The first of two posts on the topic was written and posted in the middle of the night. On re-reading it this morning and in the light of a comment at my place which showed that the commenter very much understood the post, he suggested a “visual tree” or as I interpret that – a summary of key points.
OK, this is them:
1. Most people are manipulated by a sophisticated global agenda which is all-encompassing but the ability of a fisker to prise open each anomaly and get it to the public is no small task – it’s intended to be that way.
2. There are so many examples of this agenda at work that one only needs delve even a little bit to see it – if you have the political will, that is, and that’s the critical point – even to the presenting of people to the public as heroes who are actually furthering that agenda – they are protected, they’re like teflon – and are anything but heroes, e.g. Ted Heath.
3. This Agenda appears in many different forms, e.g. the UN’s Agenda 21, sustainable development, the climate scam and carbon footprint, in PCism and the reordering of history and reality in many people’s eyes [see the girl shouting into the officer’s face in the previous post on the topic] and is aimed at a person who buys the agenda without thinking, having better things to do with his or her time.
4. This agenda has a protective mechanism via the buzzword or trite phrase, it thrives on short “bites” you can fling at an opponent, e.g. “racist”, “homophobe”, “sexist”, whilst your own agenda is disguised as “fair”, “tolerant”, “diverse”.
It mocks the opponent first, rather than dismantles the whistleblower’s case puts or else zeroes in on one peripheral aspect and attacks that whilst three million other aspects go unattacked.
5. It is attacking the man or woman and especially, if part of the paedo revelations, attacking the child, not the argument. At the same time, it floods the field with spurious claims as well, on the basis of “debunk one spurious claim and all fall to the ground”.
6. Unfortunately, the people who see through the agenda and who attack it, whilst enjoying initial support, often become unpopular through personal, attackable traits, e.g. McCarthy. Even Enoch Powell suffered that by being a bit of a stickler, a less than effusive character.
7. The power of the argument against the agenda then wanes, not because it is any less true but because it is a fallible human being asking people to consider the case.
8. It requires ten thousand words to debunk four or five words falsely put to the public and the exponents of the agenda are well aware of the weariness factor in the reader or observer.
An example of this was Garrison of JFK infamy whose continued delving into and pushing the multi-gunman angle. Though sound, it became associated in the public mind with his own obsession and increasing stridency, his next claim seemingly more bizarre than the last, he was suspected in fact as a madman or one who had lost the plot.
9. Another way of looking at this is that the person who discovers something is more often than not an amateur, given to exploring underneath an issue and yet he’s up against professionals who have already factored “his type” in and have a way to blunt him through ad hominem, simple buzzwords and trite phrases which they themselves have defined to mean what they themselves want.
10. The whistleblower, therefore, has no chance. The very fact that he has discovered something in the first place means he or she is of a certain character, is a certain type of person, not always a populist, a person quite easily attacked.
Those of the global agenda therefore have a natural inbuilt protective mechanism in place, without having to address any argument at all.
A perfect example is those who pointed out anomalies on 911. One anomaly was the very fast removal of all rubble before it could be examined, combined with a NIST whitewash which was demonstrably false on various points.
Yet that became entirely lost by the rapid affixing of a buzzword, an epithet – Truther – through the usual media outlets. Thereafter, no anomaly would be taken seriously anymore because one need only apply the word Truther and there was the claim in the 911 dust.
The authorities had created a protective mechanism.
Yet another example was the Franklin scandal, concerning paedophilia by those in high places. The protective mechanism in that was the creation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, whose primary task was to label every accusation the result of “false memory”, backed by pseudo scientific bollox.
They did similar in the Belgian paedophilia scandal, trying to pin it on one patsy but when it looked likely to blow wide open, in came the agenda’s usual mechanism of character assassination.
Later, there were those who went into the background of every one of those major False Memory players in the Franklin case, and fisked them. By then, of course, the public had become weary – they always become weary, otherwise they don’t re-elect governments second time around, do they, plus the scene had been covered up by then.
An example of that covering up is removal of the freeway sign and the section of concrete pavement where one of the bullets had struck near witness Tague in Dealey Plaza. Therefore there was no longer any chance, if visiting Dealey Plaza, of aligning angles for yourself, relative to any fixture in the area.
The task is to beg people not to drink the Kool Aid on any new revelation but to explore and not just through your usual channels. Please explore. Read widely, read the views of those you would not ordinarily read and though you dismiss most of it and disagree, file away the small points here and there he/she does make that might have made some sense.
This approach was summed up, I thought nicely, a long time back at OoL, by a commenter called Steve W. Though he’s referring to me, it could just as well be applied to any writer of the awkward sort:
“How many people are actually still reading this post and for that matter, how many saw my name and immediately turned away?”
Superb levels of self awareness. Just to add, I generally find your posts on here to be amongst my least favourite and amongst those I agree with least, however, that shouldn’t stop one reading them.
Had I been amongst those who just ignore posts by those with whom I disagree I would be diminished by that wilful ignorance. Keep it up [and] like I said, even though I largely disagree, that in no way diminishes the value you get from writing or I get from reading your posts.