30 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-08-27 1730 +cabadejo

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-08-27 1730 +cabadejo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W64m7rr0sK0&lc=z22myzojyv20vh3av04t1aokgqnbgdt03xzv4etpl5g1bk0h00410
https://pastebin.com/csxXfh4v
__

+cabadejo __ I'd say that should ants ever gain conscious awareness there are going to be billions and billions of tiny little conspiracy theorists as they hopelessly try to figure out what in crikey's good name has been going on around them.


__________
2017-08-27 2035

+cabadejo __ It is my understanding that "dinosaurs" as described and presented to us could not be expected to survive today because of their immense size and nutritional requirements (i.e., the reasons you have pointed out) but were only able to do so in the distant past due to a more congenial atmosphere, climate and vegetation. At least - that's my understanding of how the *story tellers* deal with that particular objection.

As for "peak oil" - oil coming from dinosaurs ("fossil fuel") is apparently a recognised "myth" (or fib if you prefer). Much of the oil apparently comes from plants and bacteria which existed _prior_ the alleged appearance of dinosaurs. The idea of oil being the result of something limited (plants and animals) and thus resulting in a supply that's also limited and running out is scary to children and motivating to those who rely on oil. Perhaps there is a near unlimited supply, though. Two football teams compete over a single ball but where would the excitement be for the audience if each player were given their own ball to kick around?!

__

By the way - have you seen the hoo-ha surrounding the bruise that "Meg Zelly" (of "Team 10") claims she received from (tweaker?) "FaZe Banks"? *The presentation of that bruise claim neatly represents a "mini lie system".* Perhaps others are catching on to the lie system and using its methodology for personal gain?

The original claim by "Meg Zelly" 12m:58s):
watch?v=GDdjwCJAk9c?t=778

"Meg Zelly" "proving" that the bruise must be real by trying to wipe it off:
watch?v=icyMbYMKy4c

My Tweet on the matter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/901726077365526528

Notice how tens of thousands of "normal people" (potentially millions watching silently) are caught up in this "Jake Paul" drama and have unwittingly turned into mini "conspiracy theorists"? Notice how "normal people" are taking sides based on which side they trust? Notice how it could be the easiest thing in the world for "Meg Zelly" to prove that her alleged bruise is real _even if_ it wasn't caused by "FaZe Banks" the way she said?

We have a claim (whether true or false) that is being presented *in the same form that a lie would need to take.* For "vloggers" to be doing this - _that's significant!_

Notice that the absence of sufficient proof (resulting in "unjustified beliefs" from the audience) is a running theme as everyone getting swept up in the drama forms a planned dichotomy by choosing a side.

So far it seems the basic tactics of the lie system have been introduced to a social media platform. Again - that's significant. Everyone who has expressed an opinion on the bruise - especially by calling "Meg Zelly" a liar - is now the equivalent of a "conspiracy theorist" who doubts what's cleverly presented on the nightly news.

It's fascinating to watch. It won't be much longer until the "lie system concepts" I have been documenting and describing for more than two years go mainstream. It is inevitable and when it eventually happens things will get interesting!



__________
2017-08-28 0510

+cabadejo __ I am only now seeing your reply because on a whim I checked the "spam" folder and noticed YouTube had placed your reply into a special "held for review" folder due to having "bad words". The "bad words" were the URL. Going forwards be mindful that if you include links in any YouTube comment there's no guarantee anyone will see or know about it etc.

If the "9/11" buildings (in particular "Building 7") did not collapse because of fire or what allegedly hit them then what possibility remains? ))

Given the nature of the "9/11" buildings I am surprised it hasn't occurred to the population that upon construction they would have been built pre-rigged to come down. But who would want to work in a building that could be brought down with the press of a button?!



__________
2017-08-28 0720

+cabadejo __ The claim concerning "9/11" was that "Islamic terrorists" attacked some buildings with allegedly hijacked planes. Whatever happened to those buildings as a result of the alleged terrorist attacks *need not have been known in advance* by the alleged terrorists. That's the first thing.

