Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
by Michael McCune
“ ’ . .”
For those who read to the end with their eyes and not their emotions, you too .
- - …
There is no need to invent conspiracies when the truth is sufficient. If our goal is real change, we don’t achieve it by exaggerating reality or turning it into something it isn’t.
This doesn’t mean conspiracies didn’t exist. They absolutely did, and still do. There have always been individuals who conspired around shared goals of greed, influence, and power. However, the technology required to globalize those efforts simply did not yet exist. Influence was still regional, institutional, and slow-moving.
Had today’s technological infrastructure existed then, it could be argued that figures like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would have represented the forefront of large-scale political manipulation long before Barack Obama ever entered the picture.
The rise of liberalism prior to Obama followed a largely natural course. It was the predictable result of expanding government power combined with decades of influence on impressionable minds within colleges and universities. At the time, most of us, older and more grounded, paid little attention to it, not out of neglect but because we simply did not recognize it as a threat.
Our minds weren’t wired that way. We didn’t view the world through the framework of a liberal ideology that had begun to abandon spirituality, personal responsibility, and moral grounding.
By the time the consequences became visible, the foundation had already been laid.
However, for most of us.
With , the change became overwhelmingly obvious. If you didn’t recognize it earlier — as I didn’t — you recognized it by Obama’s second term, and certainly once Donald Trump entered the scene.
.
The shift did not happen because Barack Obama possessed a greater desire for consolidated power than the Democrats who preceded him. In that sense, he was no different. Power had always been pursued. But prior to this moment, it was fragmented. Individual power centers operated independently, often competitively and inefficiently. True coordination beyond limited institutional boundaries simply wasn’t possible at scale.
The opportunity for real-time coordination did not yet exist.
— .
.
So let’s add a few critical markers to the timeline.
.
Just one year earlier, in , . .
For the first time in history, a president entered office during the birth of constant, pocket-sized, networked communication. Information could now be delivered instantly, emotionally, and continuously — not just through speeches or newspapers, but directly into people’s hands, 24 hours a day.
Combined with a media landscape already consolidated under powerful billionaire ownership, this created something no previous presidency had ever possessed: the ability to coordinate narrative, messaging, and perception at scale — relentlessly.
This wasn’t just communication anymore.
.
And once that environment existed, propaganda no longer needed to persuade occasionally.
.
That is the inflection point most people felt — even if they didn’t yet have the language to describe it.
Here is an interesting piece of information that’s rarely talked about.
In 2011, a neuroscience study was conducted by Ryota Kanai and researchers at University College London, . The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Biology and archived in the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
The researchers reported the following finding:
“ , .”
We could speculate endlessly about why such a study was conducted, but speculation isn’t the important part. .
What this research indicates is that liberal and conservative brains are not merely different in opinion, but may be wired to process the world differently at an emotional level. They respond to different triggers.
Liberals tend to be emotionally activated through .
Conservatives tend to be emotionally activated through .
.
To keep this simple, consider the border issue.
of millions of unvetted illegal immigrants entering the country — the strain on resources, the erosion of law, and the danger to public safety.
, , , because their emotional response is rooted in empathy for perceived suffering. The act of enforcement becomes a moral offense.
The key takeaway here isn’t who is right or wrong —
’ .
This helps explain the dramatic shift in how Democratic leadership began to communicate, and why much of the media transitioned from reporting news to - .
.
— , , , . , .
Once this emotional targeting became understood,
.
, , .
— with the right technology — when narrative coordination, emotional engagement, and mass communication could be centralized and sustained at a level never before possible.
, , , :
“… 2017 . . 50% , . ’ . ’ .”
By that point, .
.
What’s truly important here is .
Joe Biden made those remarks in 2015, . When he spoke about demographic change by 2017, it was based on that expectation. The plan assumed continuity. The floodgates would open on schedule.
Losing the election changed everything.
That loss forced a recalibration. It was a mistake they had no intention of making again.
:
, then open the borders immediately once Biden is elected.
This is where campaign strategy fundamentally changed.
Campaigns were no longer structural. On the Democratic side, they were no longer rooted in policy. They knew their policies would not be supported by the American people.
They knew open borders were unpopular.
So they understood they could not win on policy.
.
There are only two ways to win an election.
You either run on policies the American people support — or you destroy the character of your opponent so thoroughly that voters feel morally compromised supporting him.
.
On day one of Donald Trump’s presidency, the Russia hoax began. It was followed by a cascade of personal accusations. The Democratic Party and the media launched an all-out assault, fueled by fabricated narratives repeated endlessly through the technology Americans had fully embraced: the iPhone paired with social media.
No human beings in history had ever been prepared for such a nonstop barrage of emotional manipulation.
