posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:05 AM
I've been thinking about the idea of a faked event vs an engineered event. By faked event obviously I mean an event that's completely staged with
crisis actors and a large group of people cooperatively working together to stage the event. By engineered event, I mean an event that's spontaneous
and real to 99% of those involved, yet planned, scripted and set into motion by a small number of social engineers (think Edward Bernays), and agent
provocateurs. Events are engineered all the time. It's a go to strategy for the global propagandists. I personally believe that events have been
staged, although regardless of how much evidence there appears to be in some cases, absolute proof is difficult to come by. With that said, the
technology is absolutely there. So, I'm going to explore the question that follows on the assumption that events have and can be faked....meaning that
the elites face the choice of whether to stage a fake event where no one actually gets hurt, or to engineer a real event where lives are lost.
On this assumption, I think an important question to ask is, "What are the benefits of faking an event instead of engineering an event?" Why choose
one over the other? What are the determining factors? I put a few thoughts below. I'm just beginning to explore this question. I think answering this
question would speak volumes about motive. I'd love to hear what you all think.
1) More Control With Faked Event
It could be argued that faking an event gives them more control over it, but I would disagree. I think faking it gives them much less control,
requires much more long-term work, and puts them at a much higher risk of being exposed. Coordinating a large group of people in a movie set like
environment is extremely difficult. I think it's a lot easier for the social engineers to manipulate the masses than to force a large group of people
to cooperate. Faking an event also requires them make sure those involved stay quiet for the rest of their lives. That's indefinite maintenance, and
high risk. On the other hand, when people don't know the event was engineered, when it was real to them, they don't have to be kept track of. What
happen was real to them. They tell their friends and family about. They spread the word about what happen. And when people claim a conspiracy might be
involved, they stand in opposition of that argument....even if the conspiracy is that the event was engineered and their actions were manipulated.
If the event is very small, there are a low number of people involved, the environment is controllable, and there are few to no uncertainties likely
to come in, then I could see where faking an event might have some benefits.
2) They don't have to off anyone when they fake events.
It could be argued that by faking an event no lives will be lost whereas this is not the case when an event is engineered, since it is real. This
might be true but I don't think that's a concern of those who are behind the engineering of events. Doing this would require them to, as mentioned
above, track these people indefinitely and coordinate large groups of people. It would require them to do more work and put themselves at greater risk
of exposure. Plus, if the assumption is that they're globalists, they're loyalties don't lie with the people of a given nation. They're loyalties are
with fellow globalists.
To globalist, nationalists stand in the way of a proper world order. In war terms, nationalists are their enemy. If we further assume that part of
their worldview includes the belief that the population needs to be minimized then engineering real events would serve multiple purposes for them.
They could be experimenting with new technology in the media, stuff like that. They could be gauging how much they can get away with or what the
public will accept, testing just how strong collective cognitive dissonance is. They could just be checking to see how out in the open they can be
about it. I could see this being a possibility.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.