Even if it could be proven that the buildings were rigged for (a neat) demolition when they were constructed it does not *prove* that the alleged terror attacks were an "inside job". "9/11" may have been an "inside job" but the curious way the buildings collapsed *is not* actual proof of an "inside job". "9/11" can still have been an external terrorist attack.

And that seems to be where everyone is stuck. Open-minded people reason: *"What we saw on 9/11 was impossible therefore it was not a terrorist attack - it was an inside job!"* But this is a variation on the fallacy of the conspiracy theorist. What we saw on "9/11" *can* be impossible *but yet also* a terrorist attack.

I don't know how many times I have written the following words over the past couple of years: *When "sufficient proof" is withheld or obscured a person's imagination _fills in the blanks_ and often does so in a way that conforms to his or her preexisting belief bias.* That's what's happening.

Objectively - all that a "rigged for demolition" building proves is that at least _some_ buildings are _rigged for demolition_ *when* they were constructed. *Perhaps that exposes a "big secret"?* Since "buildings rigged for demolition upon construction" *isn't* "public knowledge" it _would_ be a *"big secret"* if true. (While it should be something that occurs to every thoughtful person it wouldn't be taken seriously until "9/11".)

If you don't want the population to know about this "big secret" or to have people anxious about working in - _*or near!*_ - buildings that have been rigged for demolition you might introduce all kinds of nutty "conspiracy theories" to *deflect* from that unpleasant reality. Conspiracy theories that range from "energy weapons" to "holographic planes hiding missiles" to "an entirely made for television production where nobody died or got hurt" would do the trick.

The misdirecting conspiracy theory possibilities are endless - just so long as _none_ of them *centre on having buildings rigged for demolition upon construction.* This is all easily done - _has been done_ - and continues to be done. All the while it keeps open-minded people who have lost trust in the lie system focused on the wrong things. _Just another day for the lie system._

Be suspicious of anyone who cannot accept the possibility that the buildings were rigged for demolition on construction and instead insists upon some nutty "conspiracy theory". Either that person has been misled (and in turn is misleading others) or they are actively trying to misdirect you. Those who "debunk" the nutty "conspiracy theories" are not much better if they cannot _also_ acknowledge the possibility for buildings rigged for demolition on construction. The "debunkers" merely represent the other side of the same worthless coin.

Perhaps "9/11" was an "inside job" but any impossibilities that unravelled during the aftermath are _not_ "sufficient proof" for that particular claim. It may be the case it was an "inside job" but _*something else*_ is still needed to *justify* a belief in _that_ claim. (Remembering that *"justified beliefs"* and *"unjustified beliefs"* are specialised terms that have special and specific meaning in Lesta's lie system nomenclature and have nothing to do with "righteousness"!)



__________
2017-08-28 0855

+cabadejo __ Did you read my reply above or were you summarising it?!



__________
2017-08-29 0805

+cabadejo __ I have been doing a lot more writing over the past couple of weeks which is why I have been quieter than usual in terms of YouTube presentations and g+ posts. Some of that writing covers the "concerns" Mr Hill is given to expressing - though even if I were to somehow allay them (unlikely) I am sure that like a hypochondriac he'd invent new and terrifying concerns.

In a comment above I warned against those who propose nutty conspiracy theories about "9/11" (e.g., "energy weapons" and "holograms") *but at the same time rule out demolition.*

Between two *unprovable* and *potentially incorrect* conspiracy theories: "energy weapons with holograms" versus "demolition" - one is _far more fanciful_ than the other. For someone to *rule out* a more plausible possibility in favour of a vastly more unlikely one (especially when it plays to an open-minded person's paranoia) should be considered very suspicious.

Here's an example of what I mean. Watch between 8m:26s and 10m:21s and enjoy these two gentlemen accusing others (who focus on the idea of "demolition") of the things that they are quite likely guilty of themselves: watch?v=U_tyinuf93E?t=507

(The idea of the buildings being rigged for demolition *just prior to "9/11"* is surely a sly misdirection. Do you know of anyone proposing that the buildings were rigged for demolition *at the time of construction*?)



