General McChrystal’s Group are Likely Behind the John Kelly Psy-op Hitler Narrative


Posted originally on the CTH on October 24, 2024 | Sundance 

CONTEXT via the previous open admission: DHS and the DC Intelligence Community established an information control operation, set up by General Stanley McChrystal.

Under the auspices of controlling COVID-19 disinformation, the IC construct was to control public information that outlined govt fraud and larger issues against the interests of the DC silo system.  However, as you can tell from their self-identifying Twitter handle, the real problem they saw was Donald Trump.

MAY 2020 – […] “The group, Defeat Disinfo, will use artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of [opposition] claims on social media. It will seek to intervene by identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country — in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against [their opposition].” (SOURCE)

Just as the FBI was modified to be the DC equivalent of the Russian FSB, so too have all of the DHS elements aligned to combat those who would challenge the USA administrative state.  President Trump is the threat, and all facets of the highest-level intelligence operations have been assigned to support his removal.

The way a story is constructed and delivered is the way you identify their psy-op operation; not necessarily the facts of the event itself. A key distinction missed by most.

The intent of psy-ops is to influence opinion, subsequently influencing behavior, with a concerted effort of lies or fact twisting to frame a specific version of events.

Conservatives absolutely suck at spotting the use of this tactical messaging method, and consistently fall for it.

It would take a long thesis to explain why conservatively minded people fall for the manipulative use of psychological operations, and modern leftists do not.

In summary it would come down to conservatives, holding an ideology based on truthful principles, subsequently take things at face value and think for themselves.  Whereas leftist Marxists are comfortable inside a tribal messaging system structurally based on falsehoods and lies.

Leftist “trust” is based on pretense, they are always pretending not to know things.  However, this is also why leftist ideologies advance, and conservatives stand watching the aftermath with jaw agape.

The Intelligence Community (IC) psy-ops operations are like cognitive land mines and should be treated as such. A soldier has to train him/herself to deal with real landmines; likewise, in this information battlespace, you too need to train yourself to spot them when they appear.

When you see a story framed in such a manner that it appeals directly to your emotion, and not your intellect, STOP, pause and proceed slowly. Ask yourself what are the who’s, what’s, where’s and then, only then, move to the why’s.

In essence, like a soldier, looking at the surrounding landscape and see if you can identify the source issue in front of you.

Often it is only after review of the surrounding landscape can we notice our travel is being manipulated and influenced. We might be walking directly into a trap.

Now, I do not need to tell this audience about the inherent background of false or manipulative information, y’all simply get it.  However, there is value in sharing the examples as they surface.  The John Kelly fabrication about Trump wanting “Hitleresque generals” is a case study.

[Via Robert Sterling] – The Trump-Hitler story is a psyop.

I mean that literally, not figuratively. It’s a military-grade, multi-stage psychological operation, engineered to re-energize demoralized Harris supporters and—through stigmatization—reduce turnout among Trump supporters.

Here’s how it works:

STEP ONE: PAYLOAD

The most important component of any weapons system is the payload—that is, the material that actually detonates and causes explosive damage. In a psyop, the payload is a generally a narrative; in the case of this psyop, the narrative is that Trump is a fascist, a Hitler-sympathizer, and an outright Nazi.

If your initial reaction here is to laugh at how trite and cliched this is, you’re not wrong; you would think, after eight years of trying to will this fake narrative into existence ex nihilo (“don’t you folks get that he’s literally Hitler?!”), the Democrats and their media allies would eventually have moved on. But there are two reasons why they’ve exhumed this beaten and dead horse, and why they’ve done so just 14 days before the election:

Reason 1: They’re desperate. Kamala is behind in nearly every national poll, and, in particular, she has forfeited a meaningful level of support among Latinos, black men, and Arab-Americans. With white Americans breaking for Trump more heavily than ever before, the Harris campaign can’t afford even the slightest of shifts in voting patterns among swing-state minority demographics.

Reason 2: Unfortunately, the fictitious Nazi claim, on the margins, is effective. Most Americans, burned out on nearly a decade of continuous media hoaxes (from “fine people on both sides” to injecting bleach to the origins of Covid to Hunter Biden’s laptop), will see through it and immediately disregard it. Remember, though, that just a handful of swing states will decide this election; even more specifically, members of the aforementioned minority groups will likely be the fulcrum within those states. If, by calling Trump a fascist, the Harris campaign and the media can motivate even a small number of these people to get off the fence and support Harris, and if they can also demoralize a small number of would-be Trump voters in the same states to stay home on Election Day, it could make all the difference.

STEP TWO: THE LAUNCH VEHICLE

A weapon is no good if it can’t be delivered to its intended target. In the case of this operation, the first stage of the launch vehicle was The New York Times and The Atlantic, which published their stories within hours of each other.

