Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out the Home Site. Send thoughts and comments to bernard atradiofarside.com, and tell all your friends. Note comments on this site are moderated to remove spam. Sampai jumpa, y'all.

22.8.20

Selling Fear

One of our highly intelligent readers asked me to address the COVID operation from a marketing standpoint, which was an intriguing and irresistible topic.  Marketing, and its slightly more respectable older sibling Public Relations, are essentially psychological tools (weapons) that control mass desires and perceptions.

There are three primary forms of mass media: textual, visual, and audio.  Each is capable of telling a complete story by itself, but more interestingly, they can be combined to tell three different but related stories at the same time.  As a fun experiment, the reader should try watching a newscast, first with just the video, then just the audio, and note any differences in your perception of stories when you separate the two.

That said, let's take a look at how COVID is sold and programmed to manipulate a mass audience.  We will look at the tricks used to sell COVID, how it is packaged, and the motives of those selling it.

Let's ask ourselves what we really know about COVID.  We are told it is a virus, that it originated in Wuhan, China, and that it is deadly.  When we seek proof of these three propositions, most of us have no means to prove the existence of a virus, so we depend on "experts" to tell us that the cause of some set of symtoms is a virus.  We depend on the "experts" to tell us that the first known cases were in Wuhan.  We depend on "experts" to explain the connection between certain events (infection, progression, mortality) and the virus we cannot see.

The entire COVID narrative depends entirely on a small group of individuals with credentials we are told make them "experts" telling us how to connect certain dots to form the picture they want to paint in our minds.

You and I have been trained since birth to accept the authority of certain individuals and organizations on certain topics.  We rarely, if ever, question our underlying assumptions, which make us vulnerable to all kinds of marketing and PR.

If I take a middle-aged male with a soothing voice, put him in a lab coat and stick a stethoscope in his pocket, and place him in a vaguely clinical setting, then add a voice-over saying, "Nine out of ten doctors believe/recommend/choose...," most people would not only assume the man is a doctor, but that what he is saying is authoritative and true.

This effect depends heavily on the human propensity to delegate authority to someone else so we don't have to do all the work involved for ourselves.  This effect is commonly called "suspension of disbelief," and mass media is built on it.

If we take a performer with a certain (scientifically determined) look and vocal range, dress them up and place them on a vaguely "newsy"' looking set, we tend to delegate authority to them as "employees" assigned to find, digest and deliver information to us in a compact and packaged format.

Because we have delegated certain authority to these performers, we accept uncritically any random person they trot out as an authority on some topic.  We assume the performer has done the work necessary to vet the "expert" credentials.  We never see the expert's diploma or transcript, nor do we ever personally interview those who conferred "expert" status on them.  We base our assumptions about the expert on assumptions about the performer on assumptions about institutions.  We are at the mercy of multiple layers of assumptions that few of us examine on a regular basis.

When the performer trots out an expert who says a deadly virus is sweeping the planet, most of us have no way to verify the patient from whom samples were taken and scanned under an electron microscope and compared to the list of known viruses and determine whether the virus is indeed the cause of the sumptoms in the patient.  We assume that all the experts being presented to us have done all the work to verify the information they are telling us, and that their motives are pure and benign.

When I search for images of the SARS-COVID-2 virus, what I get looks very much like images of the seven other corona viruses that afflict humans, and since the images are generated by a computer counting the electrons bouncing off the surface of the virus, the images are in fact generated by an algorithm.  I have no means at my disposal to analyze those images, nor the computer and algorithms that produced them, so I am dependent on "experts" to interpret that data for me.

This doesn't begin to address all the tricks used - color, composition, lighting, music, etc. - but being aware of the use of "experts" is important to understanding how COVID is packaged.

COVID is packaged as an imminent and existential threat to every human being on the planet.  It is packaged as a virus, which none of us can see, and we are told that someone is infected by use of a test that none of us can verify (theory, design, processing).  A certain set of symptoms (matching several influenza and corona viruses) is a sign of infection by this virus.  And finally, it is all "wrapped" in a package labelled "SCIENCE".

Please forget that SCIENCE is a methodology for testing facts and assumptions, and NOT a belief system designed to stamp "authority" all over information, based entirely on a nested set of assumptions.

The packaging of COVID is designed to increase our credulity.  If "authorities" and "experts" and SCIENCE are all over the packaging, it must be true.  On a simple level, if you put French's common yellow mustard in a jar with French words all over it, you can double the price.  If you put a skull and cross-bones on the label, most people will not taste it to verify whether the contents are poisonous.  Thus, if we take an invisible threat, wrap it in "authority" and "expert," and stamp SCIENCE all over the label, not many people will question the information's veracity.