__________
2017-08-29 1150

+cabadejo __ From the *outset* I have referred to the "lie system" as a *technique* or strategy _because that's what it is!_ After all - it's the lie *system* _and not_ the "illuminati" or the "Freemasons" or the evil "Jews" as so many time-wasters insist.

Paranoid people like to complain about the "New World Order" manipulating the world but they don't spend any time discussing *how* this "manipulation" is achieved. Not really. "Problem Reaction Solution" (ordo ab chao) seems to be as deep as it gets for these people but "PRS" is a *flawed* "model" because the same *pattern* can be anticipated in an intelligent society.

A brief neutral example: If a kid gets run down near a school an intelligent response from society would be to reduce the speed limit outside of every school. Just because other countries adopt a similar policy _before experiencing a similar tragedy_ does not mean the catalysing event was a "NWO" event. It could have been a hoax (nobody died or got hurt) or a "false flag" (where a kid deliberately got run over) to provoke the change but not necessarily.

Because the reaction is the same for an intelligent society a subjective assessment is required to claim it was the work of the "NWO". The paranoid and untrusting mind always favour "hoaxes" and "false flags". It takes little effort for the news media to report on a genuine event in such a way that it can be doubted by those who don't trust the news media.

It does not matter which race, group or *Entity* is "calling the shots" - we do not need to know that _and we in the audience cannot know that_ - because the lie system is a *"farming best practice".* Whoever or whatever uses the lie system as an unwavering tactic (with full awareness) can be thought of as a lie system farmer.

The only way to meaningfully subvert a known _or *unknown*_ race, group or *Entity* acting as a "lie system farmer" is to have _enough people_ genuinely understand the human "mind farming" technique. Only then is it rendered useless like an insect that becomes resistant to a pesticide.

When in 2017 you write things like, _"I was heartened to see *quite recently* you called the lie system a technique..."_ it unfortunately suggests you never paid enough attention. I agree that Mr Hill often means well but he too hasn't been paying enough attention. Only a _very_ disfigured handful ever have.

I can - of course - show screenshots of where I describe the lie system as a technique and strategy all the way back to 2015. In fact - I have just now read over one lengthy comment *I wrote to you* (!) on g+ about the lie system as a technique (November 13th, 2015).

So why weren't you heartened all the way back then?! I am aware that the ideas and concepts I write about are for the most part *passively* absorbed and only become "intuitive" later on (sometimes years later). *Certain points and phrasing only stand out later on _when the time is right._* I can't wait until some dummy starts to accuse Lesta of having plagiarised the "lie system" ideas, observations and concepts from them! ))

Remember - the assiduous practice of withholding "sufficient proof" is how *any intelligent person* can lie to a *trusting* person on a *reliably successful* basis. Although they are not "farmers" - there are many *"naturals"* on YouTube who may not realise that's how they're getting away with it. _The lie system has rubbed off on them._

I'll now take a squiz at the YouTube videos you mentioned. I wasn't aware of anyone with a platform (i.e., beyond people talking around the water cooler) seriously suggesting that the three buildings had been rigged for demolition *when they were constructed* - so that should be interesting.




__________
2017-08-29 1245

+cabadejo __ I watched the YouTube video you linked. If the buildings were rigged for demolition on construction then this is obviously a "big secret" that needs to be protected. One way to do that is to propose compelling but debunkable "demolition theories". I have no idea if that was the case with the video you linked to but I'd be mindful of that as a form of "damage control".

Also - though the video focused only on the idea that the buildings were rigged for demolition on construction - it's one thing to suggest _that_ but quite another to suggest that the *purpose* of the rigging was to have "9/11". The video seemed to suggest that the rigging was to destroy top secret information inside and that is as far as it needed to go (i.e., the video didn't then introduce something nutty).

You can have buildings already rigged for demolition *and* a terrorist attack. It may also be the case that only *one* of the buildings was rigged for demolition (e.g., "building 7") and so focusing on the other two buildings can serve to undermine a valid idea. Though I would say that if one building had been rigged for demolition on construction then all three would have been as well.

