Toddler Hoaxes

[This page is in near-finished draft form]

hh-2-1-toddler-focus

Introduction

Toddler Hoaxes comprise Osama bin Laden and the Apollo Program. A step below Kiddy Hoaxes, but a step above Baby Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes share some similarities with both, and serve as a bridge between the two. Like Baby Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes are primarily media-driven. This was true at the time of their respective premiers, and has remained the case throughout their run. Like Kiddy Hoaxes, the Toddler Hoaxes are discrete, major events/stories; and they act as foundations to the greater Hoaxes on which they are built.

Conspicuously, the prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ who routinely cover the Baby Hoaxes generally pay little attention to the Toddler Hoaxes – some even deny the Toddler Hoaxes altogether. It may be argued that this is because exposure to (and a proper understanding of) the Toddler Hoaxes will naturally lead truth n00bs to investigation of the Kiddy Hoaxes. In this sense, the Toddler Hoaxes serve as a litmus test of would-be truth-tellers on YouTube: if a party seems wise to media fakery, but oblivious or indifferent to bin Laden and/or Apollo fakery, it can be inferred that said party is at best a poor researcher – or worse

The Toddler Two

Osama bin Laden. It is one thing to know that the official story of 9/11 is laughable nonsense. Every truth n00b knows that the ‘Arabs with boxcutters’ story is suspicious at best, and even many normies are willing to question the broader narrative of the events leading up to, on, and following that fateful day. It is another thing altogether to understand that the character known as ‘Osama bin Laden’ (ObL) is nothing but that: a character. The villain of a comically cartoonish fable. One whose alleged fate at the bottom of the ocean is no more preposterous than the rest of his life story as portrayed by the TPWRTS.

Prominent ‘alternative media’ types such as Alex Jones are known for proclaiming loudly that ‘9/11 was an inside job’. This implies that it was the government (or some other establishment outfit) who were responsible for the attacks, but it says nothing of the character of ObL. To accept that ObL was not responsible for 9/11 might be a decent start for the budding deprogrammer, but this barely scratches the surface of a far more important revelation which stems from the event: the bad guy was a fictional character. Understanding and appreciating this fact is an important step in beginning to understand media fakery. After all, if the bad guy was make believe, how much of the story was real?

It is not simply that the media report mistruths. It is not simply that they report lies. It is instead the case that the lies depend on the MSM and, moreover, the media’s primary function in large-scale hoaxes is to disseminate the lies to the masses. The ‘911 was an inside job’ mantra omits this simple but fundamental concept. It is not merely that ObL was not responsible for what happened on 9/11; what is far more profound is that he did not and does not exist outside of the media paradigm. This realisation may allow would-be deprogrammers to move on to the next important understanding: 9/11 No Planes. See ‘9/11 No Planes’ within Kiddy Hoaxes.

Apollo Program. The ‘moon landings’ of 1969-1972 set the stage for the entire NASA charade which was to follow and is still ongoing (with no end in sight). As with 9/11, peoples initial belief in the official narrative was entirely dependent on media dissemination of crucial images and sound. As with 9/11, the story involved at its core the idea of an ‘us vs them’, in the form of a ‘space race’ with arch nemesis (i.e. bad guys) USSR. As with 9/11, the ‘conspiracy theories’ began making the rounds immediately, almost as if they had been planned ahead. As with 9/11, the most widely-publicised (‘debunked’) of these theories were themselves spurious red herrings. And, as with 9/11 (ObL), the Apollo Missions serve as a bridge to understanding a much greater level of Hoaxery. See ‘NASA Fakery’ within Kiddy Hoaxes.

Unlike broader NASA Fakery, the Apollo Missions have been referenced and mocked (‘hidden in plain sight’) time and again via pop culture. As early as 1971 (before the Apollo Program had even concluded), the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever featured an amusing scene based on a moon landing movie set. Then in 1978 the film Capricorn One (starring O.J. Simpson) was released, and based entirely on the faked moon landings, via the barely-subtle analogy of a faked Mars landing. More recently, all of the following ‘sitcoms’ have included brief scenes which blatantly reveal the obvious truth: Family Guy, Friends, Futurama, King of the Hill (see 13:30).

