Friday [3]

3.  The curious case of the comment on Chris

Have just woken from a long sleep, crashed I did after posting the last post about Adam's posts.  Sorry 'bout that.  There were two comments waiting in the queue - DAD's and one by prm, which I post here within this post, in its entirety, nothing subtracted:

Ah, I wondered why you deleted my comment yesterday, thought it might be cos I mistakenly set it as anon. You're wrong, it was not a personal attack, I was raising a genuine q trying to understand the mentality of what Rotten Chestnuts calls CBOS — the Covidian-but-otherwise-sane. Buy hey, your gaff, your rules.

Let me reiterate - yes it was on the grounds of lack of moniker, as stated.  I also did not post one of Toodles's for exactly the same reason.  If the comment is under Anon or Unknown, then that's fine, as long as you open with a moniker of some kind so readers know which Anon it is, I'm not fussed what that moniker is, remembering that there are ladies present.  That's it. Simple.

Now the next bit about personal attack.  If prm wrote this comment yesterday:

Unknown/Anon: I find Snowdon fascinating, if sad, and can't quite fathom what's going on. We could go the gatekeeper/paid-opposition/shill route but it doesn't ring true. How can a man who understands data, statistics and the bullshitting of them by the pols, media, business when it comes to fat, or smoking etc suddenly become a simpering swallower of a narrative that does *exactly the same bullshit things that he notices in other regards*? Suddenly the man who critically looks into the data believes the pandemic, the testing, the deaths, the not-vaccine safety and on and on like an adolescent Greta. If he was older that might provide an answer as rw boomers (sorry) seem to have their nads removed when it comes to the possibility of dying. But he's not yet 50 so I don't see that as a factor. He uses the ad hominen language ('cranks') that Them use - and that he would ridicule - in other situations. He wrote a book called 'The Art of Suppression' ffs!

... then it's hardly a personal attack, as he says. So how could I be wrong in agreeing with him?  Never mind.  So let me state again - it's a good comment coming from him, well written, backed up by this morning's comment, end of.  That's it.  OK?

However, coming from me, a fellow blogger, it's not a good look because I'm not just a commenter, am I?  I'm a fellow blogger and we should not be restarting blogwars, there is a certain netiquette.  I did smile yesterday about him having called me "whack job" for believing in collusion in politics.

Now, the two reasons I'm running the topic of Chris S again is he gets a mention at Daily Sceptic this morning:

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/30/is-christopher-snowdon-an-anti-vaxxer/

... plus Ripper's comment yesterday makes more sense with prm's comment appearing again.

Let's move on to questions of music

To Sir Karl.  Music is used to establish mood in concerts, films, usually to create a sense of peacefulness, even grandeur, right?  But when it is meant to substitute for godliness, using the trappings of godliness as the Vatican receiving hall does, when it uses words like Diem to convey religiosity to the music, when in fact it serves the other side, then Christians are going to say enough.

A perfect example of that was Enigma which used the Gregorian chant, not in praise of God but the opposite - to mock God and praise that lot who were thrown to earth, then it's any of our jobs to step in and expose that.  And I did.  And Christians among the readers knew exactly that to which I was referring.  Many of the secular did not.

In the evening, I thought it churlish not to run it, so I ran it, meaning it to be a nice thing. However, one reader emailed me and said I'd been brutal. If I was being brutal, it was only to members of Them who do these things.  And no, I'm not losing the plot - there is a quite definite using of music to create mood and create it's own religiosity and readers know why I am so against pointy-hatted, robed pseudo-Christianity.

In fact, I wrote a post long ago on 12 atonal music and Alinsky - it was part of a Schiller Institute piece, naturally I can't find it now.  However, there is some reference to it here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/945001

That Schiller piece went into how the idea was to set people on edge, make them angry, frustrated, rebels without a cause, all through music.  Not even requiring provocative words.  And the word used to describe it was 'diabolical' so you're getting the idea.

As with every topic written on here since 2006, if there is collusion, if there is an agenda, then it's our job here to expose it, no matter how 'out there' and fantastical it sounds.  The only requirement is that there's corroboration somewhere.  The reason we ran with the Israeli Supreme Court symbolism and the all seeing eye was that others also latched onto it independently.  The reason I did not pursue Johnny Carson's handsign to Tuesday Weld on WML was that no one else could see it, so I left it.

That's how it works.  Sometimes though I'm alone in pursuing something for a long time - one of those was Alisha Owen and False Memory Syndrome - and naturally, I'm called names in the interim in a Snowdonian way, water off a duck's back ... until people finally latch onto it years later.  Naturally it's never attributed.

There are cases though where one has to be careful.  Not all of Yallop's thinking I run with, not all of Rense's - in fact I've seen cases against the latter as controlled opposition - jury's out.  Soetoro's birth certificate was a real doozy, when the real cover up was otherwise, another was Gary Webb. 

Sometimes it hardly matters any more, e.g. the Diana shenanigans. It's constant and one of the things along the way we have to take care of is security.