*Any video focusing on the buildings as "rigged for demolition on construction" should focus on Building 7. That's the building most "normal people" could suspect as having been demolished and if Building 7 _wasn't_ rigged for demolition - but yet collapsed - then that takes away from the same idea being applied to the other two towers.*

If you want a curious public to not suspect that _some_ of the buildings they work in or near are already rigged for demolition then you would tie that theory to "9/11" (so it is perceived as a "once off" and not the case with other buildings) and tie it to other absurd possibilities (just to further discredit the idea).

One objection I see in the comments is that the explosives could not be expected to work 30 years later. Another objection is that "too much planning would have been needed". Both of these objections are weak!

If the building had been constructed in a way that it could later be brought down then the method used would need to be effective up until the potential lifespan of the building.

The trick in all this is to separate the idea of "rigged for demolition on construction" from the "9/11" event itself and from any other nutty theory that features "controlled demolition". And also to eliminate demolition theories that exist _for the purpose of being debunked_ so as to turn a person away from that possibility (i.e., demolition theories that serve as low-hanging fruit for event realists).

Given that the "built to be demolished" idea is in circulation what do the people who talk about "energy weapons" and "holograms" have to say about it?! ))




__________
2017-08-30 0140

+cabadejo __ This will be one of those replies that would agitate Mr Hill because I don't address the specifics of what you mention but instead take a broader approach. With your expectations suitable lowered _here are some words:_

*The most effective way to convince someone of something is to have that person come up with the idea (or thought) you want to convince them of _for themselves._* (That is a natural consequence of using one's imagination to "fill in the blanks" when "sufficient proof" is withheld or obscured.)

Once a person has become "self-convinced" of something it becomes difficult - if not impossible - for that person to free themselves from that belief. For example, those who have (through ignorance) _convinced themselves_ that the Earth is flat are notoriously resilient when confronted with valid proofs that indicate curvature exists even though that curvature cannot be personally observed.

The lie system is a (trust) voodoo system and so stage magic, hypnosis, the placebo effect and so forth provide useful analogies to help others understand what's happening (though - those analogies become weakened and corrupted when dummies babble about "Aleister Crowley" and use the trendy term "magick").

Arranging for another person to come up with an idea you want them to _conceive for themselves_ can be considered a kind of "thought alchemy". "Though alchemy" is not unlike setting up the punchline to a joke - just in a careful way that it isn't suspected. Here are two relevant Tweets:
1) https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/808685945079771136
2) https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/808681606978248704

Being able to show the *truth* of something is the gold standard for when it comes to having another _convince themselves_ of something. That is to say - when a person has direct experience with the truth of something they become *firmly* self-convinced about it (even if publicly they continue to insist otherwise).

(The same thing happens when a person is _mistaken_ about the truth of something - I'll get to that in a moment.)

A person might be told scary tales that Bigfoot exists and shown sketchy photos but should a Sasquatch wander into that person's home looking for food and is physically wrestled, defeated then cooked and eaten that person they will now _*know*_ the legendary animal exists. By direct exposure to the truth the person has become _self-convinced_ about it (a direct connection to the truth has been established and is no longer secondhand like with the sketchy photos and scary tales).

Bigfoot represents a "thought" or an "idea" in this (hopefully) humorous and (probably) fictional example. Conceiving an idea _for yourself_ is like Bigfoot entering your house. When an idea rises up in your mind - _seemingly independently_ - rather than being directly and openly stated (whether written or spoken) it _feels like_ you have a direct connection to a "truth".

You thought of it! It occurred to you! No one *told* you! You don't _feel_ manipulated.

However - Bigfoot probably isn't real. When an idea or thought you want to form in the mind of another is not true _a lie system is needed_ because the lie system is what _enables_ another person to _mistake_ proof's appearances for actual proof. *Where truth is the gold standard - _"proof's appearances" is fool's gold._*

The population in a lie system is set up to believe potentially false things as true. (And more powerful and motivating than any truth is a fascinating lie that's believed to be true.) In a lie system it is possible for a person to become _self-convinced_ that Bigfoot is real just as it is possible for a person to become _self-convinced_ that the Earth is flat.

