Rock-a-bye baby, on the tree top…

Now that some time has elapsed since the Norwegian shootings and the much overshadowed bomb explosion(s?) – also known in the mainstream media as ultra-right wing Christian terrorism linked to groups like the EDL (whether it is true or not) – do we remember all the incidental detail of the 22nd July and the following weekend?

In my mind I retain nuggets of information that, I was delighted to find, were also generated in real time by the Telegraph’s live reporting; this was indeed fortunate. In a world where so many people allow peer pressure to alter their remembrances to agree with a falsehood, some kind of open source semi-official record keeping of events is very useful for confronting the groupthink with.

The following are entries from the Telegraph’s live coverage on 22nd July:

17.39 AFP is reporting that Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister, had at one point been scheduled to attend the event on Utoya Island (the rally was for his Labour party), but he did not go for some reason.

19.06 Jane Owen, the British Ambassador to Norway, tells the BBC that the prime minister’s whereabouts are not being released, but he is safe.

19.26 Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian prime minister, has said he has called a crisis meeting of his government this evening after the bombings, that will be attended by “several ministers”. He will also be meeting the leaders of the main political parties on Saturday. His whereabouts are still unknown.

On the 24th, there was this:

10.20 Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in Norway’s twin attacks that killed at least 92 and wounded 97, says he acted alone, police said this morning, after some witness accounts said a second gunman had taken part in a mass shooting. But police are still trying to establish whether there was “one or several” shooters at Friday’s attack on a Labour Party youth meeting on Utoeya island, northwest of Oslo, police commissioner Sveinung Sponheim told journalists.

17.24 Jon Snow from Channel 4 News asks why police knew the killer’s name by the time they had arrived on the island.

“…he surrendered the moment police called his name 3 minutes after they arrived. What we don’t know is how the police knew the terrorist’s name before they arrested him.”

If you take this information, and you throw Breivik’s drug usage into the mixture, what the scenario starts to look like is a classic case of sending a prepared patsy into a killing zone as cover for another job; i.e. this evidence makes it look as though Breivik was a patsy in an assassination attempt on the Norwegian PM.

Of course, at this juncture I understand that there is bound to be a deal of chortling amongst the readership. But stay yourselves for a second; I do not conclude that there was a plot to kill Jens Stoltenberg. The possibility is slim according to my line of thinking. I merely chose a dramatic option (for my own purposes) – one of many options that this specific permutation of the evidence suggests. Other permutations suggest various other possibilities – even a straightforward one that Breivik was a nutcase working on his own.

The point I am trying to make is that according to the mainstream media, there is no other possibility than the one that it pushes – which is, at a rough approximation and as crude as it sounds, that certain “white” people are terrorists too.

Moving away from this specific case, in general, and in the realm of the discourse, there is no other information to be considered than the data that supports the official hypothesis that drives the official agenda. “Conspiracy theory” is the label that is swiftly applied when there is any attempt to debate information that has been deemed inconvenient for the official line. It should be clear to everyone that the use of the label “conspiracy theory” is for closing down debate as much as the term “racist” is. When the label “conspiracy theorist” is used, it triggers the snigger response in so-called intellectuals and sophisticates according to their conditioning. Similarly, the term “racist” acts like a minefield sign to the feeble minded.

That so many people, who apparently possess an intellect that should render them useful to the cause of freedom, can be manipulated like dogs anticipating dinner is not a healthy thing if the country is ever going to be liberated. Swallowing the official line unquestioningly is to demonstrate a slave mentality.

Conspiracy theory does not merit the blanket discrediting it receives. It is, after all, a seeking of a version of events that takes into account the reality of established patterns of human behaviour; the history books tell us about what should be expected of the powerful and political.  It matters not that we are supposed to be in an era of open government, plotting to acquire power is as secretive as ever it was at the highest levels; the compartmentalisation of the lower reaches ensures that the nefarious end is hidden from most participants (that most of them are morally corrupt by establishment design also helps). If we understand power-brokers and their role in our history, we should understand that there is commonly in existence a plot in secret that, as its secrecy denotes, is an abuse of their power, towards an end that is in their best interests, and against ours; in other words, criminal.

The discussion of journalistically witnessed or officially documented events, plans or polices that the establishment freezes out from the official account and refuses to acknowledge is the stuff upon which conspiracy theory suspends; what then, is wrong with conspiracy theory except that it is not mandated by officialdom? It lives or dies, like any scientific hypothesis, on real data. Who is it that gives the mainstream media its authority to reject one piece of information and retain another? The answer is: itself; it declares its own expertise and popularity, and in doing so it appeals to the vanity of its audience who, as individuals, rationalise (in their must-grovel-round-the-wireless mentality) that this is the place where I must invest my intellect, and receive self-validation through association with the output. These willing slaves in turn confer the significance back into the medium through their patronage.

At this point, the mainstream media can direct the willing slaves to exercise mental gymnastics and block out data that does not compute according to the official narrative.

As I wrote in these pages before, in the 20th century a plot was hatched to bring about Marxist revolution in Judeo-Christian countries where the people already had an interest in the hegemony, and the social classes had shared values. Political Correctness (PC) was conceived in the minds of power-lustful Marxist thinkers to create the social groundwork for revolution. The Gramsci/Lukacs evil bag of tricks was seized on by Progressives looking to implement the cultural element of the Marxist takeover of Britain (the collection around the state had already been embraced by a misguided population battered and altered by two world wars). Let me add now that the media is crucial in changing attitudes and controlling perception, and persuading submission of its consumers to the official Progressive agenda. Now, in the wake of the Norway massacre, we will see the State declaring counter-revolution (by which I mean actions or intentions to attempt to reverse the Marxist Statist Progressive Revolution) as terrorism. This, of course, to those unwilling to process and weigh certain evidence (such as the Andrew Neather admission of a plot to implement a flood gate immigration policy, or the Met Police’s “surprising injunction”) – to those asleep on the swaying bough – is an hilarious conspiracy theory.

If we don’t understand the reality, then we cannot fight it, and the good news is that there has been a break through; a tipping point has been reached. The power of the thought-controllers to stymie the acquisition, by the people, of evidence that is not officially permissible for consumption or deliberation is abating. In other places I do see indicators that lots of folks are looking to “conspiracy theory” to explain their reality, and because inherent in the practice is truth seeking, they must be finding the version of events that makes much better sense. With this, of course, comes an inversely proportional trust of the “authoritative” version; naturally, there would be contemplation as to why it should be the case that what sometimes seems blindingly obvious is so studiously avoided by the establishment media. The more the press is not trusted, the more their version of events will be rejected. Thus, with the turning of this vicious circle, what was until recently considered a terminal stitch-up will become unraveled.

7 comments for “Rock-a-bye baby, on the tree top…

  1. August 2, 2011 at 7:23 am

    I’d be wary of basing anything on the often confusing, speculative and frequently contradictory initial reports from this sort of event. I remember the rumour mill (no Twitter at the time, to magnify the effect!) going into overdrive on 7/7, and how little things said at the time by shocked survivors were subsequently seized on as ‘evidence’ of conspiracy and cover-up.

    • August 2, 2011 at 2:10 pm

      That is so and I’m not diminishing that. On the other hand, like all investigators, which we as bloggers basically are, we have to go where the evidence leads and if it leads where we don’t want, it takes courage to persevere, even to overcome nausea at the types of people we’re now agreeing with.

      For example, if Red Ed came out with something and it turned out to be correct but one of my friends was wrong, that would be a psychologically difficult one to take. Yet, in all honesty, we must do it.

      A good training for that is debating. We were once given a topic, “Women are better,” and we were the affirmative – three guys. I was 2nd speaker. That was a tough one but by the end, I believed it was so.

  2. August 2, 2011 at 9:03 am

    Interesting post. I think as many more people find themselves disagreeing with the ‘news’ version of events, they eventually stop mocking or ignoring and begin to look for answers elsewhere.

    What I find startling is how swathes of neo-Marxist theory has gone from foe to friend, and in large parts become the driver, of the msm in little over forty years. All by the simple act of infiltration and mutual reinforcement of their version of ‘reality’ until it finally becomes mainstream and infects the people. I sometimes despair at the comments on online newspapers where apparently intelligent people fall into line so quickly to condemn an ordinary member of the public who has committed some minor infringement of what’s considered to be the acceptable norm.

    Sorry, it’s a bit early for me to have my Gramsci thinking cap on but I think you’ll catch my drift 🙂

  3. Sackerson
    August 2, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Interesting that the PM didn’t go; like the people who got forewarned re Lockerbie but the info was only circulated among people who matter (

    It’s been quite some time since I started to view the news media with the kind of skepticism the Russians had for Pravda and Izvestiya. Maybe it’s all for the good, as we may eventually have the kind of thinking population you need for a democracy.

  4. tomsmith
    August 2, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Being open to the possibility of conspiracy or behind the scenes manipulation, and refusing to deny it if the evidence points in that direction, is not the same as being a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who always believes in conspiracy and behind the scenes manipulation in relation to every significant event, no matter what the evidence, or lack of it, suggests. Conspiracy theory is a tramlined way of thinking rather than belief in conspiracy in particular cases.

  5. August 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    It should be clear to everyone that the use of the label “conspiracy theory” is for closing down debate as much as the term “racist” is. When the label “conspiracy theorist” is used, it triggers the snigger response in so-called intellectuals and sophisticates according to their conditioning. Similarly, the term “racist” acts like a minefield sign to the feeble minded.

    Sigh. Yes, it’s also a substitute for having to explore or investigate. There are many who assume conspiracy on almost anything and then are those who would like to explore in some detail and then maybe see that it was a conspiracy. Or maybe not. As the case may be. I’d suggest there’s a big difference between the two.

    Then there are the auto-deniers whose first impulse is to say “I don’t do conspiracy theories.” Don’t do? Interesting mindset. Howabout “will investigate dubiously” or “will listen to what you have to say and put some questions to you”?

    I’m starting to believe it’s almost a club now and to get in this club, you have to subscribe to a blanket rule “I don’t do conspiracy theories.” It’s like a badge of honour to have a closed mind.

    Then there are those, of whom I count myself one, who will hear you out and do my own digging, on your sources and then on my own and then will come to a conclusion after that. This mindset is driven by evidence, wherever the evidence leads.

    It makes for a less reliable person but a more honest one.

    Tom, sorry, didn’t see it at first. Yes, you’re right.

  6. August 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    “Hidden agenda” is possibly often a less emotive and useful description. For exampe everyone I speak to considers “green energy” is hiding an agenda to increase taxes and create a whole new tax base, even if they would fight shy of believing the deeper conspiracy theories.

Comments are closed.