... "The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is. He confuses it with feeling."

So said the great Thomas Sowell, when commenting on why cultural and political "debate" has devolved into such a vicious sewer of puerile insult-trading, rather than considered and rational discussion of the issues.

This is why "normies" dismissed those opposed to pandemic restrictions as "far-right white supremacist conspiracy theorists", rather than making an attempt to rationally absorb their views and logically respond to them (fancy calling opponents of the authoritarian policies of a Conservative government right-wing at all, let alone "far-right", whilst believing vehicles like The Guardian, which supported the government's extraordinary 'sex ban', represented the liberal position...).

It's also why people respond to those of us who critique supposed "heroes" (Trump, Musk, Bridgen, Tate, Kennedy) with irrational insults rather than thoughtful deconstructions. Since I began critiquing these people, I have had every insult under the sun sent my way (one fanboy of both Bridgen and Tate denounced the totality of my arguments against these people with the eloquent and incisive summation that I was "an utter c**k").

When I put together logical arguments, using evidence, extrapolation, and pattern recognition to draw likely conclusions, nobody is under any obligation to agree with my conclusions - and of course, as a fallible human being, I might be wrong - but in order to present a robust counter-argument, my critics need to get out of their feelings and into their minds - the precise opposite of the advice modern society usually gives ("don't be so stuck in your head! Get in touch with how you feel!") - and of course that is by design.

As Thomas Sowell so astutely observed in the opening of this article, many people cannot react thoughtfully rather than emotionally, since they simply don't understand the difference between their feelings and their thoughts. Feelings are much more powerful and much more compelling than thoughts are, and the overlords - who have diligently studied human psychology for many years - know this, and so this is what they expertly play on to manipulate and control you.

There was no pandemic of a deadly virus, as well we know, but what there was, was a pandemic of strong feelings, triggered, harnessed, and used by malevolently brilliant experts at manipulating the human mind (that is why there were so many behavioural psychologists involved in the government's pandemic response).

The government got millions of people to comply with utterly absurd and destructive, totally anti-human pandemic restrictions, not through appealing to people's thoughts, intellect and reason - but by manipulating their emotions (especially the emotions of guilt and fear).

*You're going to DIE HORRIBLY if you don't stay inside!

*Granny is going to DIE HORRIBLY if you visit her!

*The vulnerable and going to DIE HORRIBLY if you don't walk the right way down a supermarket aisle!

And so on and so forth. None of this had even the slightest soupcon of basis in reason (on the contrary), but what it was was powerfully emotive, because capturing people's emotions is how you disable their reason and therefore how you most effectively manipulate them.

For example, we all have that one friend who is in an awful, toxic relationship with some cad (or cad-ette) treating them appallingly, and we think, "God, this person is awful, why don't they just leave?"

And the reason always is that the toxic partner is manipulating them emotionally (including often using the emotion of fear). There's never a rational reason to stay in the relationship, but emotions tend to overpower reason. The social controllers certainly know this, and so this is why they relentlessly use emotion-centric tactics and so vigorously discourage us from putting our feelings to one side and thinking instead.

For instance, whenever one made a rational case in "the pandemic" that lockdown restrictions were destroying the economy, crippling many small businesses and innumerable livelihoods, the inevitable normie response was:

"Oh, so you care more about MONEY than SAVING GRANNY, do you?!"

All emotion, emotion, emotion. No reason or thought at all.

Equally, when I explain why fake "heroes" like Bridgen and co aren't really on our side and are actually destructive to our cause, I get:

"Oh, all you do is criticise EVERYONE, at least they're doing SOMETHING!"

(Or, you know, get called "an utter c**k", one of the two...)

It's because people are too stuck in their feelings (as they've been engineered to be) and can't put them aside to get into their heads, which is always where you need to be when analysing events on the world stage.

I'm not completely discounting emotions - obviously, they have their place. But that place is exclusively in your personal relationships with people you actually know (and even then, as per the example of the friend with the toxic partner, you still have to be careful to ensure they don't overwhelm you and lead you to make unwise decisions).

If you really want to gauge accurately what is going on on the world stage, however, you need to sideline your emotions (put them aside altogether if possible) and use your thoughts instead.

As soon as you are able to stop reacting emotionally to the news, the stories in the papers, the things talking heads say on screens, and instead take a step back and analyse these things critically - put them into context, read between the lines, look for patterns and background stories - you break the emotions-based stranglehold the social engineers have had on humanity for centuries, and you stop being a puppet on a string.

Let's take Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who is currently being thrust in our faces all over the mainstream media as the latest "alternative celebrity anti-hero".

He is getting all the same "boo hiss" coverage from the mainstream that Trump got in 2016, in order to build his profile and credentials as dissident champion hero who will save us all.

"The establishment are really threatened by him!" His starry-eyed fan club insist. "That's why they keep doing really detailed, headline, high-profile hit pieces on him, bringing his campaign to the attention of millions!"

Please think (not feel) about this. Do you really think the extremely experienced and well-resourced MSM is that stupid? Do you think exorbitantly well-paid MSM editors aren't familiar with the phrase, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"?

They know this. They're playing you. Again.

When someone is really a threat to the establishment, the establishment does everything possible to crush their influence and significance which means - not doing "hit pieces" on them (which are excellent publicity for anyone trying to promote themselves as "anti-establishment") - but by ignoring them.

