I started listening to more stuff on Badlands Media because there were more opinions and more variation. They have a Rumble channel with a whole network of shows. People here would like the Devolution Power Hour (Wednesday and Saturday), Baseless Conspiracies (Monday), and Defected (Sunday). There is also a Q show called Eye of the Storm but I actually don’t watch that one. Almost everyone on the network has read the Q drops, so they have that knowledge and context, but they talk about more than Q.
Trump as a non-politician and an outsider in D.C. is one of his biggest selling points. They needed “Russian collusion” to paper over that. They ran that one long enough that the “Trump as outsider” narrative was mostly forgotten.
I think one of the fundamental misconceptions many people have is that the corporate media isn’t as consolidated as it is. So when the average person sees that these TV networks, and these movies, and these magazines, and these newspapers, and these toy companies, and these publishing houses all share the same opinion, that they can’t ALL be wrong. If you are able to show them that all these “separate” companies are actually owned by the same six international conglomerates, and those are all run by three international governing bodies, it changes that paradigm.
Liberals are also vaguely aware of the problem of corporate consolidation so they aren’t totally resistant to the idea either.
“Nothing exploded and turned into everything” is such a fairy tale. That’s not even scientific. It’s just words. Why did it explode? “Oh you know, it just did.” People accept it because the Rockefeller textbooks told them this is what all the “smart” people believe.
I don’t know about that. If a musician is playing all over the radio, you are aware of him (famous), his concerts appear to be packed, and people seem to listen to his music, despite what you think of it, it’s not unreasonable that they would own a mansion. Private jets are usually rented. That’s not totally crazy for these rappers whose brand is showing off their bling.
Jumping to the musician actually being a CIA/Mossad puppet with sex trafficking connections isn’t going to occur for most normal people. The simpler explanation is the music appeals to the lowest common denominator, he has a major label behind him, the radio stations are paid off to push his music, and through enough repetition, the public starts to like it.
It’s surely dark but why would they even go within a mile of an iceberg? “Look sir! Icebergs!” Where? “Ten miles north!” Great, don’t steer into them.
It makes a great story though. So much irony. The “unsinkable” ship, crashes into an iceberg on its maiden voyage. A tragedy about human hubris. A timely message about class politics. (And psst - the cabal’s biggest enemies wiped out in one go, but nobody mention that.)
It would seem logical to me that for such an ironic, perfectly scripted event to happen, ships crashing into icebergs would need to be extremely common. Instead it’s the opposite. You never hear about ships crashing into icebergs and sinking like the Titanic. There’s a big open ocean between America and Britain. Sail through that. Don’t steer into the icebergs and if you do, don’t worry, they’re twenty five miles away so you have about an hour to steer out of the way.
Crashing into an iceberg seems more and more ridiculous the more I actually try to play it out in my imagination. One of those things Hollywood gets past your defenses at a young age and then everyone is too emotionally invested in the official narrative to admit the absurdity of it all. Even in the movies about Titanic they have to skip over the part where they steer into the iceberg because what are you supposed to even film? The captain gets distracted reading a Blondie comic? It’s so dumb. It’s an iceberg. It’s like driving into a mountain.
Usually then people point to what is apparently an unprecedented number of sealed indictments since 2017.
The logical question is: Could there be so many people working for the cabal under the Epstein blackmail, in so many positions of power, that to arrest them all at once, publicly, would have derailed society, business, and government?
At the same time, if they are being gradually rounded up and flipping on each other, those arrests would also need to be kept sealed until the investigation is closed.
But this is all speculation. Does it seem to each person like some sort of arrests are happening behind the scenes or not? For me the weirdness starts with the Saudi Purge. Then soon after that the arrest of Epstein. Then that whole story. Then Maxwell. And all the while all of these CEOs stepping down around the same time. Q suggests assets are being frozen and suddenly Facebook is now Meta and Twitter is now X. Other companies start committing public relations suicide and destroy their own brands. “Oh you’ve seized our corporate brand and company assets? Well then watch us destroy that brand and bankrupt our finances. Seize this!” Since when do the biggest companies in the world change their brand name and logo to something completely different, let alone openly try to destroy their own companies? It’s all very strange.
Hey, thanks! I always knew rhetoric was important, but it was Scott Adams who really revealed the extent of it for me. If you like these sorts of persuasion tricks, his book Win Bigly is a good read on how Trump used persuasion in his 2016 campaign. He also vlogs daily on Rumble and YouTube. Real Coffee with Scott Adams. He basically filters the daily news through the lens of persuasion. Sometimes he’s frustrating, but often he has an outside the box way of looking at things that gets you thinking, even when you disagree.