Ask yourself, what are the odds that two prominent news outlets, both of which are highly friendly to the Democratic establishment but which are (notionally) independent from one another, would publish two separate articles with the same narrative, within hours of each other on a date exactly two weeks before the election?

Exactly.

STEP THREE: CHAIN REACTION

The New York Times and The Atlantic offer credibility for the narrative’s nucleus, but what they can’t offer is widespread distribution. Americans get their news from a range of sources that is wider than ever, and—as much as it might offend those who took out $200k in student loans to attend Columbia J-school—most of them don’t turn to the so-called paper of record or to a once-great literary magazine intellectually bankrupted by the widow of the guy who invented the iPhone.

Fortunately for the orchestrators of our psyop, though, if there’s one thing the media hates even more than Donald Trump, it’s missing out on all the clicks and impressions from a hot story. Within hours of the two original articles going live (within minutes, in some cases), virtually every other mainstream publication released a derivative article that summarized the salacious claims in the source articles. By the end of the day yesterday, there were hundreds of such releases, from CNN, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, Axial, Business Insider, the Huffington Post, NPR, and just about any other publication one could name.

These derivative articles don’t merely disseminate the narrative’s DNA further; they also serve to reinforce it and provide it (false) legitimacy, creating the unjustified impression that dozens of outlets have looked into this, rather than just two. When Americans open up Facebook and see countless articles from countless different sources all saying the same thing, they become far more susceptible to the narrative, even if they might otherwise be skeptical. The sheer volume of logos and headlines overwhelms the mind’s natural hesitation to question propaganda.

It’s devious, but it works. And the people who engineer missions like this know it.

STEP FOUR: ITERATE AND PERPETUATE

Earlier today, Kamala Harris read a statement decrying Trump’s supposed fascism; as I type these words, she’s regurgitating these claims in her televised townhall. Biden also provided a statement about the articles today. In doing this, they essentially rebooted the news cycle for the narrative, providing it fresh life and keeping it front and center in the media.

If you’re getting a sense that the media focus comes in waves, it’s because it does (and, like everything else here, it’s deliberate and methodical). In the first 24 hours, the focus is on the original claims in the two source articles. In the subsequent 48 hours, once the original story starts to go stale, the media focus pivots to the reaction from prominent opponents of Trump, thereby creating another news cycle to reinforce the narrative. Thereafter, the media will launch yet another wave of news, this one focused on interviewing historians (all of whom will, conveniently, summarize the numerous and convenient parallels between Trump and the fascists of old), swing-state voters (all of whom, conveniently, will claim that Trump’s newly unveiled love of Hitler convinced them to get off the fence and support Kamala), and even so-called Trump supporters that have now decided not to vote for him.

The goal is to keep the narrative in front of the audience for as long as possible, giving it time and space to metastasize further and continue corroding support for Trump.

STEP FIVE: LAUNCH ANOTHER PAYLOAD

We have 13 days until the election. If you think this is the last payload the Harris campaign and the media will launch into the discourse, you have far more faith in their decency than I do.

Expect at least two more of these over the next two weeks, one of which—if I can hazard a guess—will center on fictitious claims of sexual misconduct and the second of which will focus on Trump’s business history.

Just remember: If it looks like a psyop, walks like a psyop, and quacks like a psyop, it’s probably a psyop. Remain vigilant, keep your spirits high, and, most importantly, VOTE. (link)

This is probably the only time I would agree with Pete Buttigieg:

The Purple-Lipped Divider Wonders Why America “Got So Toxic”


Posted originally on the CTH on October 23, 2024 | Sundance 

In one of the most prime examples of professional political gaslighting, the perpetually “divisive” Barack Obama takes to his pontificating high horse to wonder why American politics became so toxic.  WATCH:

When professional Democrats have to take pretending to this level of audacity, you know they are just swinging for the fences. The reality is that Team Obama has lost well over half of the support they previously carried. However, this outcome is customarily what happens when those in abusive relationships finally fracture the grip of the abuser.

Coming directly from the Chicago school of Alinsky politics, President Obama was easily the most divisive leader in the past 50-years. When Teh One goes into his stuttering huckster-jive mode, the few remaining people reached by his voice are the true Marxist believers.

Obama lost his juice, but it is his fear is driving him to try and squeeze the last drop of toxic stew out of his diminished base. After all, Kamala is Obama’s personal empty vessel.

.