Let's take hydroxichloroquine, or HCQ, as an example.  Here is a drug that has been used by millions of people across the planet for decades, and is listed by the US government as being safer than aspirin (widely sold on the shelf of any convenience store).  It is frequently used to treat dengue fever, which is caused by one of four different viruses, so we know for a fact that it is effective against at least some viruses.

So, we have a cheap, common and safe drug with a long history of effectively treating some viruses.  Those are facts.  Now ask yourself, what is your perception of HCQ.  If terms like "side effects," "heart problems" and "poison" come to mind, then you have been watching mass media.  Whether you believe that information or not is irrelevant.  If your doctor wants to prescribe it for you, you will immediately react with fear.  Giving in to that fear or suppressing it depends entirely on your cognitive capacity and access to alternative information.

Ultimately, we are being manipulated by and with FEAR.  Fear is a very powerful emotion that is rooted deep in our minds.  It shuts down our reasoning capacity and causes us to react on instinct.  No one can stop fear, but we can suppress it, but it takes a significant conscious effort.

When we strip away all the unknown or unverified (unverifiable) information available on COVID, what we are left with is FEAR, wrapped in AUTHORITY and stamped with SCIENCE.  Quite simply, these three concepts are at the root of the entire global phenomenon we generally call COVID.

The FEAR is generated by the unknown and the uncertain.  We are unwilling or unable to verify the threat, so like the skull and cross-bones on the label, we won't question the contents out of FEAR we may be wrong.

We may be wrong because AUTHORITY has certified that our FEAR is warranted.  We read the label and saw the warning, and now some guy in a lab coat with a stethoscope in his pocket is verifying our FEAR.  He has lots of letters after his name, and other AUTHORITY figures confirm his AUTHORITY.  Thus, we give in to the FEAR.

This brings us to SCIENCE, a term which should never be confused with science, which is a set of rational rules for testing and verifying facts.  Rather, SCIENCE is itself a set of assumptions and beliefs that act as a modern theology.  It generates myths and deities that we are taught to hold sacrosanct.

SCIENCE has a high priesthood called AUTHORITY, which is telling us to FEAR.  If we cannot question SCIENCE, then none of the propositions built on it can be questioned, either.

If we want to unravel the marketing effort known as COVID, we must first examine our FEAR.  Where is it coming from?  What is generating it?  Who is selling it?  What is their motivation?  Once the FEAR is addressed, the rest of the illusion will crumble, in the same way that being on the set of a commercial and meeting the actor in the lab coat destroys the illusion that he is a medical professional.

We now turn to the last question - What is their motive?

The answer to this is a bit more difficult, because we must discern what is in the heads of a complex set of characters - individuals and institutions - and why.

The first thing we ask ourselves when unravelling a marketing campaign is, "What are they selling?"  The answer is either an action or a belief.  They want us to buy a product, or believe something about it.  This is not always easy, and involves another set of nested assuptions.

In order to get us to buy Air Jordans, we must first be convinced that Michael Jordan is an honorable and believable person worthy of trust and emulation, that he has intimate knowledge of shoe technology, that he genuinely believes in the product he hawks, and that some part of his skills in basketball are due to his shoes and that we can purchase those skills with no more effort than a visit to Foot Locker.

In the same way, to believe the COVID narrative, we must first believe there is a virus, that the AUTHORITY has perfect knowledge of this virus, that they know how to mitigate the virus, and that if we buy what they are selling we can escape harm and reduce FEAR.

What has the AUTHORITY sold us to mitigate FEAR?  Do not trust our friends and neighbors.  Wear a face covering.  Do not attempt to treat yourself.  Only a new (as yet uninvented) medication can stop the FEAR.  Only listen to AUTHORITY, no one else can possibly understand what is happening.

If we sum up the messages, it would seem that we are being channeled toward global AUTHORITY and that daily contact with the people around us will somehow weaken or undermine this transition (personal experience).  SCIENCE is the only way to understand the nature of the threat.  Only AUTHORITY can interpret SCIENCE.

Taken together, it seems that we are being sold a command and control system that the average human cannot and should not question.  The punishment for not following orders is death from an invisible bogeyman called COVID.

