I feel we are subject to the influence of different factions of the ruling oligarchy,.with different agendas, rather than one over-ruling monolithic entity.i.e the ruling class is divided by different agendas but united in maintaining their position over the masses.
I think this is a very good point often overlooked. Especially your last bit about united in the perpetual need to be in control.
This can be misinterpreted as 'fake binary' and 'they're all in it together'. The main consideration, though, is psychological, I would say. Put simply, they have different personalities and predilections. Such as they're not all monstrous child abusers. Some of them would see that kind of thing as 'crude and beneath them'.
Similarly, some of them would be very happy with the boot-in-the-face 1984 system, because it satisfies their lust for sadism. Others just want control and like to think of themselves as ever so clever and 'look at those stupid masses tolerating us - it justifies our belief that they need to be governed'. So this type would prefer the Brave New World version (perhaps also known as the great reset).
Perhaps this might explain why some terrorist attacks are real, and some are faked. By studying each one, we can find out which group is responsible.
I think they have agreed on the same agenda judging by the united approach to Agenda 21.
Just look at the 10 goals listed in the Moonshot Program. These are global issues backed by the current power structure. Politicians are puppets and that applies to UK, US, China and Russia.
I'm somewhat dubious about the idea the SA can be 'disproven' by clinical/lab psychology experiments. In my opinion clinical psychology experiments can't prove or disprove anything, simply because they are unnatural circumstances by definition. If the subjects know they are taking part in an experiment (even if you trick them somehow) then this fundamentally invalidates the entire experiment (e.g. Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram's electric shocks - although both of them had an element of fakery to them).
In order to study genuine human nature you need to study humans in their natural environment - indeed, this pretty much invalidates every psychological experiment or theory based on observing human beings in the modern world, because the human brain did not evolve in the modern world, it evolved in small social groups of around 150 people in a completely natural environment. So to find out what human nature is, you'd be best studying some anarcho-socialist commune.
Studying human beings in the modern world is like studying what happens if you put a human being in a cage. It's not 'mental illness' as such, it's a natural reaction to being in a cage. Or having to put up with the epistemic authorities lying to you all the time.
Having said all that, I think it's probably quite true that one can't use SA on its own to say anything - you'd need to incorporate all the context. Likewise, I think I misunderstood what was meant by SA before - I didn't realise it was just studying transcripts. You can look at transcripts for continuity errors, but not really language errors, because in conversation humans don't speak proper grammar.
I'm going to throw this one out there again - what if all the 'primary' evidence was fabricated, including the parts that contradict other parts? Like the Parker, Barr and Bickerstaff evidence. How does it change our analysis if we remove those three things from the corpus delicti (body of evidence).
It is, after all, a valid question to ask how, or why, were these three pieces of 'evidence' allowed to be disseminated into the public domain? Given we must be talking here about a very tightly controlled operation.
Likewise, could we apply that insight to every piece of 'evidence'? If so, then what we may end up with is not one, but two deliberately fabricated stories (the official narrative, and the fake event narrative). And if that is the case, then we should be addressing that 'why' question most of all, rather than get caught up in 'debunking' one or other of those two stories. Because if all the evidence was fabricated, there is no point analysing it to discover what did actually happen.
Only those with access to the file would be able to answer that question.
Having said that, I'm still totally fascinated by all this!
Why would the authorities stage this terrorist event? Was it to promote fear and division? (Just a wild guess).
I offer some suggestions in the final Part 9.
I feel we are subject to the influence of different factions of the ruling oligarchy,.with different agendas, rather than one over-ruling monolithic entity.i.e the ruling class is divided by different agendas but united in maintaining their position over the masses.
I think this is a very good point often overlooked. Especially your last bit about united in the perpetual need to be in control.
This can be misinterpreted as 'fake binary' and 'they're all in it together'. The main consideration, though, is psychological, I would say. Put simply, they have different personalities and predilections. Such as they're not all monstrous child abusers. Some of them would see that kind of thing as 'crude and beneath them'.
Similarly, some of them would be very happy with the boot-in-the-face 1984 system, because it satisfies their lust for sadism. Others just want control and like to think of themselves as ever so clever and 'look at those stupid masses tolerating us - it justifies our belief that they need to be governed'. So this type would prefer the Brave New World version (perhaps also known as the great reset).
Perhaps this might explain why some terrorist attacks are real, and some are faked. By studying each one, we can find out which group is responsible.
I think they have agreed on the same agenda judging by the united approach to Agenda 21.
Just look at the 10 goals listed in the Moonshot Program. These are global issues backed by the current power structure. Politicians are puppets and that applies to UK, US, China and Russia.
https://www.jst.go.jp/moonshot/en/index.html#program-list
I don't know. I am just grateful if a train turns up!
I'm somewhat dubious about the idea the SA can be 'disproven' by clinical/lab psychology experiments. In my opinion clinical psychology experiments can't prove or disprove anything, simply because they are unnatural circumstances by definition. If the subjects know they are taking part in an experiment (even if you trick them somehow) then this fundamentally invalidates the entire experiment (e.g. Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram's electric shocks - although both of them had an element of fakery to them).
In order to study genuine human nature you need to study humans in their natural environment - indeed, this pretty much invalidates every psychological experiment or theory based on observing human beings in the modern world, because the human brain did not evolve in the modern world, it evolved in small social groups of around 150 people in a completely natural environment. So to find out what human nature is, you'd be best studying some anarcho-socialist commune.
Studying human beings in the modern world is like studying what happens if you put a human being in a cage. It's not 'mental illness' as such, it's a natural reaction to being in a cage. Or having to put up with the epistemic authorities lying to you all the time.
Having said all that, I think it's probably quite true that one can't use SA on its own to say anything - you'd need to incorporate all the context. Likewise, I think I misunderstood what was meant by SA before - I didn't realise it was just studying transcripts. You can look at transcripts for continuity errors, but not really language errors, because in conversation humans don't speak proper grammar.
Especially northerners.
I'm going to throw this one out there again - what if all the 'primary' evidence was fabricated, including the parts that contradict other parts? Like the Parker, Barr and Bickerstaff evidence. How does it change our analysis if we remove those three things from the corpus delicti (body of evidence).
It is, after all, a valid question to ask how, or why, were these three pieces of 'evidence' allowed to be disseminated into the public domain? Given we must be talking here about a very tightly controlled operation.
Likewise, could we apply that insight to every piece of 'evidence'? If so, then what we may end up with is not one, but two deliberately fabricated stories (the official narrative, and the fake event narrative). And if that is the case, then we should be addressing that 'why' question most of all, rather than get caught up in 'debunking' one or other of those two stories. Because if all the evidence was fabricated, there is no point analysing it to discover what did actually happen.
Only those with access to the file would be able to answer that question.
Having said that, I'm still totally fascinated by all this!