be like, "Hey, I think you should consider seeing a professional about this, brah. Good luck to you."
It's shocking to see how readily everyone accepts these things.
I think the "AI" that they're driving towards is where the party secretaries call up the name of anyone who displeases them on an app, which is then transmitted to a commissariat that proceeds to nuke your digital life. With additional features, they can also drone you.
Then all the NPCs that are going along with all this just shrug their shoulders, look at each other and say, "Hey, AI, amirite? What're you gonna do?"
I guess what I'm saying is that, in the final analysis, whatever They choose to call "artificial intelligence" is in principle irrelevant as long as it forwards their agenda.
I'e noticed we've changed to a new phase in the cognitive war on us.
First there was a "classical" phase of carefully crafted coherent narratives. Well, upon study they were full of holes, but at least coherence was what They were aiming at.
Then came the "meta" phase, where the Establishment maintained the official narrative, but other channels added in a raft of "conspiracies" of which you were free to choose, all being false and dead ends. I saw the Las Vegas Massacre as the introduction of this phase.
We are now in the "chaotic" phase. Both official narratives and phony conspiracies are distributed freely through both Establishment and alternative channels. Again, you're free to choose any of them because all are false. Why not choose them all and argue with friends about it?
This new phase has been enabled because everyone, both normies and conspiracy theorists, are completely overwhelmed at this point. The conspiracy theorists have even forgotten that they are seeking the truth, and that a good way to do that is through exchange of ideas with like-minded people. Oh no, they would much prefer to be "right".
It is now advantageous to the Elites to throw every crazy idea out there. So take this current example. If Russia is provoked into direct attacks on NATO outside Ukraine, the Elite say, "Oh, see, member when Vicky told you? Thank goddess for her!" If no such "WW3" comes, what she said slides in a week or two into oblivion, but may always be resurrected.
Another option, of course, is that They can always go off the board and retcon the timeline by saying that Nudelman said something other than what she said and the meeting was about something other than what it was about. The latest implementation of this you can now see used everywhere: "Oh, we secretly knew all about that then, but we couldn't tell you at that time. Secret! Anyway, that's proof that what I'm going to tell you now is true...."
There's a strange disconnect with reality on the part of almost everyone I see commenting on this particular issue, and with Twitter and Elon in general. That is, they've already decided who is "good" and who is "bad" and then just come up with some argumentation that appears to fit it. Done and dusted.
But I mean, if we all back up a step, people seem to be desperately worried about the tyrannical forces of a man running an Internet service. The most pertinent aspects here, though, are that the service can generally be used for free (or at a moderate cost that isn't changing anyone's lifestyle), and you can simply decline to participate or even access it any time.
Many would define freedom most simply as "the right to be left alone". Well, everyone's free to leave Twitter and all of Elon's other doings alone at any time. Nor are any of them going to come knocking at anyone's door. But somehow all these doings are--in some Escher-esque way--perceived as clear and present dangers to freedom.
It's all bizarre, is it not? Everyone seems to have a dog in the fight, but no one seems to have bothered keeping track of what the fight is about.
The one big problem with Twitter previously was that it was used as a tool of cognitive warfare to shape public perception. Bans, shadowbans, "algos" of various types, bots and shills, etc., were all used to make "public opinion" appear other than it was, and thus to shape it in reality.
That's mostly gone away. No one bothers talking about it any more. That's a sure sign the Elites just took a big "L". Whenever that happens, They never talk about the subject again and it slides by itself down the memory hole.
See how that in itself has an impact on the public perception? Are we all starting to see how this works? I know I'm trying, but I always wonder to what extent other people are doing the same.
Bizarrely, there is actually evidence of 3D scanning, or at least evidence very suggestive of such a thing. I found the original video and Sylvie talks about the statue starting at 8:55:
"Impossible" statues, "Impossible" ancient jewellery, Moscow nuked, (old version)
I highly recommend watching the entire video, and also any other of her work you can get your hands on. One of the very best researchers out there. You'll be left shaking your head at what has been lost (that is to say, stolen from us).
The ;picture was originally meant to be one of those "revelation of the method" taunts from the Elites. You know, one of those ones they put out to prove that the masses are dumb and ignorant and deserve to be ruled.
The key piece of evidence is that the first (overly elaborate) explanation of "how it was done" came out long after the photo itself. That is to say, after a few people started noticing the error. So why do it at all, and if you're going to go to all that trouble, why not promote this "cool thing" you were going to do? It was just the cover story.
You can witness the shills backpedaling hard right in this thread. Of course, some of them are simply ignorant dupes. And you can learn from that, too: When you see people that turn on their own kind and the pathetically low reasoning abilities of some, well, that's what the Elites believe gives them justification, isn't it?
There seems to have been some technology available until pretty recently at whose nature I could not even guess. Further, it seems to be beyond even the two most commonly advanced "fringe" proposals: advanced cutting tools and the liquefaction of stone.
18th-Century Sculpture Has a Delicate Net Carved Out of a Single Block of Marble
With those examples, suppose we gave a sculptor a scalpel like a light saber. Could such sculptures be created without a flaw showing a slip of the light scalpel? Hard to believe they could.
Even stranger is a marble sculpture of a little girl wearing a linen shift. (I don't have a link but it was shown in one of Sylvie Ivanowa's videos.) When you look very closely, the weave of the linen has been replicated. There's also a small flaw on her arm, and close inspection reveals it's not a defect in the marble, but replicates a tiny scar in her skin. Why would any sculptor do such a thing?
And I mean, fucking-A, it's not just that no one can create sculptures like these any more, and it's not just that no one tries, but no one even wants to fucking talk about it.
I would suggest that the Establishment is beyond the concept of "setting precedence" as we understand it. They're well into the territory of "what can we convince and coerce people to go along with", no matter how it aligns with facts or law or precedence or anything else.
If the existence or appearance of a "precedence" aids in "getting people to go along", then it's useful. Otherwise, it is entirely irrelevant. In the case where such precedent would in any way argue against their desired outcome, well, anyone who would make such argument is clearly a delusional puppet and a radicalized terrorist trying to destroy democracy itself.
Couldn't possibly tell ya. I'd never even try to become a Freemason even just to gather intel. The whole thing creeps me out, and the Masons themselves generally seem like the kind of people that are looking to get an edge because they're at least smart enough to know they can't get it on their own. Who wants to be around that crowd for any reason?
I remember hearing they ran very simple experiments that clearly showed human consciousness could affect the quantum mechanical process of nuclear decay. IIRC, it was even retrocausal, working backwards in time.
I'm a little fuzzy on the details, because in the meantime I found out we live in a world where the vast majority of people could not give a fuck about the nature of reality, being only concerned with whether Netflix, their phones and EBT cards work. It seemed like that state of affairs was more immediately pertinent to understanding the reality we live in.
I too noticed how excited Morris was about the Grush "revelations", which was a screamingly obvious load of disinfo BS.
I took it as a lesson for all of us to be on our highest alert when examining anything we really want to be true.
Here's what I think is funny about our inverted Clown World:
Suppose you walked up to a hardcore fundamentalist Christian and asked, "Is it really true that Jesus suffered for our sins, died on the cross, and rose again on the third day?" There's a zero percent chance he would say, "It's not up for debate."
He would say, "Thank the Lord you've found your way to me. How long do you have, brother?"
I guess I never realized that RFK Jr's sister was married to Andrew Cuomo. I suppose those Cuomos seem like a pretty reputable bunch, right?
Who Is Kerry Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo's Ex-Wife and a Prominent Activist? (Marie Claire 4/1/2020)
(Not an April Fool's article, as far as I can tell.)
You know, the metric that really sticks out to me as measure of how far and how fast the waking has come is Justin Trudeau as Fidel Castro's son.
When i first saw it, maybe only 5 years ago, I was like, "Holy sheep dip! It's obviously true but no one's ever even heard of this. What a bizarre world we live in! Oh, and what a cool conspiracy theorist I am to be in the know about this kinda info."
Now, in certain circles (like Canadian truckers) it's common knowledge. You're behind the curve if you don't know it. It's pretty much at the point you can even bring it up to normies and say, "Well, if you don't believe me, just google both their names together and look at side-by-side the pictures."
Of course, being normies they'll never do such a thing. But one of these days!
I first came across this article many years ago and thought, "I mean, it's physically possible but it's all pretty far-fetched, way out on the edge of 'conspiracy theory'."
Fast-forward to the present and when I read it I think, "Well of course the pedo-Satanists had to set up their kiddie porn stash somewhere and JSTOR would be an ideal place. Then of course they'd suicide Swartz if he stumbled on it. Can I even come up with a reason why it didn't happen just like this?"
It's been a long, strange trip.
For those new to the idea that there's a problem with viruses (as distinct from bacteria) when it comes to germ theory, I suggest you take a look at Koch's postulates. First, just read the postulates themselves and see if they make sense.
If it seems correct that satisfying these four postulates would be the necessary baseline demonstration of existence for "an infectious virus that causes a disease", then understand that no virus has ever, in 140 years, been shown to satisfy these simple requirements.
Then you can skim the rest of the Wiki page to see how they wave their hands around to distract you and give you every lame excuse in the book.
To hammer this point home, if no one felt it necessary that Koch's postulates be satisfied, then things like cooties and stab wounds could properly be classified as infectious diseases which could be diagnosed using a coin flip for testing. This is hidden from you in all the hand waving.