Q: (Perceval) It's like last year, only a bit worse. (L) Now, we had a Sott Talk Radio show about truth seekers being driven off the track by things that are put out, or actions that are undertaken by, various agencies to drive them into wild conspiracies. The idea is that disinformation agents, COINTELPRO agents, and so forth, plant so many false clues and so many outlandish things and start and spread memes and plant things that supposedly verifies the crazy stories, just for the purpose of distraction, diversion, and to make them engage in infighting. One of the things that Atreides was talking about was that he's been reading this book that is a collection of the speeches and writings of Martin Luther King. He says he's been looking at the history and it seems that violent groups never, ever, have succeeded in changing anything. Even if you have a revolution, usually what you end up with is: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But nonviolent protest that is massive and cohesive, has very often brought significant change. That's why many of the individuals who were the charismatic leaders of nonviolent movements were assassinated. Bobby Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Gandhi, and so on and so forth down through history. So then he proposed that fake terrorism is a strategy to deal with the possibility of another Martin Luther King popping up because when the powers that be encounter a group that they cannot militate, they cannot drive them to armed resistance, which is where they want them... Remember, John Lennon said “once they've got you violent, they've got you were they want you” - since they fail to militarize nonviolent people, they create these violent events out of whole cloth and ascribe them to nonviolent people. In other words, they do false flag operations and then blame it on whatever group they want to blame it on, even if that group is 100% nonviolent. But the point is, they really do the violence. That part isn’t fake. How else to blame it on the non-violent? So, our discussions have led to the idea that the claim that actors staged the Boston terrorist attack scenario – or others – is simply not true. It is a disinfo meme that is being spread for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to induce people to believe lies and another is to give the illusion that all this horrible stuff is not really happening; everything is really under control. All they have to do is fake a scenario. When we say fake a scenario, the violent thing really happens. There's really a bomb, there is really somebody blamed, patsies, etc. I mean, JFK's assassinations wasn't just actors. John Kennedy really was assassinated. But there was a patsy this drama was staged around and there were all kinds of false clues, false trails, laid that did nothing but produce lies and confusion. But the patsy had nothing to do with the truth of what really happened. So anyway, we had this long discussion on our radio program, and our question I think is: Are we on the right track, or is there something we are missing?
A: Basically, correct, yes. Main thing missing is the information factor. Those who believe the lies begin to fracture within and then project this outward onto others.