The most important aspect of the Apollo Program hoax for would-be deprogrammers to understand is this: the masses believed it because they saw it on TV. no more, no less. Countless hours are wasted by truth n00bs in attempting to deconstruct the logistics or technical aspects involved in ‘sending a man to the moon’. Were the rockets powerful enough? Were the spacesuits sufficiently ventilated? Would the Lunar Module have been able to withstand both extreme heat and extreme cold? Could the camera used by the astronauts have produced the types of crystal-clear images brought back to earth? All red herrings. What matters is most is that masses believed the story because they saw it on TV and were told that it was real.

A Level Above Baby Hoaxes

Both Baby Hoaxes and Toddler Hoaxes are media-driven. There are, however, some significant differences which set them apart.

First, whereas Baby Hoaxes may be of small scale right through to large scale, whose power lay in their cumulative effect on the mind of the sleeple who consume and believe one after another after another ad infinitum, the Toddler Hoaxes were discrete, major events. Each is more momentous and symbolic than a run-of-the-mill marathon bombing or Sydney terrorism siege. Just a few years after the former, few people on the street today would recall the name ‘Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’, and almost nobody will remember in another ten years; contrast this with ‘Osama bin Laden’, whose name still evokes memories of the most evil man alive (since Hitler).

Second, although the Toddler Hoaxes are primarily media-driven, they still involve notable amounts of state-based indoctrination via the education system, at least inside the United States where they were produced. Even in Australia, the omission of 9/11 from the history curriculum is contentious and receives sporadic media attention.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Toddler Hoaxes necessarily imply a level of international complicity in the ruse. A single national government (or subgroup therein) may carry out a Baby Hoax, and do so (at least in theory) without alerting other national governments either intentionally or unintentionally. The Toddler Hoaxes, on the other hand, could only be accomplished if all of the governments/media of the world are in on it (which, of course, they are). Osama bin Laden was portrayed as the bad guy by the mainstream media (and government) of all western nations; the moon landings were disseminated and portrayed as legitimate by the media/gov of all western nations. Simultaneously. If government and media existed to serve the citizenry of their own nations, how could a single national government create a fictional boogeyman? How could a single nation fake putting a man on the moon? To repeat: Toddler Hoaxes are of a scale that necessarily implies international media/gov complicity.

A level Below Kiddy Hoaxes

There are several important ways in which Toddler Hoaxes are distinct from the Kiddy Hoaxes above them:

First, while they entail some degree of state-based indoctrination, this is not necessary for their ultimate effect. The sleeple believes in an evil Arab bad guy because they saw him interviewed on TV, and they believe man walked down a ladder onto the moon’s surface because they saw it on TV. Once the collective mind had been convinced of the truth of these stories, further ‘education’ about the events was/is required only to expose younger minds to the narrative. In the case of Kiddy Hoaxes, ‘education’ is a fundamental part of instilling widespread belief in the first place.

Second, the the Toddler Hoaxes were primarily disseminated via the ‘news’ programming. Again, the masses saw Osama bin Laden giving a scary interview with a news reporter, and they saw man walk on the moon via a live feed. The Kiddy Hoaxes, on the other hand, involve far more conditioning via other forms of audiovisual programming, chiefly via film (both ‘documentary’ and fiction).

Third, the government’s role in the narrative of the Toddler Hoaxes is important but not fundamental to the belief of the masses that the event was real. In both Toddler Hoaxes, the government is a central part of the story: they were outsmarted by the bad guy but then retaliated with full force; they won the space race and brought society into the ‘space age’; but the belief of the masses followed from exposure to sounds and images on a TV screen. Faith in government is not necessary for belief in the Hoax, and belief in the Hoax is not necessary for faith in the government. This is evidenced by the number of people who can see holes in the official narrative but then seek to justify these problems by appeals to the governments greater good, e.g. ‘the American government funded the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets’, or ‘they faked the moon landing footage to make sure Americans could ‘see’ the successful mission in case telecommunications failed’.

