A lot of subjective assumptions there about personalities. For example, do you have any direct experience with what traumatic shock does to people?
Traumatic shock can affect people in lots of different ways. It creates a root-level fracturing of the psyche, which can (usually) leads people to react and behave in ways that they most certainly would not. To me, the argument that "If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot" is simply imaginative projection or supposition, and I think that clinically, its not really evidence.
The problem here is that in psyops, narrative control and narrative spin rely on all sorts of subjective responses (how you or I respond emotionally, mentally and subjectively) to perceived data points, and the only real defense against being manipulated is a combination of concrete, hard data facts (empirically grounded) + aggressively critical thinking and self-reflection.
The whole nature of psychological warfare is manipulation of the vulnerabilities that the target presents, vulnerabilities which are grounded in the internal processes of thought, emotion and volition. Without a very objective self-reviewing of these aspects, psyops tend to simply achieve success.
So, the question is, is it possible that certain actors have an invested interest in psyopping the non-Mainstream community into attacking or doubting or undermining TPUSA (and Erika)?
If its possible that Erika is performing, is un-genuine in her motives, purpose, etc, then the above possibility (the opposite alternative) ALSO has to be considered and weighed against that, too.
Otherwise, you simply end up making purely subjective assessments and investing them with a certainty of belief.
A lot of subjective assumptions there about personalities. For example, do you have any direct experience with what traumatic shock does to people?
Traumatic shock can affect people in lots of different ways. It creates a root-level fracturing of the psyche, which can (usually) leads people to react and behave in ways that they most certainly would not. To me, the argument that "If she truly loved Charlie, Erika would have been a blubbering idiot" is simply imaginative projection or supposition, and I think that clinically, its not really evidence.
The problem here is that in psyops, narrative control and narrative spin rely on all sorts of subjective responses (how you or I respond emotionally, mentally and subjectively) to perceived data points, and the only real defense against being manipulated is a combination of concrete, hard data facts (empirically grounded) + aggressively critical thinking and self-reflection.
The whole nature of psychological warfare is manipulation of the vulnerabilities that the target presents, vulnerabilities which are grounded in the internal processes of thought, emotion and volition. Without a very objective self-reviewing of these aspects, psyops tend to simply achieve success.
So, the question is, is it possible that certain actors have an invested interest in psyopping the non-Mainstream community into attacking or doubting or undermining TPUSA (and Erika)?
If its possible that Erika is performing, is un-genuine in her motives, purpose, etc, then the above possibility (the opposite alternative) ALSO has to be considered and weighed against that, too.
Otherwise, you simply end up making purely subjective assessments and investing them with a certainty of belief.