I would like to bring up a couple of things that are going through my mind.
First: In the last radio show
@Joe brought up the fact that it is quite likely hard to know for any of us what the true percentage distributions are in the general population of people believing, thinking, knowing or doing this or that thing about any given topic. Joe then brought up some examples of how different people can react towards a situation like the assassination of Kirk: One large part likely doesn’t even know who Kirk is even after what has happened. Another large part heard something about the guy but they don’t know much more than “Isn’t that the guy that was shot?“. Then there is a large portion of people who know who Kirk is and that he was shot and they just follow the official narrative. And so on.
The point being that the portion of the population that is really questioning AND digging into what happened is likely pretty small if not very small compared to the rest of the population.
I think everyone that regularly interacts with ordinary people personally will have to agree with that assessment. So, really what everyone of us can see on the internet and more specifically on social media is likely not how the overall “public opinion“ is on any given topic. And it is hard for us to say what the overall “public opinion“ actually is. For specific human organizations/powers that is probably not the case: They have a much better idea what the public opinion is. And of course 4D STS and other higher forces probably know what the public sentiment actually is probably pretty well at any point in time.
Second: I think it is likely that social media in general is designed to reinforce any given bubble. For good or (in most cases, generally speaking?,) for bad. A person that is a die hard conservative will see content related to that. A person that questions a lot and wants to KNOW, sees content related to that, for example, conspiracy theories. A person that likes to spend most of the time to see and do silly things will see silly things. Point being that I think it is likely that social media in general reinforces what is IN any given human being AND SEPARATES AND SOLIDEFIES each given bubble into their own bubbles making it even more difficult to know for ordinary people what “the public opinion“ actually is about any give topic outside of your personal/group bubble.
Third: The C‘s warned us on several occasions about modern technology in general and specifically about things like computers and screens and such.
Fourth: I only watched about half of the following video by Jim Breuer. If possible you could listen to those couple of minutes too, to get where my thinking is:
Now, I don’t think it is as black and white as Breuer might think it is, but in general, for many/most people what he is describing about the power of the phone/sozial media might be what he is describing? A feeding tube of sorts sending energy to our 4D overloads and a great mind control tool as well? As I said I don’t think it is that black and white though and I think it is similar to any other tool (like the internet) that can be engaged with productively or destructively.
Fifth:
@thorbiorn posted interesting things the C‘s said about assassinations. For example:
A: Today was not the end of the world in case you didn't notice, however an "end" of sorts will certainly come as we have been suggesting for many years. Time is never definite. Things also happen in steps and stages. The major steps include things like assassinations that are accepted by the masses. When such is not objected to, then the next stage is prepared.
At the memorial of Kirk the culmination of everything seemed to be when Erika Kirk said that she forgives the assassin. Now, given that the assassin was likely not just a patsy BUT handled/ordered to do what he did by Mossad/CIA. So, doesn’t forgiveness toward what the killer/-s did sort of imply ACCEPTANCE? See what the the C‘s said above. Erika seemed to proclaim that as the highlight/culmination of the whole ceremony and maybe the whole event was centered around that idea/proclamation? Now, was Erika sending out a signal of acceptance towards what has happened? And somebody or something is hoping that this will lead to many ordinary people doing the same? If so, what is the percentage in the general public that has adopted Erikas statement of acceptance there, in addition to the many people who are ignorant about the whole thing? So maybe the percentage of people in one way or the other now accepting what happened might be quite high, especially after what Erika said?
Sixth: I can understand the skepticism against Erika because what she said and how she delivered it, I certainly also questioned when I heard it and found it at times POTENTIALLY over the top, just if is she is putting on act. And let’s face it the idea that she was planted in Kirks live as a mole/handler by “Mossad“ is certainly a reasonable possibility given the nature and track record of “Mossad“ and Kirks past of loving Israel.
Having said that, I think generally most if not all people in life, and especially those that are famous, likely are handled more subconsciously not only by nefarious human forces but also by 4D STS while NOT being consciously aware how and for what purpose they are puppeteered. So, I would guess that most people in the public life are not consciously doing specific evil things while knowing they are doing what they do and/or for what purpose. Simply because it would be far too dangerous/obvious to have many people who could spill the beans.
Having said that, in this day and age I wouldn’t discount the general idea of “actors“ having taken over important sections in various fields such as politics. I think it is reasonable to think that, if mind control techniques and techniques were already so advanced in the sixties, to assume that they have continued to refine those things in almost unbelievable levels since then. Why wouldn’t they?
Now, if we think about the advent of Hollywood, would it really be that crazy to think that “the CIA“ would have tried to train/program whole armadas of people, probably starting from infant stages, to be their actors in public/political live with all of their mind control techniques? Their real live Hollywood, so to say? I don’t think it is unreasonable to think that something like that MIGHT have happened. As said I think IF something like that was done it is unlikely that most of the famous people who are part of such a program would consciously know that they are “actors“ that might quite literally get new scripts regularly of what to act out by scriptwriters in the background. At the same time I wouldn’t discount either (knowing how extreme psychopathy can be) that at least some of those people act out consciously roles and scripts they are regularly given.
Never underestimate just how rotten and evil some psychopaths can actually be. And now combine all of the above with quite literal kill switches some of those people might have been implanted with and/or can be targeted with at any point in time. You basically would end up with an armada if almost perfect puppets that are specifically trained in acting and that can be taken out at any point by kill switches such as “sudden heart attack“ if they should go off script. Having said that, all of that is just a possibility and I do think that most of what people out there say about “actors“ and such is plain crazy and approaches flatland thinking, including thinking that there are not actually real people that are being killed and that hand signs and such are a big/reasonable/important things even if they might be at times done “on purpose“ which I think almost never happens.
