I'm going to republish a piece from 12-30-22 titled Normalizing the New Normal. The point of the original essay was my theory on how whistleblowers are used to introduce governmental overreaches so as to normalize whatever it is that they want us to accept. Case in point: Where we are with regards to government censorship and the Twitter revelations from a few years ago.

My point about Snowden wasn't meant that he was in on the revelations, but his disclosures were used to normalize governmental spying.

When a new whistleblower comes on the scene it raises my eyebrows, what are they trying to normalize now. Whistleblowers are not what they used to be, in my humble opinion anyway.

This is an opinion piece. I have no proof other than my lying eyes. And my intuitive gut. I'll throw this out there as speculative fodder for the un-indoctrinated and open mind.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

I've been thinking for a while now that both sides of any given narrative are controlled.

Full Spectrum Dominance - Are we there yet?

Sure does seem like it to me. Please consider this:

Suppose you are a propagandist. Would it not be optimum to control both sides of a narrative? Both sides of an issue, pro and con. That would be total control, full spectrum dominance if you will. Could it be possible that our realities are so controlled that the idea of oppositional perception is but a facade? In today's world who knows what is real, right? With all the gaslighting and lying is it any wonder that folks are confused? Is that not the tenet of Full Spectrum Dominance?

I think that if you look you can see it in many issues nowadays, it may be subtle as is all good propaganda. The yin and yang may be manipulated into a soup of disinformation and obfuscation. Think about how you form your opinions, what you read, what you see, what you think about. If one could control that input then one could formulate your reality.

Source

Examples:

Elon Musk: Something just hasn't sit well with me about this Elon Musk and Twitter deal. It all seems contrived. I certainly don't consider him a hero as some have made him out to be. Could there be more to his Twitter acquisition than just his self proclaimed altruistic motivation. I'll put a theory out there and let you be the judge.

Bringing Mulligan Home:

I gotta admit, I haven't had it in me to watch the recent debate and all the other crude, although, as always, I am enjoying reading Caucus99% blogs. So, here's a bit about a good book...

A few weeks ago I read a book that really hit me. It's called Bringing Mulligan Home: The Other Side of the Good War> by Dale Maharidge. It's about a man, a marine, who served in the Pacific during WWII. Like many who served, he spoke little at all about the war, and like many who served he was messed up by his experiences in the war. After his death (his name was Steve Maharidge) his son, Dale, decided to try to find out what his father's experiences had been, and why his father was like he was (angry, loving, mean, quiet, screaming, soft...) and who was in the picture his father had hung on the wall in his basement work area. Mulligan, it turns out, was in that picture.

Herman Mulligan and Dale Maharidge. Mulligan is a bit taller than Maharidge, with his hand on Maharidge's shoulder. From these two articles (and audio interviews) on www.wbur.org 'A Son Faces his Father's WWII Ghosts' and 'A Son Uncovers his Father's WWII History'.

It is 10:15am on the west coast and NBC and ABC are covering the escalation of violence between Israel and its enemies. In a titanic wave of irony, both networks are referring to Iran's "retaliatory" missile attack, even as they cheerlead for Israel and the Pentagon's defense against it.

If Iran is "retaliating," that means that Israel started the ruckus. That blows up the propaganda about Israel just defending itself from "terrorists."