RE: It Is Always, Always, ALWAYS Okay To Question Official Narratives
There are layers of disinformation and psyops at play, and I have noted that this particular event seems to have become the starting point for a certain class of disinfo, such as calling the Parkland shooting a hoax, or involving whether Hogg and some of the students are crisis actors. When people begin seeing through the first layer of psyop 'Iraq has WMDs', and then know the enemedia are just liars trying to fool them, they automatically assume opposition stories are true. Many people aren't capable for multiple reasons to independently verify facts. Astroturfing is a thing, and people are lured into trusting Q for example, by releases of information that was true.
This causes them to loyally remain convinced of the source, despite evidence contrary.
Then a second layer of psyop becomes useful,and that's happening now. Deliberate false opposition that is provably false is disseminated to those populations, and then proved false, discrediting them.
I'm not familiar with your work, but look forward to having a look asap.
Thanks!
Edit: I've read that article now, and am convinced that more folks should see it. I made a post that points folks to it. Hope it helps!
Thank you for the response and for sharing my story in a post! Very, very good points. I agree. When one thing is proven inaccurate, like Iraq WMDs, it's easier for some to just assume everything is inaccurate instead of independently verifying facts. (And like you said, not everyone is capable of doing that, for a variety of reasons.)
The deliberate false opposition is a great point too. I found a fascinating book detailing corporate "hacking" tactics, and it included disseminating provably false information that might tempt a competitor to use, and then pointing to that as proof that the competitor's information couldn't be trusted. I'm going to have to dig up that book and share it on Steemit sometime.
I hadda give you a follow, so I can see what you come up with next. I deeply admire both your intention to examine the context and sources of stories, and the hide requisite to suffering the slings and arrows of popping the bubbles of the deluded, yet well-intentioned.
That's a tough row to hoe, and it's an admirable trait.
Thanks!