For quite some time, there’s been a post in draft on “false prophets”, “quislings”, trolls and shills, based on various incidents such as the Common Purpose attempt to infiltrate and lean on Leveson and many others.
Then something came through via email and let me explain that like you, many things come via email – Better off Out, Freedom Association, American thinktank releases etc. This one was sent in good faith by a friend under “yours I think”.
So I had a look and the first suspicion was the word World, with a capital. The writing style was swearblogger, in a DK sort of way, a rollicking s*** and f*** and c***ing thing about the p***ks at the top and so on. It was in that male bonding style so beloved of the blogosphere, a style I don’t do well and it says: “Hey, I’m just one of you guys and are we going to take any more of this?”
It pushed all the right buttons until it got to the actual proposal, which was that we beat Them to the gun by getting to own the new world order before them. So if we all banded together, presumably with him leading the charge, we could undermine all national boundaries, all the old issues which divided us and be one big happy family, presumably under him.
I’d suggest it would have fooled a lot of blogreaders, that one and no doubt the tone would be entirely different, though the message would remain the same, for the general populace. Never before has the adage about “you’ll know them by their fruits’ rung so true.
In a more stylized way, there was that Star Wars thing about the Emperor Palpatine standing up promising democracy, freedom and other buzzwords he was trotting out, whilst behind him, a slight distance back, stood his quite unsavoury looking henchmen. That’s how it was with Blair – so many were taken by his charm and rhetoric, cf Obama and few analyzed the hollowness of the sentences without verbs, the sentences without objects, e,g, “Yes we can!” “Change” and so on.
Almost no one analyzed the Temple of Pergamon stage with belching flames he gave his acceptance speech on.
I’ve read many things about Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Icke and various others meant to be the good guys and I’m not going to repeat those things here, except to say that I do believe one of them did get into Bohemian Grove, the descriptions and footage do seem real but my question is how?
It’s not a question which goes away.
There is HAARP and Woodpecker and the like which people I trust say is bunkum but I’ve seen material in detail on those projects, so what am I to think? The only conclusion I can come to is that taxpayer money was wasted on them, they did exist but wouldn’t work, like the Higgs guff where nothing was actually discovered at all.
If you take it to its logical conclusion, then apart from sweeping away the bible, you’d also have to sweep away the Official Dogma of the moment of the Big Bang, Natural Selection and other unsubstantiated theory. There is a fossil record and that’s all there is. All else is theory designed to produce a certain worldview.
Eventually one has to believe in something and say – well something went on in the past, did it not? Or are we in a Matrix where there truly is no reality? That’s why my view is that the historical record, whilst heavily biased, e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, does essentially touch on issues. I’m willing to accept that there was alchemy in the middle-ages and it was a continuation of the old mystery stuff of Egypt and before. There were probably Merovingians. Probably the Temple was destroyed in 70AD. probably there was a WW2 and a Battle of Britain.
In fact, I’d trust a history where the writer was actually biased and pushing a point, as the points he bases it on are obviously selected as being unassailable – it’s the joining of the dots, by him, for us, which is the problem. So if we can get verification on some of those objective points, they go onto the table and a picture slowly emerges. At WTC7, there was most certainly a holocaust of flame which melted things but there were also small explosions on videotrack and the collapse was stated immediately by engineers to be a controlled implosion. Those engineers were later nobbled.
All the expostulating rhetoric in the world, all the insults, all the political marginalization, mean diddly squat. What we have is those facts. Plus NIST caught in a lie on the issue. Plus the swift removal of the debris. So you can say all you like: “You know, there are still weird people who believe this and that,” as though that somehow negates evidence but it doesn’t. The evidence is still there, sitting on that table or cached.
There are quislings, shills, trolls. It’s only logical that there are. You can suss them out by their game, e.g. this World propaganda guy who tries to write in the swearblogger style and get everyone onside. There was an issue for me in 2007 where the guy tried precisely that – did the populist, we’re all reasonable guys together thing and it wasn’t till much later that it was seen that he really was off the planet and quite vicious with it. Time is a great force for getting the truth out.
There is the one I keep coming back to – the Maurice Strong eco-gaia climate change guff. All sounds fine until you get to the Shamballa life force stuff and then it gets distinctly weird. Not just that but when you trace who those people were working with, whom they were friends with, it reads like a Who’s Who. It’s quite unsettling that there are so many quislings in positions of major and minor power, at every crossroads as gatekeepers, in key places, e.g. council offices.
And it’s no accident because where else would they be placed – in some nonentity role? I mean one has to follow a bit of logic here. And are there shills at OoL and even in my own commenters? I’d say no doubt, in a minor sort of way. You have them too. Why they bother is not altogether clear but they do and it seems to give them something in life.
So where is this post going, apart from the dustbin? Well methinks we need to be far more critical of accepting sources, we have to be pleasant and polite but check them out all the same – and that takes time. We’re on pretty safe ground that if it’s either proposed by or backed by government and there’s a slick campaign attached to it, then it’s to be rejected as a matter of course. Anything come out of a politician’s mouth is to be seen first as a lie until there is some corroboration elsewhere.
Automatic acceptance of our shibboleths is another. The Frankfurt School was a case in point. Obviously venerated in some sort of godlike way by many, when it is exposed for what it is, it doesn’t go down well. You can take apart the bible but then do you also take apart the take-aparters? Have you checked them out and what their backgrounds are? For so long people accepted a Randi because autoscepticism was the fashion but there came a point when people said hang on – not everything is bunkum.
This post is a plea for a critical faculty in our brains which is willing to accept facts outside our milieu or cozy worldview and frankly, if we can’t do that, then how can we see through people whose whole modus operandi is to suss out, like advertisers, what you believe and feel comfortable with and plan their campaigns along those buzzword lines? And they have one thing going for them – if they present something which you feel you discovered yourself, if it uses the language you’re comfortable with, then they’re halfway in already.
Let me finish by pointing to Kim Philby. How did he get away with it for so long? Because he was “one of us”, he was an insider who drank the right drinks, smoked the right smokes, said the right things as those surrounding him did.