.
By this point, scientific research had already shown that liberals are more reactive to moral outrage. That insight became the foundation of coordinated messaging across media and Democratic leadership.
Technology didn’t just put propaganda in everyone’s pocket — - .
This is why you began seeing identical phrases repeated in unison. , “ .” , “ .” The repetition was intentional, informed by an understanding of how outrage and repetition affect the human mind.
What began as a dangerous ideology evolved into something more dangerous still.
We’ve seen where it leads: violence, death, attempted assassinations, and tools designed to mobilize people to break the law.
. .
That wasn’t accidental.
It was the outcome of , , , .
Now we can step back and see the full arc.
For roughly 125 years, liberalism was not a conspiracy. It was a natural rise shaped by historical forces. There was no mechanism to centralize power at scale.
But , , .
Barack Obama arrived at that convergence — and used it.
With modern technology, coordinated media, and psychological insight, voters became pawns in a larger chess game.
.
Through propaganda.
Through synchronization.
Through technology.
Through mass immigration designed to create dependency.
The results were both brilliant and deeply destructive, and, to put it bluntly, using people for such a purpose is pure evil. The end result is families and relationships torn apart, and a country at each other’s throats. There is no validation for that.
, . He only exposed it, which only caused Democrat leadership to turn up the heat.
Regardless of how people feel about Donald Trump’s words, those words , because Donald Trump became the single obstacle they could not overcome.
Trump entered without establishment backing and without loyalty to the system. His greatest weakness in his first term wasn’t intent — it was inexperience. He didn’t yet understand how entrenched the system truly was, how deep it went, or how far they would take propaganda and censorship.
No president before him could have imagined being censored. No president has ever had to deal with the far-reaching effects of modern technology through mainstream media, social media, etc.
, . Joe Biden became president. Unfortunately, even the media could not hide the true disaster that Joe Biden was. They couldn’t hide his incompetence. They couldn’t hide his obviously failing mental acuity.
, .
. ’ . ’ . ’ . ’ .
They escalated so aggressively that the strategy became visible. People who barely pay attention to the news couldn’t miss it.
That’s when independents could no longer unsee it.
Only the most hardened liberals remained captive to the narrative.
The rest of the country saw the pattern.
.
’ — ’. ’ , .
So they are left with one path.
— .
— .
— .
. , , ’ .
“ ’ . .”
For those who read to the end with their eyes and not their emotions, you too .
- - …
There is no need to invent conspiracies when the truth is sufficient. If our goal is real change, we don’t achieve it by exaggerating reality or turning it into something it isn’t.
This doesn’t mean conspiracies didn’t exist. They absolutely did, and still do. There have always been individuals who conspired around shared goals of greed, influence, and power. However, the technology required to globalize those efforts simply did not yet exist. Influence was still regional, institutional, and slow-moving.
Had today’s technological infrastructure existed then, it could be argued that figures like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would have represented the forefront of large-scale political manipulation long before Barack Obama ever entered the picture.
The rise of liberalism prior to Obama followed a largely natural course. It was the predictable result of expanding government power combined with decades of influence on impressionable minds within colleges and universities. At the time, most of us, older and more grounded, paid little attention to it, not out of neglect but because we simply did not recognize it as a threat.
Our minds weren’t wired that way. We didn’t view the world through the framework of a liberal ideology that had begun to abandon spirituality, personal responsibility, and moral grounding.
By the time the consequences became visible, the foundation had already been laid.
However, for most of us.
With , the change became overwhelmingly obvious. If you didn’t recognize it earlier — as I didn’t — you recognized it by Obama’s second term, and certainly once Donald Trump entered the scene.
.
The shift did not happen because Barack Obama possessed a greater desire for consolidated power than the Democrats who preceded him. In that sense, he was no different. Power had always been pursued. But prior to this moment, it was fragmented. Individual power centers operated independently, often competitively and inefficiently. True coordination beyond limited institutional boundaries simply wasn’t possible at scale.
The opportunity for real-time coordination did not yet exist.
— .
.
So let’s add a few critical markers to the timeline.
.
Just one year earlier, in , . .
For the first time in history, a president entered office during the birth of constant, pocket-sized, networked communication. Information could now be delivered instantly, emotionally, and continuously — not just through speeches or newspapers, but directly into people’s hands, 24 hours a day.
Combined with a media landscape already consolidated under powerful billionaire ownership, this created something no previous presidency had ever possessed: the ability to coordinate narrative, messaging, and perception at scale — relentlessly.
This wasn’t just communication anymore.
.
And once that environment existed, propaganda no longer needed to persuade occasionally.
.