The result is billions of humans acting entirely on instinct and FEAR.  When humans do this, they tend to rally to leaders, or AUTHORITY.  This is the "circle the wagons" effect, and it is so effective that it is ubiquitous.  Humans herd when threatened, and herds conform to whatever the leaders tell them.  It is built into our psyches and it at the heart of almost all marketing.  People buy products to conform to social norms so they can be accepted into the group to receive the protection from the unknown (FEAR) that they crave.

We are being herded.  FEAR is the sheepdog.  AUTHORITY is the shepherd.  SCIENCE is the slaughterhouse.  Our individual identity, will and independence are the targets.  The marketing team wants full control over what goes into and onto, and how we use our most primordial possession - our Selves.

In other words, the marketers want Perfect Consumers.

20.8.20

The Grand Enygma

READER NOTE: I do not censor comments - positive, negative or neutral.  I DO moderate them, because I am under constant attack by those who want to cash in on my readership, or bots posting pornographic links.  Your sincere comment will be posted as fast as I am notified by Google.

In the 1790s, two of the legendary Founders of the united States of America, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, formed one of the fledgling country's first political parties - the Democratic Republicans.

This party was dedicated to protecting individual rights, States' Rights and seeing to it that no one formed a central bank.

Almost immediately, problems appeared, but it was a deep ideological split over abolition of slavery that ultimately caused the party to break in two by the 1820s.  The resulting Democrat Party supported slavery and wanted a central bank, while the Republican Party was dead-set on abolition of slavery and no central bank.

When people grouse that the Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, they are, to a great degree, correct.

The Democrat Party is the oldest voter-based party on the planet, and one of the oldest continually operating parties ever.  The number of individuals in the US who identify as Democrat significantly outnumber the Republicans.  The wealth and power represented by the Democrat Party is enormous.

So why is a 230-year-old organization with that kind of pedigree literally doing everything possible to commit political suicide?

An organization with that kind of power and track record doesn't suddenly implode in the space of four years.  It has survived and been reasonably successful precisely because it made smart choices at key junctures and was able to recruit millions of intelligent and pragmatic people over the centuries.  This is not to say their choices were agreeable to everyone, but they were certainly enough to amass wealth and power and take over various aspects of the federal government in a generational flip-flop with its once-conjoined sibling.  It was even clever and powerful enough to get the first black president to office, and nearly enough to get the first woman.

It seems that the Democrat Party's dramatic fall from grace began with the nomination of Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.  From that point on, the Democrats have literally and figuratively been crumbling before our eyes, in a series of choices that defy reason or self-protection.

Hillary Clinton, by any objective standard, was a terrible choice.  This has nothing to do with gender or race or any other shallow metric.  She is a disagreeable human being - mean, calculating, duplicitous.  She did not want the presidency for any ideological purpose - she believes in nothing but herself.  She only wanted to enrich herself from the position, and ensure grade schools across the land would rename themselves in her honor.

It has been part of popular culture since the 1990s, that she and her husband lie, cheat and possibly even murder to get what they want.  Even on TeeVee, her haughty insincerity ooze through the electrons.  Any level-headed analysis would conclude that she stole her way to the nomination, and for that reason, voters rejected her, especially in the "fly-over country" that is American's conscience.

From the moment the Democrats nominated her, the foundation cracked and the pillars crumbled and the curtain in the sanctuary was rent in twain.

Following Clinton's loss, the Democrats took a series of decisions that, to an impartial observer, seem to belie suicidal tendencies.  The years of harping on Russiagate in the face of contrary facts, with party leaders blatantly lying while hanging their reputations on those lies.  The selection of Nancy Pelosi (again) as Speaker of the House, and her subsequent antics.  The ill-advised impeachment of Donald Trump.  The mind-numbing tap dances to distract from brewing scandals.  The painful shilling of the mass media.  The overt race baiting with Jussie Smollett, Bubba Wallce and many others.  The astounding support for rioters and looters, and the destruction of major US cities and law enforcement agencies.

And for their latest performance, the nomination of a 5th-place candidate who is clearly suffering from mental incapacitation, and a running mate who withdrew from the primaries before a single vote was cast, and who is equally clearly disliked by key constituencies.  To top off the circus, the Democrats mounted what is likely the most mind-bendingly amateur virtual convention imaginable.  A high school media class could literally run circles around this embarrassing dog-and-pony show.

Rational people are left asking, with mouths agape, what in the hell happened to the Democrats?!  If they were intentionally destroying themselves, they couldn't do a better job.

And there is the conundrum.  One assumes that a party with a very long and storied past, with considerable assets and significant wealth and power could never make this many blunders for this many years and not know that they are destroying themselves.

In 1972, Richard Nixon trounced McGovern, taking 520 of 537 Electors., but four years later the Democrats won the presidency with Jimmy Carter, though that president would keep them out of office for the following three terms.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan nearly swept the Electoral College, with all but 13 of the 538 Electors.  Many commentators asked if the Democrats were finished, and in fact they only held the presidency for four years from 1968, until 1992.

The Democrats fought back to relevancy every time, with Bill Clinton for two terms in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in the 2010s.  This time, however, it seems that all hope may be abandoned.

There are three conceivable reasons that might explain this strange situation:

  1. The Democrat Party has been overrun by complete morons (possible, but let's discount this one for now);
  2. The Democrats believe they cannot win against Donald Trump and are saving their A-Team for 2024 (possible, but threatens control of the House and surrenders the Senate);
  3. Someone has given orders for the Democrats to immolate themselves (my choice).
The first option is possible, but highly unlikely.  The party has the history, money and power to attract top political analysts and strategists.  It seems rather implausible that the majority centrists in the party would allow the leadership to deteriorate this much.

The second option is plausible, but equally unlikely.  Even if the leadership has abandoned the idea of beating Trunp, this strategy risks almost everything.  They stand to lose control of the House, deepen their weak position in the Senate, surrender control of the Supreme Court (at least two replacements likely in the next four years), and completely unravels the Globalist agenda that has been built over a century.

The only scenario where this option makes some sense is to lull the Republicans into a feeling of complacency in the hopes they won't turn out to the polls, but a cost-benefit analysis of this strategy makes it an extreme risk, given all that's on the line for the Left.

The final option is the only one that fits all the available evidence.

If one makes the reasonable assumption that both parties are, at some lofty level, controlled by the same entity(ies), then one can also assume that the Democrats have been ordered to fall on their swords for a higher purpose.  The question is, can we hypothesize a reasonable strategy where this would be plausible?

Over the last two decades, there has been a growing unrest and dissatisfaction with globalism and the rapid destruction of ethnic and cultural identity.  In the US, it first appeared in 1996, with the Ross Perot campaign.

Ross Perot was a Texas businessman, who ran as an independent in 1992, and polled 19% of the vote that year.  This was the strongest showing by a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and the third highest in US history.

In 2012, Ron Paul, a Texas physician, announced his third run for the presidency.  He consistently polled in the Top 3 of Republican candidates, but was blatantly snubbed by the media.  Regardless, he had a large and fanatical following that drew thousands to an alternative rally during the RNC that year.

Perot and Paul revealed a large and growing hidden class of disenfranchised voters who were not happy with the globalist direction of the country, and who were now activated by Paul, who showed them just how large their numbers really were.

In the highest echelons of power, one can imagine a note of anxiety seeing these increasingly engaged and enraged voters.  It was obvious that they were right wing, nationalistic and growing restless.  They were obviously attracted to the Republican Party if a suitable candidate was fielded.

Donald Trump had name recognition, wealth, popularity, and ticked off all the talking points of the hidden voters.  

Hillary Clinton preferred Trump as an opponent, thinking he was an easily beatable buffoon, but it's possible she was steered into that belief by her handlers.  She was obviously unaware of the numbers of hidden voters, since she casually labelled them a "basket of deplorables."  Again, we ask was she that unaware, or was she steered that direction?  For all her faults, she is a canny political creature.

All of the foregoing is by way of saying that it is plausible that the true elite chose Donald Trump in order to defuse and channel the growing nationalistic fervor.  Sacrificing a decade to preserve more than a century of work building the global systems is hardly out of the question.  

After all, nationalist has surged in my locations across the globe and it is easier to mold and direct energy, than to stop it cold.  With an extensive digital surveillance network, it would be easy to gather and use blackmail material, allowing them to regain control over a significant number of politicians, regardless of their bespoke positions.  These elites could even surrender operatives like Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, since their type of honey traps were now obsolete.  The Anthony Weiners of the political world were sexting all the data the elites could possibly use.

In the final analysis, it seems that the lofty Olympians have decided on a course of action that incorporates the current wave of nationalism into their long-term goals.  They have issued marching orders to party leaders to throw the election, and even if the politicians are ignorant or unhappy with the arrangement, they have no choice, as all their secrets have been carefully cataloged in vast databases.  The voters, of course, are inconsequential in any case.

If anyone has a better explanation for the abject insanity we see in the daily news feeds, there is a comment section below.  I'd sure love to hear it.

11.8.20

The Q Scenario

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

9.8.20

Pre-Qognizant

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.