Finally, the scale of the Toddler Hoaxes is well beyond the typical Kiddy Hoax. Even if a man were to truly bomb a marathon, this would only be of genuine importance to his victims and their families. Even if a ‘terror organisation’ were to truly bomb an airport, the average citizen in that country or others would have no discernible solution, and their government no straightforward target. If, on the other hand, a ‘terrorist mastermind’ could outsmart the most powerful government on the planet and kill thousands of people in one strike, this would necessitate international cooperation to catch the bad guy; if a nation were to truly conquer the moon, this would signify a genuinely historical achievement for not only her people but the entire race – at least in the minds of the sleeple.

A Bridge Between Baby And Kiddy Hoaxes…

As they share important traits of the Hoaxes either side on the Hoax Hierarchy, Toddler Hoaxes serve budding deprogrammers as a convenient bridge between the two. The Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that the media can and does lie about tragedies, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that they lie about the greatest tragedies (and triumphs). The Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that the media is complicit in convincing the masses into belief, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that this is the media’s primary function. the Baby Hoaxes introduce the idea that governments may be part of a grand conspiracy, the Toddler Hoaxes reveal that all national governments are party to the same grand conspiracy.

…Which May Explain Why The YouTube Truthers Remain Quiet

It is one thing to claim that a lie has been told. It is another thing entirely to explain how the lie was successful, or why it was told, or who concocted the lie in the first place.

Take, for instance, Sandy Hook. One can focus on the what (e.g. laughing parents), the when (post-event press conference), and they where (Connecticut), without revealing anything of great importance to the audience. A YouTube ‘truther’ could make 1,000 videos on different aspects of the same event, without ever threatening to assist would-be deprogrammers to improve their broader understanding of the Lie System. Like an adult ‘teaching’ children by pointing to things and saying their names. ‘Look, that’s a train. Look, that’s a tree’. But how can the child use the train, and why should it care about trees?

Many will seek to defend the prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ by retorting ‘they are doing their best’, ‘at least they are exposing lies’, ‘they helped me get started so they are useful’, etc etc etc. To some degree, these defences are legitimate, in that they are based on elements of truth. What they fail to account for is the net effect of these ‘truthers’ on the audiences they command. Further analysis of this aspect of the Hoax Hierarchy will have to wait for another time but, suffice to say, the expression ‘a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing’ has merit. The truth n00b who consumes an overabundance of Baby Hoax ‘exposes’ may soon become a regular conspiritard who thinks he has uncovered some great truth which must be presented to the world. He may begin to think he has cracked the code, egoism will take hold, and genuine research/skepticism will dissipate (if indeed it had ever existed).

The prominent ‘truthers’ who fail to mention (or worse, deny) the Osama bin Laden and Apollo Program hoaxes are, at best, conspiritards, and at worst, deceivers. They may do what they do intentionally or unintentionally but, either way, they are agents of the Lie System. A proper understanding of the Toddler Hoaxes – not merely the basic facts surrounding the Toddler Two, but a genuine appreciation the fundamental importance of the Toddler Hoaxes as a bridge level on the Hierarchy – is your best weapon against these agents: psychologically, spiritually, and practically (i.e. when actively taking part in the truther scene).

If you have not merely read but studied and engaged with the words on this page, you can now consider yourself well-armed against the agents of the Lie System. The good news for you is that if you progress up the Hoax Hierarchy, you will seldom need to employ your new armament. The prominent YouTube ‘truthers’ avoid the Kiddy Hoaxes like fat people avoid salad. Progress at your own leisure.

 

 

Leave a Reply