"Ian Carroll" is likely not a real person. He is an intelligence asset "cutout" using a fake name. Ian Fleming (spy) + Lewis Carroll (story author) = Ian Carroll spy telling stories, mostly true, but injected with key pieces of false information to steer the narrative away from sensitive topics (like Israel and Mossad, just like Candace [married to MI-6] and Tucker [son of CIA])
I am pretty disappointed that more anons simply don't see it.
What's the poison pill strategy? Embed 10% poison in a 90% glowing health pill.
The same strategy in an over-time framework is: lead with health/value for [x] (i.e. 30) days, then inject the poison once the crop (audience) are ready.
All of these figures have exhibited this behavior over and over again.
People's discernment muscles get placated with lots of content that fits into their biases very well (aka, for our crowd, it's 'red pills'), the discernment then atrophies, and then when the <asset> drops the anti-Trump message (or the narrative designed to influence the recipient away from what the controllers do not want), the targets then come up with X explanation to justify or validate the [poisonous] claims.
The methodology is unmistakable, and frankly it worries me that so many supposedly clear thinking individuals fall for it (or cannot see it).
The motive? Well, that's up for debate. Deployed DS assets? Personal gain? Ideological agenda? Personal agenda?
The motives are harder to discern, but the methodology and behavior are not. But people hear what they want to hear.
I think there is too much emotional investment. They seek validation too much and will follow anyone who gives it without questioning their motives. Red flags are ignored because they want to hold on to that feeling of validation. Sometimes we must stop - detach and take a step back - to see the bigger picture. Those who can't or won't do that will just keep swallowing the poison.
Ian… Candace… Tucker… who’s next?
"Ian Carroll" is likely not a real person. He is an intelligence asset "cutout" using a fake name. Ian Fleming (spy) + Lewis Carroll (story author) = Ian Carroll spy telling stories, mostly true, but injected with key pieces of false information to steer the narrative away from sensitive topics (like Israel and Mossad, just like Candace [married to MI-6] and Tucker [son of CIA])
I am pretty disappointed that more anons simply don't see it.
What's the poison pill strategy? Embed 10% poison in a 90% glowing health pill.
The same strategy in an over-time framework is: lead with health/value for [x] (i.e. 30) days, then inject the poison once the crop (audience) are ready.
All of these figures have exhibited this behavior over and over again.
People's discernment muscles get placated with lots of content that fits into their biases very well (aka, for our crowd, it's 'red pills'), the discernment then atrophies, and then when the <asset> drops the anti-Trump message (or the narrative designed to influence the recipient away from what the controllers do not want), the targets then come up with X explanation to justify or validate the [poisonous] claims.
The methodology is unmistakable, and frankly it worries me that so many supposedly clear thinking individuals fall for it (or cannot see it).
The motive? Well, that's up for debate. Deployed DS assets? Personal gain? Ideological agenda? Personal agenda?
The motives are harder to discern, but the methodology and behavior are not. But people hear what they want to hear.
So true
I think there is too much emotional investment. They seek validation too much and will follow anyone who gives it without questioning their motives. Red flags are ignored because they want to hold on to that feeling of validation. Sometimes we must stop - detach and take a step back - to see the bigger picture. Those who can't or won't do that will just keep swallowing the poison.
Dont forget the other axis of idocracy - Scott Ritter, Douglas McGregor etc