Fren, I get where you are coming from, but they have an excuse for every “Trump is not a racist” fact: he is only “pretending” not to be a racist. There is no fact that beats that. There is no way to argue against “pretending”.
I think the strategy is to hopscotch right over this because the more you keep “Trump” and “racist” in the same sentence, the more Trump seems like a racist. The facts get drowned out by the persuasion of the words. It’s all a rhetoric game. You’d probably be better off rolling your eyes, groaning, and going, “Not this old trope again. Don’t you know Kanye put this one to bed years ago? Catch up with the times man!”
You see how that changes it? Did Kanye ACTUALLY put this to bed years ago? No, that’s not official! But it sounds like it is. And now the person feels out of date and behind the times, which no one likes. And you haven’t used the words “Trump” or “racist” at all. You’ve also put them on the defensive. Now THEY have to argue against an arbitrary claim of which you are the decider. Did Kanye put this to bed or did he not? You’ve also trapped them because odds are they will likely jump to start attacking Ye as either an anti-Semite or crazy. Think about the frame here. You’re now off “Is Trump a racist” and you’ve got them calling a black dude crazy. That’s an easy trap. “Oh of course, any time a black man doesn’t do what the white man wants, he’s ‘crazy’. So typical. Come on, you’re better than that.” You’re using all their established rhetoric against them. They’re gonna know calling a black man crazy is a bad look and switch to anti-Semitic. But now you’ve pivoted to the Democrats’ biggest split right now, which is the war in Gaza. You’re now way past “Trump is a racist” and instead poking holes in their entire unworkable coalition. In about five statements you could literally have this same person accusing Biden of genocide. And now you have the words “Biden” and “genocide” in the same sentence. See how that works? Rhetoric!
Yes, and don’t say “alternative media” because they’ve been brainwashed against the words “alt” and “alternative” now. They basically hear “KKK” if you say “alternative” anything.
Instead say “independent” media. There is no brainwashing around the word “independent”. It’s actually the opposite: for a liberal, “independent” means good. It’s like “organic” or “natural” or “green”. And it would be tricky for the corporate media to smear the word “independent”, which I think is why they didn’t even try, and instead went with “alternative”.
Next time, maybe instead of trying to argue why Trump isn’t a racist, which will always seem defensive, go more inquisitive. Ask them why Trump has more black support than any Republican President since Abraham Lincoln? Now it’s on THEM to make excuses. And what are they going to say? Probably they are all “Uncle Toms”. At that point I would ask, “So 35% of the black population are - I think this is a bigoted term, but it’s yours - you think they are all so-called ‘Uncle Toms’? That’s millions and millions of black people who are just as smart and informed and passionate as you. Why are you taking away their agency like that?”
With liberals, you always have to set the frame that YOU are the one with the bigger heart, YOU are the one who cares more, YOU are the one who seeks to be more open-minded and understanding. This is what they pride themselves on so take that position for yourself. THEY are the ones slandering millions of black people with a bigoted term, not you. YOU are trying to understand these people. YOU see them as real people with agency, not some demeaning caricature.
And always do this with as much true kindness in your voice and heart as possible. Don’t be passive aggressive. Don’t try to score points. Don’t try to shame them. I know they are frustrating but look at them as friends who have been brainwashed by probably the most elaborate and extended political propaganda campaign of all time. If your energy is truly kind, people WILL sense that. But keep putting their positions back on them. If you try to debunk their laundry list of FAKE NEWS, it never works, as Scott Adams points out. Even if you debunk every claim, and get them to concede each one, all they do at the end of it is loop back to the first one. And all anyone remembers from the conversation is the fake claims. So you want to change the whole frame on it. Instead you want everyone who participated in the conversation thinking back going, “Yeah, it WAS kind of obnoxious how Joe called all those black people Uncle Toms. Why would he say that. It was pretty rude.”
With liberals, I don’t think it’s enough to say “the media”. It’s better to say “the corporate media”. They’ve been brainwashed to think all corporations = bad, so box them in with that. Keep tying their beliefs and opinions back to corporations. Bonus points if you do your research ahead of time and can tell them which conglomerate owns their favorite network, and everything else they own. Liberals tend to get submissive when you do this, because what are they going to do? Defend corporations? They have no talking point for this.
Another good tactic is to take the high ground and point out that the corporations seek to divide us for ratings and clicks. Keep going back to this. It boxes them and neutralizes their ability to argue with you. And it short circuits their trained hatred because if they start losing it and being mean, it literally proves the point that these corporations don’t care about us, and want us fighting for their own wealth and power.
The only move they have at this point is to attack FoxNews and say that’s a corporation too. At that point, agree and amplify. Throw Fox under the bus as another corporate conglomerate that’s doing the exact same thing. This really disarms them. They might try to drag you down into the mud to argue over the latest corporate media outrage, but don’t take that bait. Keep going big picture. The people are more unified than they want us to be and it’s these corporations that want us divided.