Once a person has _seemingly_ formed a belief _all on their own_ (feeling like a unique thought that has risen up from within) it becomes difficult for that person to shake off the belief _even if it is false._ The people around us are quite literally insane but because their psychosis is the prevailing belief (in their group or community) they perceive their shared delusion as "normal". In a democracy of insanity the most shared delusion becomes accepted as "reality"!

__

Now to the point of this reply! In the general population there are very few who do not trust what is presented to them on the nightly news. All of the nutty conspiracies we hear about (e.g., "energy weapons", "holograms", "augmented virtual reality contact lenses") is not so much about convincing open-minded people that these things are real _*but to convince "normal people" that there are many conspiracy theorists who do believe them!*_

It is more about convincing the vast numbers of "normal people" that there are (many) open-minded people who believe absurd and provably false things. That's what the hoo-ha about whacky conspiracy theories in the news media is about. All you have to do is question any prevailing belief (or delusion) held by "normal people" and you quickly become dismissed as a nutcase conspiracy theorist. _How convenient for the lie system!_

The many nutty and provably false conspiracy theories that get attention is what causes "normal people" to *conceive for themselves* the belief that "conspiracy theorists have lost touch with reality". By focusing on the most egregious of conspiracy theorists and their most nutty of claims the news media enable "normal people" to conceive and form the beliefs: "Those who believes in *any* conspiracy theory must be low IQ loners who live in a fantasy world" and "Oh no! There are many people who believe in conspiracy theories!"

(Anyone else with a platform can add to this effect. Because actions are typically the consequence of thoughts this becomes a way to limit speech [since "crazy actions are the result of crazy thoughts"] and helps to transition into a situation where only "licensed people" can have a platform that can reach "normal people" - but this reply isn't about that dynamic.)

You can tell everyone that someone is a "bad" person but it's infinitely more persuasive to have others figure it out for themselves without openly stating it (that can be resisted). If the other person isn't a "bad" person then the lie system techniques provide a reliable means to create in others a belief in something that's false (using "fool's gold").

If person X says Y and Y is true then claim Y can still be rejected if no one likes or trusts X. But if X does not directly state Y but instead engages in "thought alchemy" then everyone can end up believing Y _even if_ X is despised _and_ Y is a lie.

Finally - when a "normal person" forms the idea for themselves that "conspiracy theorists are nutcases and should be ignored" it inoculates them from good observations that exist and from valid "conspiracy theories" should they ever be brought up. After all - "normal people" are terrified of being dismissed as "nuts" by their delusional peers!



__________
2017-09-01 0005

+cabadejo __ I'll try to have a reply written in the next couple of hours. Right now I can see three replies from you (starting with "that's fine", "you can" and "I don't"). If any of those are not visible or there's another reply I don't know about let me know. There's nothing from you in "spam" or "held for review".

(This convo is now probably better suited to g+ so I'll write a reply to you as a g+ post and link to it on this thread so we can continue there.)

Just quickly - however reliable Mr Trump may have once been his record for being accurate and consistent with the things he says has become somewhat sullied since taking the presidency and calling everything "fake news".

However true and accurate his former statements on "9/11" may have been they can now be easily ignored by his detractors who think of him as a liar who says whatever is expedient. Perhaps - not unlike the "fake news" mantra - his "9/11" statements were calculated to gain the attention and support of "red pilled" people who have become very active online since "9/11" (helping them to think he's "not like the others").

I'll aim to reply to the above in the next couple of hours and if you don't object I'll do so on g+.



__________
2017-09-01 0950

+cabadejo __ I have not deleted anything and nothing is in the "spam" or "held for review" folders. In fact - after you included a URL I made sure you were added to the "always allow" list so that you wouldn't have problems with that again.

We are talking on two separate threads and so any missing replies might be on the other thread. As far as I can tell nothing on either thread is missing. Refresh this video on YouTube and look over the comments. If you can recall any wording from the replies you think are missing let me know what they are and I'll look for them.

I have yet to reply properly on this thread and when I do it'll be on g+ etc.



____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.