Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And t̶h̶a̶t̶ what happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is talking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analyzing possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that this page is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certainly discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: a discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading. She justifies her interpretation by saying "Oh, its a declaration of what the Illuminati want to do to us" instead of the obvious interpretations that make sense.
Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And t̶h̶a̶t̶ what happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is talking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analyzing possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that hispage is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certainly discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: a discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading. She justifies her interpretation by saying "Oh, its a declaration of what the Illuminati want to do to us" instead of the obvious interpretations that make sense.
Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And t̶h̶a̶t̶ what happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is taking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analysis possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that hispage is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certainly discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: a discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading. She justifies her interpretation by saying "Oh, its a declaration of what the Illuminati want to do to us" instead of the obvious interpretations that make sense.
Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And that happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is taking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analysis possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that hispage is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certainly discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: a discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading. She justifies her interpretation by saying "Oh, its a declaration of what the Illuminati want to do to us" instead of the obvious interpretations that make sense.
Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And that happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is taking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analysis possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that hispage is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certain discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: an discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading. She justifies her interpretation by saying "Oh, its a declaration of what the Illuminati want to do to us" instead of the obvious interpretations that make sense.
Frankly, I don't think you've applied any critical thinking to this, but again, as usual, you just copy/paste the exact headline of the publisher, the video on Bitchute.
And that happens when people don't apply any critical thinking or discernment to the information is the very common confirmation bias kicking in, which triggers further emotional reaction and short-circuits the critical thinking capacity (fight or flight response is triggered, undermining discernment).
Take the stuff she says at 1:44. Note: she is reading from a discussion of ANTI-US RMA strategies. The whole document is a theoretical discussion of the possibilities oif future warfare, and its plainly obvious from the context that this section is taking about what potential strategies might be used AGAINST the USA.
This is exactly what you would want from any serious military document looking into the future and analysis possible risks and responses.
So its clear from the context (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n91/mode/2up) that the paper is talking about potential attacks on the USA. (Which make sense, that an enemy would capture torture us citizens and broadcast that in order to terrorize the population.)
But she interprets this as the Illuminati and NASA as saying "we're going to capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". INSTEAD of the very obvious "The enemy may potentially capture/torture Americans in living color on prime time". I mean, it's pretty fricking obvious, this is already what some terrorist s do, right? Remember Isis with beheading videos, etc.?
Her interpretation does NOT stand up to critical thinking at all. I understand that she believes it. But this is the problem and why so many 'conspiracy theories' in the past could NOT get traction. Because they did NOT apply the critical thinking research and analysis that Q made the hallmark of the Q operation.
I'm glad the mods did NOT sticky this. It's really low grade posting, u/brain_dead . If you are going to post this sort of stuff, at least apply some analysis or critical thinking instead of just copy/pasting into the subject line (imo).
Even listening to 5 minutes of her argument shows how distorted (aka disconnected from reality, driven by a confirmation bias) her interpretation is.
Another example: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025/page/n65/mode/2up
It's clear from the context and theme of the document that hispage is talking about potential disadvantages for humans in warfare (i.e. using soldiers to fight war) vs. the advantages of using robotics to wage war.
Now, we can certain discuss the ethical implications of using robots to fight war instead of humans, and the advantages / disadvantages, and the long-term risks, etc, but SHE interprets the page to be saying why NASA wants to get rid of human beings and replace them with Robots FULL STOP. She interprets the document to be a declaration of war on human beings, INSTEAD of what it clearly states it is: an discussion of the ways that warfare might evolve, and what steps could be take to counter the threats against the USA.
Facepalm.
Critical thinking, folks, Critical thinking.
She MISINTERPRETS a discussion of possible future issues affecting warfare (around 2025) and sees it as a declaration of warfare on human beings. This is what happens when you don't check your own biases or consider contexts and OTHER possible explanations for what you are seeing/reading.