Comment: I want truth.

(See in situ)

I want truth.

Does that mean with the pieces I manage to put together that I know the whole story about events, such as Boston? No. But sometimes we can know whether we've been lied to or not.

I can tell you that my ~aha~ moment didn't come with the prospect of giving up liberty for security. Until I realized things were not right and we had been lied to, I had no reason to question the liberty matter. It was the awakening with regard to the more controversial/conspiratorial type stuff that THEN led to me to the other things like understanding and appreciation of rights and the Constitution protections of them, foreign and monetary policy, etc...not the other way around.

I hated gov't class and history and I'd have had little interest in them or things like foreign and monetary policy had I not been awakened to the more controversial things first.

That seems to be the case with MOST of the people I'm talking to outside of here. When talking to "non-initiates" about things like the Constitution and foreign and monetary policy, their eyes glaze over.

BUT discussion of current events like Sandy Hook, the Dorner manhunt, and the Boston bombing, and yes even 9/11, (and in particular the more controversial aspects, not the basic liberties/rights issues)has made things RELEVANT. Those things have opened doors to conversations on the liberty/rights issues to where their eyes no longer glaze over.

It's as if until people think they're being manipulated and lied to, very often the infringements of rights don't matter with the seriousness that it should, if at all. Infringements tend to register as reasonable with most when faced with what they believe as justified circumstances.

But when it really registers that they've been lied to by the gov't/media, and that things weren't as they were led do believe, then the infringements hit home.

I'm finding that very thing with the people I work with. Sometimes it was like talking to a wall.

But we've recently gotten a television in our lobby at work with CNN all day, so that has opened the door to all kinds of discussion on things like these recent events.

I'm finding them ripe for the controversial "conspiracy theory" type of things FIRST before the relevance hits regarding things like rights, the Constitution, monetary/foreign policy and any of that seem to have any relevance to them. Just as those things didn't matter to me, either, at first, I'm finding the same with them. The controversial stuff, some of which they are picking up on themselves, is making lightbulbs go off for them...that then makes it possible to talk about the more basic concept without glazed eyes and drooping lids.

So as much as I don't like CNN, I have been able to use it as a catalyst in liberty-oriented discussions with coworkers. Actually, the same goes with discussions with my daughter in that the controversial aspects of the current events are what is opening the doors FIRST, not the things that would sound like boring gov't and history class otherwise to her.

So to try to answer your bottom question, I have no idea about B on whether they were actors with fake blood, so I don't go there on the Boston incident with the people I talk to outside of here. (With Sandy Hook, they brought up the possible actors, but not with Boston.)

I've found that much like with my own awakening, it has been the other things, the controversial conspiracy type things that register with them (the inconsistencies, discrepancies, lies, repeated ~coincidences~ that are just too much to swallow)...when those kinds of things sink in and shakes their foundation, THEN they are more receptive to the other stuff like foreign/monetary policy, the Constitution, etc.

So in this particular Boston incident with the people I've been talking to, it was things like the FBI & CIA involvement with Tsarnaev, the report of as many as 5 undetonated bombs that was later declared to be none despite even the report of the "controlled explosion", and the Saudi national suspect who was then declared not a suspect but suspiciously whisked out of the country anyway...things like that that at the very least reek of foreknowledge that made them raise an eyebrow that maybe they're being deceived. Otherwise the door to door searches weren't registering as much as a violation.

It should register, but it doesn't seem to happen that way with a lot of people while "non-initate".

This post was longer than I thought, but I did want to reframe your question based on what I described above from:

A) door to door searches; or B) actors and fake blood


A) boring gov't/history talk; or B) sense of relevance when lightbulbs go off that things are not as we're being led to believe in the news, even if that means the controversial conspiracy stuff.

The latter is where I see a spark with people I talk to...which then readies the soil for the seeds of the former. That was how it happened with myself as well.

That may irritate a lot of people here who would prefer it be the other way around, and even though it might be for some, it wasn't for me, and it's not with of the people I'm talking to outside of here. It's not one size fits all.