CPT Maureen Bannon Discusses How The Bureau Of Prisons Is Illegally Holding Her Father


M

Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 22, 2024 at 6:30 pm EST

Pastor John K. Amanchukwu Sr.: “The Democrat Party Is Evil”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 20, 2024 at 7:30 pm EST

Natalie Winters Reads Prison Statement From Stephen K. Bannon


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 18, 2024 at 700 pm EST

Mark Paoletta Discusses The False Narrative That Crime Isn’t That Bad Under Biden And Harris


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 17, 2024 at 8:00 am EST

Jayne Zirkle Details The ‘Influence America Summit’ Put On By The Heritage Foundation


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 17, 2024 at 7:00 am EST

Return Hubs – Brussels Attempts Damage Control Over Migrant Crisis


Posted originally on Oct 18, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Refugees Just Men

The European Union is beginning to change its stance on its open border policy. Over 1.14 million sought asylum in the EU last year, a completely unsustainable population spike. European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has faced harsh criticism from member states throughout the bloc who are calling upon Brussels to address the situation. Von der Leyen has now expressed interest in creating “return hubs” to house and deport migrants whose applications are denied.

I reported that Italy saw a 64% reduction in illegal migration under President Giorgia Meloni, who promised to curb immigration once elected. Instead of building shelters to house migrants with taxpayer funds, Meloni sought to build detention centers. Centri di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio (CPRs) or Repatriation Centers were extremely controversial but effective. Thousands of migrants were detained and deported if their application for asylum was denied. Word traveled that conditions in these centers were less desirable, making Italy less desirable for would-be intruders.

Leyen Ursula von der

Ursula von der Leyen supported Meloni once she realized migrants were spilling into the rest of the bloc from Italy and has pointed to Meloni’s “out of the box thinking” to stop the inflow of newcomers. Specifically, the European Commission president stated that the Italy-Albania protocol proved effective whereby both nations signed a treaty that permitted Italy to send asylum seekers found in international waters back to Albania where they are then held in detention centers. “We should also continue to explore possible ways forward as regards the idea of developing return hubs outside the EU, especially in view of a new legislative proposal on return,” von der Leyen writes. “With the start of operations of the Italy-Albania protocol, we will also be able to draw lessons from this experience in practice.”

Now, 17 members of the EU sent a document to Brussels earlier in the month demanding border reform. “People without the right to stay must be held accountable. A new legal basis must clearly define their obligations and duties,” the members said. “Non-cooperation must have consequences and be sanctioned.” Suddenly, leaders of European nations realized that they were beneath Brussels in terms of power and had lost the ability to secure their own borders.

The 17 member nations are demanding that Brussels implements rules to detain and deport migrants who could be a threat to national security. Furthermore, they want to non-EU nations to accept their own citizens back once they are deported. As with everything, money rules all and these nations are willing to use trade and monetary gifts or aid as leverage, as Italy did with numerous African nations under the Mattei Plan.

Countless EU nations are attempting to control their borders, and in doing so, Brussels is relinquishing its power. Poland even attempted to announce a temporary suspension of asylum seekers the same week that Ursula voiced concern over the migrant crisis. The forced cohesion of the European Union is coming undone.

Mark Halprin Predicts What Will Happen When Trump Wins – Pretends Not to Remember 2016


Posted originally on the CTH on October 16, 2024 | Sundance

Mark Halprin gives his prediction about what will happen when President Trump wins the election.  Tucker Carlson plays along, with both pretending not to remember what happened in 2016.

What Mark Halprin predicts, is exactly what happened in 2016.  WATCH:

Every single thing in this response is exactly what happened in 2016.  The silly part is both Tucker Carlson and Mark Halprin pretending not to remember what happened.  Some reminder pictures from 2016 below.

In 2016 the Democrats: ~ organized a refusal to certify the election ~ boycotted the inauguration ~ claimed Russia hacked the election ~ broke out in violent protests, including arson, on inauguration day ~ put their genitals on their heads ~ conducted violent protests ~ began the Trump-Russia campaign for the next two years; then tried impeachments.

Tucker Carlson and Mark Halprin Pretend 2024 is really 1998


Posted originally on the CTH on October 16, 2024 | Sundance

In this interview Tucker Carlson talks with Mark Halprin, a well-connected journalist that Tucker Carlson cites as the epicenter of all political power and journalistic knowledge since the mid-1980’s. Accordingly, the magnanimous and enlightened Mark Halprin knows more about the institutions of electoral influence, political power structures, people and organizations of political influence than most journalists, so sayeth Carlson.  And so, their discussion follows along.

If you are nostalgic for the time before you saw the strings on the political marionettes, and/or you like to remind yourself how you viewed politics in the era long before elections were decided by ballots instead of voters, you will enjoy this satiating conversation of how things used to be.

Both Halprin and Carlson pretend things are just like they were, while they apply 1998 political insight to the 2024 election year, and -for some reason- people discuss it.