That is the inflection point most people felt — even if they didn’t yet have the language to describe it.
Here is an interesting piece of information that’s rarely talked about.
In 2011, a neuroscience study was conducted by Ryota Kanai and researchers at University College London, . The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Biology and archived in the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
The researchers reported the following finding:
“ , .”
We could speculate endlessly about why such a study was conducted, but speculation isn’t the important part. .
What this research indicates is that liberal and conservative brains are not merely different in opinion, but may be wired to process the world differently at an emotional level. They respond to different triggers.
Liberals tend to be emotionally activated through .
Conservatives tend to be emotionally activated through .
.
To keep this simple, consider the border issue.
of millions of unvetted illegal immigrants entering the country — the strain on resources, the erosion of law, and the danger to public safety.
, , , because their emotional response is rooted in empathy for perceived suffering. The act of enforcement becomes a moral offense.
The key takeaway here isn’t who is right or wrong —
’ .
This helps explain the dramatic shift in how Democratic leadership began to communicate, and why much of the media transitioned from reporting news to - .
.
— , , , . , .
Once this emotional targeting became understood,
.
, , .
— with the right technology — when narrative coordination, emotional engagement, and mass communication could be centralized and sustained at a level never before possible.
, , , :
“… 2017 . . 50% , . ’ . ’ .”
By that point, .
.
What’s truly important here is .
Joe Biden made those remarks in 2015, . When he spoke about demographic change by 2017, it was based on that expectation. The plan assumed continuity. The floodgates would open on schedule.
Losing the election changed everything.
That loss forced a recalibration. It was a mistake they had no intention of making again.
:
, then open the borders immediately once Biden is elected.
This is where campaign strategy fundamentally changed.
Campaigns were no longer structural. On the Democratic side, they were no longer rooted in policy. They knew their policies would not be supported by the American people.
They knew open borders were unpopular.
So they understood they could not win on policy.
.
There are only two ways to win an election.
You either run on policies the American people support — or you destroy the character of your opponent so thoroughly that voters feel morally compromised supporting him.
.
On day one of Donald Trump’s presidency, the Russia hoax began. It was followed by a cascade of personal accusations. The Democratic Party and the media launched an all-out assault, fueled by fabricated narratives repeated endlessly through the technology Americans had fully embraced: the iPhone paired with social media.
No human beings in history had ever been prepared for such a nonstop barrage of emotional manipulation.
.
By this point, scientific research had already shown that liberals are more reactive to moral outrage. That insight became the foundation of coordinated messaging across media and Democratic leadership.
Technology didn’t just put propaganda in everyone’s pocket — - .
This is why you began seeing identical phrases repeated in unison. , “ .” , “ .” The repetition was intentional, informed by an understanding of how outrage and repetition affect the human mind.
What began as a dangerous ideology evolved into something more dangerous still.
We’ve seen where it leads: violence, death, attempted assassinations, and tools designed to mobilize people to break the law.
. .
That wasn’t accidental.
It was the outcome of , , , .
Now we can step back and see the full arc.
For roughly 125 years, liberalism was not a conspiracy. It was a natural rise shaped by historical forces. There was no mechanism to centralize power at scale.
But , , .
Barack Obama arrived at that convergence — and used it.
With modern technology, coordinated media, and psychological insight, voters became pawns in a larger chess game.
.
Through propaganda.
Through synchronization.
Through technology.
Through mass immigration designed to create dependency.
The results were both brilliant and deeply destructive, and, to put it bluntly, using people for such a purpose is pure evil. The end result is families and relationships torn apart, and a country at each other’s throats. There is no validation for that.
, . He only exposed it, which only caused Democrat leadership to turn up the heat.
Regardless of how people feel about Donald Trump’s words, those words , because Donald Trump became the single obstacle they could not overcome.
Trump entered without establishment backing and without loyalty to the system. His greatest weakness in his first term wasn’t intent — it was inexperience. He didn’t yet understand how entrenched the system truly was, how deep it went, or how far they would take propaganda and censorship.
No president before him could have imagined being censored. No president has ever had to deal with the far-reaching effects of modern technology through mainstream media, social media, etc.
, . Joe Biden became president. Unfortunately, even the media could not hide the true disaster that Joe Biden was. They couldn’t hide his incompetence. They couldn’t hide his obviously failing mental acuity.
, .
. ’ . ’ . ’ . ’ .
They escalated so aggressively that the strategy became visible. People who barely pay attention to the news couldn’t miss it.
That’s when independents could no longer unsee it.
Only the most hardened liberals remained captive to the narrative.
The rest of the country saw the pattern.
.
’ — ’. ’ , .
So they are left with one path.
— .
— .
— .
. , , ’ .