Since The New Nationalist (TNN) received a Pizzagate mention by The New York Times, gaslighters have tried to blow up the comments section of our website. In fact, I’ve seen more ridiculous comments during this last week than all of last year. Of course, we all see it everywhere on social media. The 140-character format at Twitter makes it far too commonplace. Almost all of the gaslighters coming here are crude and in the form of what I call one-trick-pony, “you’re crazy” diverters. They have a nasty narcissistic persona about them. On Pizzagate, I just know many are perverts and moral relativists. Seriously, who else would show up to conduct a gaslighting campaign for James Alefantis, the owner of a so-called “family restaurant”?
Why debate and discuss when a target can simply be dismissed with the label “crazy” and without making any effort or having no real interpretative framework to reveal to the other side. Readers haven’t seen most of these gaslighting comments I’m referencing because I’ve deleted them — save for a few and, one especially, with my response to illustrate.
Like the Kinks said, “Paranoia could destroy ya…” The article and the comments below read like deleted pages from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. By the way: I am a Freemason Lizard Alien, have close ties to the Majestic Twelve and the Vatican. Elvis, Michael Jackson, the Loch Ness Monster and I actually run the US Government. We had Bigfoot murdered…we caught him reading the NY Times. Actually, we had the CIA, Mossad and ISIS do the job for us. I’m signing off now…got to go police a FEMA death camp. A dirty job but someone has to do it!
I am wavering on calling you out as a perv justice warrior, but you are definitely a gaslighter. Gaslighting (also called diverting) is not critical thinking, debate or discussion nor is calling a whole group of people “crazy”. Further the conversation you have elected to intrude into is about Edgar Welch not Michael Jackson or lizard aliens. I have removed the six other nearly idenitical gaslighting comments and have left you one to illustrate your method. And I hereby bequeth you the one trick pony award.
Yes, I had a little fun with one-trick pony; and, having gotten that off my chest, let’s look at a case of much more sophisticated gaslighting. To review, gaslighting is a special form of manipulative deception. The word came from a 1944 mystery-thriller movie. The technique has become widely used in recent decades because of its effectiveness in making the target think they’re the crazy ones. Gaslighting became an art form during the administration of the Bushes and Clinton, but Obama has taken it to a whole new level.
If you’re unfamiliar with “gaslighting” techniques, here’s a simple definition:
A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity. The classic example of gaslighting is to switch something around on someone that you know they’re sure to notice, but then deny knowing anything about it, and to explain that they “must be imagining things” when they challenge these changes. A more psychological definition of gaslighting is “an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information to, the victim – having the gradual effect of making them anxious, confused, and less able to trust their own memory and perception.”
For reasons unknown to me, state media didn’t go along with Obama press minion Jay Carney’s business-as-usual gaslighting effort on Benghazi, and they reacted. For our own edification, let’s evaluate this exchange between gaslighter Carney and White House correspondent Ed Henry back in 2014. For background, this exchange is about a talking-point email that had been (probably accidentally) released among some other documents via a FOIA request by Judicial Watch, which had to sue the government to gain access. The email is about how to manipulate (gaslight) the Benghazi narrative.
Now, in the video below, watch the gaslighting footwork of Carney when he says, “All ya gotta do is read it, Ed” [00:30] . Carney then engages in a space filler designed to switch the question away from what sane people are sure to notice. Then, acting annoyed [1:12], Carney switches over to the tried-and-true method of the gaslighter: calling the exercise the work of “bogus conspiracy theorists.” Oh, well, that explains everything. Just move along, people. Nothing to see here. Fast forward to today and hundreds of thousands of dead later, and the public has just forgotten this period of deception.
Carney then once again withholds factual information [2:00] and tries to play dumb with the intent to confuse, but Henry trusts his gut and persists. Carney replies and effectively says, “Ed, you are imagining things.” He then asks Ed, “Do you remember that?” Challenging people’s memories is a classic gaslighting technique.
Throughout the rest of the exchange, you can see Carney engaged in controlled duping delight [see “Lie Spotting and Duping Delight“] and basically just rambles to reinforce confusion.
In actuality, Benghazi is far worse than this gaslighting exchange would indicate. When Libya was put into the hands of the rebels, there was still a large stash of high-tech weapons on the ground. Many, if not most, of these weapons fell into rebel hands. The U.S. Deep State sensed a good business opportunity and started the process of purchasing these weapons for the purpose of shipping them off to jihadists and al-Qaeda in Syria. The transit point of this operation was the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. This was confirmed in a series of leaks since.
The smoking gun of the embassy attack was the Obama administration’s ludicrous claim that there was a spontaneous protest over a religious slight in an Internet video. This is the main component of the email that Carney is gaslighting. As a rule of thumb, demonstrations occur in daylight so as to capture press coverage. According to a Libyan-American witness, “There was no demonstration. They came with machine guns, with rockets.” But in a country like the U.S., with a severely gaslighted population, those who don’t see rocket attacks and firefights that last all night as demonstrations are dismissed as crazy conspiracy nuts.
The most plausible conspiracy practice here was that the Libyan rebels pulled a double cross, pulled their security and took these weapons back. The Deep State operatives either failed to respond or failed to recognize the double cross — either that or they were deliberately allowing their new al-Qaeda buddies to take the weapons back in an extra payment benefit deal. The Libyan jihadists then shipped the goods off to Syria and kept the money. I lean toward the second theory.
When the attack began, security at the embassy was ordered to stand down. The problem was that several of the Navy Seals on site went with their trained instincts and defended the ambassador. The ambassador himself was probably not tipped off as to the true nature of this sleazy Deep State operation and thought the situation was fight or die. Another possible theory is that the ambassador was soft or resistant about the true intent of this weapons transfer and thus dispatched.
The firefight ranged on for 12 hours and the defending Americans were left to die as the standdown extended to all military personal in the region that could have performed an interdiction and rescue. These are basically criminal Deep State operations that make little sense from a policy point of view unless seen in this light.
Recommended book: “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi” by Kenneth R. Timmerman