Ignoring them includes de-platforming and de-monetising them, and banning or shadow-banning their social media accounts, all of which the establishment control.

In the digital age, it's extremely easy for the establishment to crush someone before they start to make any kind of real impact, by doing the above things. For instance, on my main Facebook profile, I have around 4,500 friends and over 9,000 followers, yet I typically get a small handful of likes/shares for posts. Profiles with significantly less of a following than me can get ten times or more the engagement I do, because they're not perennially shadow-banned and so their posts are permitted to reach most of their audience. Mine aren't. I've also been kicked off PayPal and Twitter (although I now moonlight there under a a different name...).

It's as easy as that for the overlords to stop someone rising to any significant visibility, and so, all the "alternative heroes" who have large social media followings, in the hundreds of thousands or more - followings they are actually allowed to reach - well, they've been allowed that reach for a reason (note that "anti-establishment hero" Andrew Tate has more Twitter followers than the UK Prime Minister).

People who read the above can react emotionally - "oh right, so anyone who gets an audience is controlled now! GOD! We can't trust anyone then??!!"

Or they can react with their thoughts. No, I am not saying "you can't trust anyone", as I have explained time and again. I am instead appealing to people to use their logic and reason (not their emotions) and deduce that, when the mainstream media gives relentless coverage to supposedly "anti-establishment" types, thereby raising their profile enormously, and inevitably sending far more supporters their way, these people are not really anti-establishment. They're actors, pretending to be anti-establishment for money and status.

To the subject of Mr. Kennedy: he has always emphasised time and again that he is "not anti-vaccine", and that he is in fact a vigorous advocate of vaccination. To quote the man himself from 2020:

"I have always made it clear that I am not “anti-vaccine”. I want safe vaccines, robust science and uncorrupted regulators... I have never made a statement that could be legitimately construed as “anti-vaccine”... I spent much of the past three decades fighting to get mercury out of fish, pesticides out of food, and to decarbonize our energy system. No one calls me “anti-fish” , “anti-food”, or “anti-energy”. Nor should Pharma be given credence when it attempts to dismiss me as “anti-vaccine” simply because I have challenged the use of toxic metals such as mercury and aluminum in vaccines."

So what will happen if Kennedy is elected President (which I think is very likely) is that he will simply "tweak" the vaccination schedule so that it is supposedly "safer" - it's all just typically limited hangout stuff designed to appease the opposition and distract from the actual truth (that there can never be any such thing as a "safe vaccine", and that no vaccines are or ever have been necessary to preserve or augment health).

According to Alison McDowell, Kennedy is: "a Rockefeller-funded impact investor with his hand in militarised emerging tech like ocean drones and personalised jabs. They sure do know how to push people's buttons, don't they? Can't blame him for the fact that so many want to believe, believe so hard that they choose to set aside all cognitive dissonance and cling to a narrative that a Kennedy has come again to "save" them. Alas, that doesn't make my analysis incorrect - only very uncomfortable for most health freedom people."

That encapsulates things very well, and the only thing I'd change is that it's not cognitive "dissonance" so much as cognitive "dissociation". People are abdicating from using the same cognitive abilities that enabled them to see through the lies of lockdown, and replacing them with emotional responses. That heroic "Bobby", who's so courageous and brave, is telling us everything we want to hear, so let's just take him at face value and invest all our hope and faith in him, because a presidential candidate would never lie and say literally anything to get votes and then betray us all once in office. Nope. Not our Bobby!

Come on, Every presidential candidate does this, as does every high-level politician. That is literally the job of a politician. To lie to the electorate to get votes and then do whatever their paymasters tell them to once in office. They all do this, and you can certainly be assured President Kennedy will too.

I came to that conclusion using my thoughts, studying patterns, analysing evidence and forming a conclusion. Not through my feelings (yes, I agree, Kennedy is charismatic and charming and appeals to one's emotions: that's why we ought to be ultra-wary of anything he says).

So this is the takeaway: whenever you're reacting to a news story, a world stage drama, a prominent person (or someone who criticises them...), ask yourself - am I reacting from my feelings or my thoughts? Because when it comes to the perennial pantomime on the world stage (e.g., anyyone and anything that gets a lot of mainstream media attention), reacting from your feelings is never the right response (that's what "they" want and that's where "they" get you). Always react with your thoughts instead - including and especially (and this is really key) when the prominent person in question is saying something you agree with. Please always remember why the "wolf in sheep's clothing" emblem has been so well established for such a long time.

Someone can't manipulate you effectively by telling you things you don't like or agree with. They can only manipulate you by telling you what you want to hear.

As I've said, feelings have their place, but when they replace critical thinking, evidence, and facts, we invite chaos and tyranny - just as we see with the transgender wars.

Being a woman, we are now told, is no longer a biological fact. It's a feeling.

Indeed, even being a cat is.

This is why we can never let feelings trump facts, and we must always keep our feelings - no matter how strong they are, and indeed, especially when they're strong - under control.

Do you know the difference between thinking and feeling? Are you sure? The overlords - who always play both sides of any issue and always provide fake heroes to placate us - are counting on the fact that none of us do.

Let's (just like we did in "the pandemic") prove them wrong.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.