So far I’ve had good success with this strategy. You don’t even have to get bogged down with Trump. Get them questioning the media and that helps us. Get them questioning their hysteria and outrage and that helps us. Often times at this point a liberal will want to show they aren’t a slave to these corporations and will start offering their own small red pills. Like maybe men competing in women’s sports, or Booster number 7. Now you’ve got them disagreeing with some small portion of the globalist agenda and that’s a start.
I don’t remember exactly but wasn’t Cuban initially kind of warm on Trump? Then suddenly went very very hard against him? There’s been a few like that. I remember Taylor Swift refused to endorse HRC, then the corporate media spent about two years badmouthing her until she relented and endorsed Biden. Then she was golden again. Mario Lopez said something against trans kids, got slammed, then relented and next thing you know he’s starring in a Saved By the Bell reboot. Seems to be a common pattern.
I don’t look at it like that. I look at it like you’re at a party, the host is an asshole, and kicks you out. So you go start your own party. A bunch of your friends come with you. If as soon as you get invited back to the first party, you go running over, it seems kind of weak. Right now everything Trump writes on Truth gets duplicated over to Twitter and repeated on the news so it’s not like the message isn’t getting out. But I suspect Trump might start tweeting again if he wins the Presidency. Then it looks a little different, like buying the property the first house was sitting on.
Hitler was either in on it, or he took the bait like an idiot and destroyed his country. They keep trying to bait Putin like they did Hitler and so far Putin hasn’t fallen for it. It’s possible to admit certain red pills about WW2 without jumping to “the Nazis were actually the good guys!” Another false binary.
It’s so presumptuous. I stopped doubting him before Super Tuesday 2016. The weekend before that was when he first mentioned implementing the Muslim ban “until we figure out what the hell is going on”. Sounded great to me but I thought he’d put his foot in his mouth and gone too extreme for the public right before Super Tuesday, then his poll numbers went UP, not down.
I’ve since watched many other people go through the same experience. Trump says or does something. Trump supporter freaks out, this was a mistake, unforced error, blah blah. A few days or weeks go by, new information comes out (that Trump would have known at the time) and all of a sudden what Trump said or did now looks like the perfect move.
That’s not Trump’s style. “I was tricked! I was duped!” It’s not a good look for a President. It’s similar to how he doesn’t let them film him eating. Nothing wrong with eating food, but for your President? Somehow it weakens him. It’s also I think why Trump never mentioned any of the assassination attempts on him. Sure it would be a good ploy for sympathy, temporarily, but then it leaves the President looking weak and vulnerable. Victim mentality.
Trump ordered troop removals and the generals violated his orders, did the opposite, and didn’t tell him. Not sure what a President is able to do if he issues an order as Commander in Chief, and the system is so corrupt the hierarchy under him doesn’t follow the order. Eventually he flew into the war zone himself and demanded to speak to people on the ground about what was happening and why his orders were being ignored. This is how he defeated ISIS actually. Mattis refused to finish them off and claimed it was impossible and would take years and years. Trump flew in himself and met the men on the ground who explained ISIS could be defeated in a few days but the generals wouldn’t allow it.
There were several times when Trump ordered things to be declassified and then the entire bureaucratic hierarchy refused to do so. It’s like demanding the President stop all crime. He could sign certain Executive Orders, he could speak out publicly, he could fire and replace certain people, but if the entire police force refuses to police crime, is the President supposed to walk the streets in all 50 states at once stopping crime? And if so, how?
I don’t hate him but stopped listening to him when the intro of his show started pushing Covid hysteria, then pushed it for two years or more. Does his show still open with a montage of Covid hysteria or has he flipped over to Ukraine hysteria now? Does he say the election was rigged? Did he tell everyone to wear a mask on their face for years and years?
It’s partially a way to keep the racism grift going. Once they get everyone divided by skin color, all events are segregated, hiring quotas are in place, everyone says “People of Color”, and so on, then they can re-redefine racism and go the MLK route again. Set up non-profits to undo all the previous crap they did under other non-profits. Say that all these old people calling other people “POCs” are racist. “POCs” could be a slur. Also they can keep pitching their redefinitions to the youth, who are generally looking to do things differently, and that makes their racism grift seem shiny and new.
Academics do this too and the technique probably comes from there. In academia they like to say one thing, print a bunch of textbooks, flip, say the opposite, then sell a bunch of updated textbooks. They do this with pronunciations of words often too. It’s partially a form of gatekeeping and signalling to others. “Oh you don’t know about the new way of pronouncing Kiev?”