However, if you have stopped pretending and you understand that modern political outcomes are determined by ballot systems, local ballot printing, fraudulent voter rolls to give the illusion of attribution to the locally printed ballots, and tabulation centers that conduct the necessary scanning of unattributed ballots to a number needed to generate the outcome, then this food-filled discussion about political sides between Halprin and Carlson ends up leaving you somewhat hungry.

Here’s an example.  Within the interview Mark Halprin notes that Kamala Harris campaign has raised over a billion dollars, and that’s just the money from inside the campaign; there’s much more from “outside groups and interests.”  With jaw-agape Carlson curiously asks where that money came from?  Halprin replies, “I have no idea,” and they simply move along.

Yes, the conversation is about various subsets of voters, black men who don’t support Harris as much, and a multitude of other various popular narratives that surround the 2024 election as written in various media.  Let me cut to the proverbial chase, none of that stuff matters.

Yes, along the same approach expressed by the Halprin’s and Carlson’s of the world, Barack Obama might be calling out the “brothers” who do not intend to vote for Kamala Harris.  However, in the real world of 2024 a very non-pretending James Clyburn might just as well say, “yes they are, they just don’t know it.”  Why, because Clyburn controls the ballots of “the brothers”; their voting intent is irrelevant.

Thus, we highlight once again the distinction between voters and ballots that seems intentionally lost amid a constructed interview between the very enlightened Halprin and the curiously incurious Carlson.

What exactly is the value of the conversation when the subject matter surrounding it is as useful to the 2024 election as vinyl records to modern rap music.  You decide.

To answer the question about Kamala Harris’ extraordinary fundraising, let’s just revisit demonstrable history.

First, James Clyburn’s operation was constructed during the Obama era through the financing of something called the Pigford Settlement.  Yes, Pigford-I was the payment mechanism behind taxpayer funds being shifted from govt to the very specifically black community.  The Clyburn team, along with legal powerhouses like Morgan & Morgan, were part of the payment distribution architecture.

With the capital to start the mechanics of the AME ballot scanning operation now financed, along comes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, set up by Elizabeth Warren, to funnel fines and pressure payments from the USA banking and finance sector to a host of progressive networks, ie community organizing groups.

There you go.  That’s the ‘elevator speech’ answer behind the odd “I don’t know” retort of Mark Halprin.

What was the intent of this interview?  I have no idea.  However, what they discuss seems like a conversation that might have been pertinent to elections many cycles ago, but not now.

In the modern era facilitated by the rise of Teh One Lightbringer of all political truth, what many might remember as our promised “fundamental change,” voters are irrelevant to the outcome.

That said, there are very serious efforts underway to apply tactical civics in this new battleground.  In that contest based on reality we destroy local ballot printing operations, block the use of fraudulent voter rolls and find industrious ways to stop the secret scanning operations within the AME network of 17 county tabulation centers.

If tactical civics are successful, and we are about to discover that “if” answer, then the conversation that Halprin and Carlson are currently having might reapply in the next election.  However, until then, talking about what voters intend to happen while ignoring the irrelevance therein, seems to miss the proverbial point of where we are in the modern era of ‘ballot collection’ elections.

Chapters:
0:00 Become a Member at TuckerCarlson.com
1:23 The State of the Presidential Race
6:37 Does Kamala Harris Stand For Anything?
12:23 What Is Harris’s Relationship Like With Joe Biden?
14:34 Harris Can’t Answer This Simple Question
16:01 What Do Harris’s Donors Think?
17:26 Mark Halperin’s Reporting That Biden Would Give up the Nomination
28:45 The Worst Scandal in American Journalism
31:09 Was the Biden/Trump Debate a Setup?
40:17 Covering the Trump Campaign
51:54 How Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama Took Out Biden
1:02:19 Corporate Media’s Self-Destruction and the Future of News
1:10:43 Black Men Are Voting for Trump
1:16:32 Why Is Our Voting System So Complicated?
1:18:58 Who’s Winning the Swing States?
1:19:54 Who’s Winning Nevada?
1:21:40 Who’s Winning Arizona?
1:25:55 Who’s Winning Georgia?
1:27:36 Who’s Winning North Carolina?
1:28:54 Who’s Winning Wisconsin?
1:29:39 Who’s Winning Michigan?
1:30:32 Who’s Winning Pennsylvania?
1:34:00 Here Is What the Private Polls Are Saying
1:39:21 War and NATO
1:50:15 RFK Jr. Being Anti-Establishment
1:53:48 Who Is Running the Country Right Now?
1:55:11 Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Be the Biggest Mental Health Crisis in American History
1:58:49 What Happens If Trump Loses?

NARCISSISM: […] If Trump wins, Obama might be seen as the aberration in the history of American politics, rather than Trump and his nativist authoritarianism. Obama acolytes have spent the last eight years rationalizing Trump as the last gasp backlash to the Democrat and his presidency. (link)