The Offworld Stage Perspective

From The Desk Of Tim Ozman 7/31/22:

Jul 31

Why do people trust the lying media? Because most don’t have time to vet all the news they are expected to believe. This is by design. The non-stop 48-hours of news per 24-hour news cycle keeps media consumers from verifying anything.

Radical skepticism reduces the amount of time needed to be in the know about what is knowable.

Whether one approaches the psyop entertainment complex with skepticism or trust determines one's experience. Who or what is the final arbiter of truth when it comes to what you accept? Is it a media outlet, the consensus, a specific pundit, or is it your own critical thinking faculties?

Question: How does one avoid the trap of ignorance without having to pay attention to the overwhelming flood of conflicting narratives?

Answer: By understanding the motives behind the stories. We ask what happened, not who did it, because the "it" has to be established as a factual event. Asking the question "did it happen at all?" is a good starting point. To assume the premise established by the initial reports is to build on a foundation of hearsay.

For example: if the shooting is connected to a gun grab narrative pushed by an up-and-coming politician from the antigun side of the political spectrum, then one doesn't need to process the shooting as a crime or massacre until first questions have been resolved as to the events political utility. Is it a shooting or a psychological operation? This is a fair question to ask and the answer determines whether the event warrants your time, attention, and a vote for a politician promising to prevent such a tragedy in the future. Again, the "what is it?" is a more important question than "who did it?" when the "it" hasn't been established by facts.

Truthers will chase "second-shooters", "MK Ultra Assassins", and "patsies" for years never realizing that these alternative explanations are there to protect the mainstream version's central premise that an "IT" happened. The MSM and the alt-media are actually on the same sheet when they debate "false flag" vs the reported story. The "9/11 was an inside job" crowd still thinks the event happened as reported, they merely disagree on who to blame.

False Flag Theory is the generic alt-media explanation for all shootings and terror events. False Flaggers argue with Autohoaxers all the time. Why? because they are protecting their explanation. False Flag Theories insisting that "people die" at these mass shooting events rely on claims that derive from MSM hearsay and not actual sources. To refute their claim is to leave them without actual casualties and a viable scapegoat. Without deaths and a villain, the psyop doesn't work. The psyop is supposed to motivate the traumatized believers to support a political agenda or a major worldview-shaping lie.

I want to point out that Q-anon believers are all False Flag theorists trusting in anonymous sources and basing their views on hearsay. Whatever happened to saving the children? You know, the ones in the underground tunnels being trafficked by democrats and Deep State agents? Since 2017 they have been chasing a patsy called the "Deep State" for its supposed crimes against children (among other things) but my question is: where are the victims?

Note how the Left sees the Right as killing children with guns, climate change, war for oil, hate, and capitalism, while the Right sees the Left as killing children with abortion, Satanic cannibalism, and a depopulation agenda.

To be clear, I am not advocating for some milquetoast middle ground position of "taking no sides". This is the trouble with the dueling sides: they both look bad so people that know better tend to take no sides or adopt a "neutral" position. This is highly fallacious as there is no middle ground on the world stage as it exists.

The only side I advocate taking is one's own. The final arbiter of what I accept as believable, knowable, or true is my own perspective that recognizes the existence of the world stage itself. My clearest thinking would have me choosing the lesser of two evils if I wasn't aware that the dynamic is synthetic and intentionally induced for purposes of mass mind control.

I find it easy to ignore both Climate Change hysterics and Qanoners telling me they can solve the world’s problems. From my off-world-stage perspective, I can choose to ignore the false cures for false ailments. From here I can see that both sides sell disease and cures:

The Qanoners want to see a Great Awakening where their political opponents are executed in live tribunals and the world is saved from the globalist communist Left.
It is the globalist Left that wants a Great Reset that will purify the world and the Internet from Qanon believers, nationalists, and capitalism as it eliminates free speech and property rights as part of its Utopian plan.

A simple way to determine which side one is on is to ask which side are you on Team Kyle or Team Greta? Each is a perfect representative poster child for the Right and Left, both equally annoying to the other's side. To admit to an affinity for one or the other, or one versus the other, is to play into a game.

Which side are you on, Team Kyle or Team Greta? I like to mention the curious fact of Greta Thunberg and Kyle Rittenhouses' shared birthday of January 3, 2003: