Slashdot notes that Hugh Pickens reports that:

“Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton write in the National Journal that seven in 10 Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, only 23 percent have confidence in banks, and just 19 percent have confidence in big business. Less than half the population expresses “a great deal” of confidence in the public-school system or organized religion. ‘We have lost our gods,’ says Laura Hansen. ‘We’ve lost it—that basic sense of trust and confidence—in everything.’

In my early naive days, I believed that things just went along, that there were no coincidences and that most people were basically benign because that’s how I personally found them. The notion that there might actually be people out there so crazed that they would combine in order to feather their nests, to protect themselves and to institute, globally, policies of enslavement, malnutrition and generally anti-human things was so far outside the conceptual limits of my brain that I’d laugh at them.

I voted Labour and thought we should all just be good to each other.

Those were also my military days and I wonder now that I could have been so compliant – in other words, I trusted the game plan and can’t recall ever questioning a superior officer’s competence. The very idea of even having a “superior” officer seemed the natural order of things.

Unfortunately, I began to read more heavily and more widely, as part of entering academia and didn’t stop at the approved reading lists, the result being that it gave me an entirely different perspective to earlier.

A couple of years back, a fellow academic said that he’d neither heard nor read any of the supposed “sources” I was quoting and by that, he meant they held no water. They couldn’t have been authoritative because he hadn’t come across them at university. He fancies himself as a historian.

And therein lie our basic divisions – not just with him but with so many that haven’t read the sorts of things those issuing warnings today have read. It’s not superior thinking power, it’s not greater ability to sense truth, it’s not any of that – it simply comes down to the reading of little known history or variations on the accepted history.

Let’s take two bloggers – one at OoL and one called Ana the Imp. The one at OoL does not believe in history, doesn’t believe that history can teach us all that much or prepare us for what we see repeated. The latter believes passionately in history and sees many patterns recurring today which uncannily occurred through the past.

For example, when I was exploring MK Ultra, certain names kept coming up – Gottlieb, Ewen Cameron and so on. The names would pop up in a Colin Ross lecture or in an article in the Melbourne Age where Selwyn Leeks was prosecuted and Cameron was mentioned and so the stock of substantiated knowledge built up, to the extent that I probably couldn’t lay my hands on most of those files these days – there are just too many of them. Most of that knowledge just lies dormant, as there’s nothing else to compare it to or apply it to.

But then everything from Ely Lilly to Walter Reed, to Omaha airforce base started coming up again and they were nasty connections. A lecture on the psychiatric old boy network named many of these same names, then I read about how Franklin was all a giant hysterical overreaction but two things seemed wrong there.

One was that I’d read the actual testimony of 80 children, all saying roughly the same thing but in different stories and the second – many of the people pushing False Memory Syndrome were dubious in their own right, were interconnected and were the same names which had already come up many times before. FMS said the children had all been brainwashed by the therapists into saying the same thing but the testimony was far from the same in detail. And if it had been the same, then there had to have been, in one therapist’s words, “some vast conspiracy of toddlers” or else the testimony was independent.

FMS then said it was parents brainwashing the kids and that there was a vast conspiracy of therapists. So they were arguing exactly the same thing as colin Ross with his old boy psychiatric network. I mean, they can’t have it both ways – either there are conspiracies … or there are not.

FMS responded that what they were saying showed no conspiracy but what the anti-FMS were saying was conspiracy. How can you deal with people who argue like that?

So great anomalies continued to exist until it all just went away.

Then along came Belgium and the parallels with Franklin were uncanny, from the tales of the children to the way they were publicly accused, on national media, of being delusional. That was only one small eye-opener. Into this had come Svali, in a 2000 Canadian radio interview and though she was on about different things, many of them were close to the ones I already knew about, things I’d never have known had I not spent so much time reading them.

The way she described what was done to people was exactly as described by GH Estabrooks and I’ve a copy of his report to the forerunner of the CIA on hypnotism, drugs and shock therapy. Precisely what Selwyn Leeks was convicted of 70 years later and Ewen Cameron was accused of half a century later.

So, what was happening here was that, far from the thing dying away from lack of corroboration, it was being added to piece by piece and the usual suspects kept coming up. So, when someone writes that he supposes I believe in the Franklin coverup and I ask yes, why not, in the light of what I know of it, this person hoots with laughter and speaks of tinfoil hats, as if he himself has studied all the available literature.

And I look at him doing this and wonder why he’s being that unprofessional in his approach to fact and fiction.

So then we get onto 911 and in amongst all the information and disinformation was something that couldn’t be passed over – NIST did lie on WTC7. People come in and say: “I suppose you also believe that …”

No I don’t. don’t bring other issues into it. I’m simply saying NIST lied because I saw a question put to their spokesman and he told a porky in reply, just as Blair did when questioned on whether he’d attended a Bilderberg Conference.

You’re a human being, I am too and one thing we know is when someone’s lying to us – you’d be the first to accept that and I’m saying it was so with NIST. Many others said that too but they’re not listened to because they’ve been swiftly labelled and mocked.


Why this fanatical defence of government on that point, WTC7, when these same people will concede Obama is also involved in lies and coverups, e.g. here. It truly puzzles me, this inconsistency.

OK, I went to a meeting during the lead up to the last general election and the fellow, a former councillor, spoke of exactly how he’d been shut out of meetings, not informed, kept off the podium and I looked at him and he wasn’t the whiny type. He was just quietly angry.

At about that time, Graham Roberts was sending me documents from Julia Middleton in which the spider’s web of Common Purpose was there for all to see, literally in black and white. This wasn’t blind assertion – it was documents and these are online at my blog.

Then I look around at some of the very people who’ve been trying to defend the government now talking about the climate scam. Hold on – do you believe there are scams after all, collusion, agendas? Or do you not?

Oh, I see – one is fashionable and all the literature is out there on blogs because people want to know about it but on the other issues, you’d have to actually do some rummaging about, some nifty googling and some reading.

Therefore it doesn’t exist.

Yet, despite this auto-denial and selectivity in which scams to believe in, some things are nevertheless forcing their way into public consciousness. When some of us started blogging about Common Purpose, I can quote you the mocking responses from three years ago and name those readers.

Now it’s almost mainstream in the sphere. It really puzzles me – so many will distrust the government on David Kelly but not on 7/7, despite Cressida Dick. Do you know which organization Cressida Dick graduated from?

And the net effect is that people are losing trust in their institutions. EU Referendum pointed out that around 10-12%, I think, voted for Boris/Ken, which made a hell of a lot who didn’t. So this is a shift in the political atmosphere over the past few years, even though the sheep did wildly run in the red direction for safety last week.

And there’s a point of view that it is all factored in. There is a point of view that the process is self-defeating. Investment banker Wolfie writes:

It looks to me like the grand plan is going just perfectly. As globalisation increases the western client state, the socialist imperium will simply expand until it runs out of wealthy and middle-class to feed on. Then we will have true equality in our poverty.

Moving on, we now have this ludicrous thing from Hollande about taxing the City. Doesn’t he know he can never tax the City? I’d like to ask him – just who does he think is sovereign in the City? Bet he doesn’t know. It’s the Crown. And who is the Crown? Why is there a Temple? From where does the name derive? When Philippe of France did the dirty on Jacques de Molay and chums and the narrative says that the Templar money just suddenly disappeared – oh yeah and where did it just suddenly disappear to?

You mean it was never factored in that such a contingency might arise through greedy potentates?

I mean, we’re talking gold and hard collateral here, not paper. It doesn’t just go up in smoke. It’s not difficult – truly it’s not. What financial giants arose after that time and where? Name the financial centres of the world today – why are they where they are? Who bankrolled them at the beginning? Where is the old money right now?

It only takes a rudimentary knowledge of history and half a brain and you don’t even have to imagine anything because these questions just now provide you with their own answers. It simply needs to be thought through.

Why would the Tavistock Institute have come into being? For what actual purpose? Have you read up on the principals of that organization? Which body is the heir to Tavistock in London today? What are their house rules? Why do they have those strange rules? Which training programme are they connected with, with the motto: “Leading beyond Authority?”

Who set up its forerunner – Demos? What are Marxists doing mixed in with supposed City conservatives?

So Hollande hasn’t a hope in hell, nor does the EU, in getting their greedy mitts on the wealth stashed away in the City. And if the EU does take over and we have another Philippe of France situation where City or Scottish bigwigs are burnt at the stake for debauchery, where would the City wealth disappear to? Scotland? Or New York? Zurich? Or Tibet?

Your humble correspondent was not always like this. He just read and crossreferenced, that was all. You could too if you had a mind to do it.

Which is the more likely scenario – that people will begin trusting again or that they’ll become even less trustful? And into that scene, is more data likely to surface or less? Will we go EUSSR or has the internet actually done for Them?

Many think we’re in a battle royal right now. Some of us think we’re in the Grand Battle of the Ages. Time will tell.


[H/T haiku]

2 comments for “Trust

  1. May 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    And now Cameron is taking the lead on the Agenda 21 bash at Rio.

    • May 11, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      It’s amazing – they’re doing these things in broad daylight and rely on most people not being interested and the interested, as in readers of blogs like this, to be saturated and fazed, to the point they can no longer bother. the bigger picture is closing its window and it’s the narrow stuff which will dominate, like smoking and drinking or this or that PC outrage.

      There was an article on China in 2006 which spoke of “strategic misdirection”. This is what seems to be happening. It’s soul-sapping.

Comments are closed.