Alas, still not the collation some were hoping for but please give this post a chance, nonetheless, a post with absolutely no hyperlinks.
At what point does a fearless investigator become a weirdo?
Answer – when those he is investigating turn the tables on him with popular catch-cry mockery which, unfortunately, sticks in the common mind.
A case in point was in the 70s, when I was so young it's hard to credit and there was a certain urban warrior girl, elder sister of my best mate and she was right into the union of students, communism and so on.
In those early days we were in Australia and it was 1975, days of the November coup d'etat when Governor General Kerr assumed his royal prerogative and sacked an elected government. As it turned out, it was in line with the popular mood anyway because Malcolm Fraser subsequently won a landslide election.
However, I digress. This girl, Margaret by name, was right into it and the current war was between the Trots and the Stalinists for who was going to run Australia. I had a look at one of their pamphlets and it was a series of long diatribes employing all the catch-cries about imperialist dogs of war and the rest of it.
Repeatedly punctuated by the one hard fact that had actually come to light, they'd constructed an elaborate conspiracy, egged on by resident academics from the universities but their failing was that they'd consistently misread the average person who was basically apolitical and didn't want to be bullied and cajoled into joining “the cause”, much less spending hours in a street with a couple of hundred other chanting, placard waving militants.
Came the night following the midday of the coup and the streets were alive with a largely rudderless mass of angry people, not all young and I went along to have a look. There were some faces I recognized whom Margaret had brought to my friend's home once or twice and one of these now jumped up on a soapbox and started making a speech through a megaphone.
Then, shock, horror, he was pulled down from there and a different one got up and started haranguing the masses, a la Adolph and it soon became apparent that these people actually did believe a revolution was possible in Australia. We left early, the entertainment largely a fizzer, just as the recent 2007 pro-referendum rally was in London.
But I venture to say that there is a different kind of political animal, of which Unity is a fine example, who really does have his facts at the ready, though his interpretation is necessarily coloured by his leanings. DK describes him as having 'one of the finest analytical brains' and it's hard to argue with that.
I'd further venture to say that he has such wide appeal because he doesn't go outside the box and keeps a narrow political focus which goes no further. In other words, he argues within his facts.
Recently, I referred to the words of an 'escapee of the cabals' and included only the plausible part of what she'd said about our gallant leaders but I admit that that portion was only one small part of the whole. An astute reader noted that I'd 'only just scratched the surface' and it certainly looked that way to those who'd read the whole thing.
The thing is, there are some allegations which people are just not going to stomach. I don't mean I don't accept them as possible, certainly they're in line with what is already known but without hard proof, with only personal testimony, even seemingly bona fide testimony, it's hard to quote these things.
One of the easier ones to accept is Cheney's 'A Most Dangerous Game', as it is in line with his personality as observed by others. Cheney and mentor Rumsfeld are generalists, men of little talent but with a 'good ole boy' persuasive manner of speaking who get into positions of responsibility, then develop their ability after that.
"Cheney's manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities," says Chas Freeman, who served under Bush's father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision -- but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass."
"Dick always had this very calm way of talking," recalls his roommate at college, Jacob Plotkin, now a retired math professor at Michigan State University. "His thoughtful manner impressed people. He passed one psych course without attending class or studying, and he was proud of that. But there are some things you can't bluff, and Dick reached a point where you couldn't recover."
Rumsfeld's gung-ho final visit to the troops as their 'leader' was another case in point, at odds with the generals who came out and called him out for what he had – no military aptitude at all.
I know this type because, to a point, I am one. I write on anything and when I write a post on gold and silver, I'm using other people's expertise, such as Sackerson's and just collating it.
This sort of thing finds some support in T.D. Allman's The Curse of Dick Cheney, when he observes:
Appointed to another powerful position, Cheney promptly went about screwing it up. He pushed to turn many military duties over to private companies and began moving "defense intellectuals" with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon.
Most notable among them was Paul Wolfowitz, who later masterminded much of the disastrous strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq.
In 1992, as undersecretary of defense, Wolfowitz turned out a forty-page report titled "Defense Planning Guidance," arguing that historic allies should be demoted to the status of U.S. satellites, and that the modernization of India and China should be treated as a threat, as should the democratization of Russia.
"We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the report declared. It was nothing less than a blueprint for worldwide domination, and Cheney loved it.
He maneuvered to have the president adopt it as doctrine, but the elder Bush, recognizing that the proposals were not only foolish but dangerous, immediately rejected them.
So when abused women come out and make unbelievable allegations about what these and the whole bunch of them got up to, either they're fantasizing and creating an elaborately detailed story from somewhere, possibly based on existing elements of fact ... or else they're telling the truth.
Problem is, this 'truth' is so far-fetched – trauma conditioning, military bases such as Point Magoo or UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute in California, the CIA [always a good one as a villain], child prostitution rings, high governmental 'cocktail parties' where the cocaine flows and anything's on the menu – such things could only ever be accepted by those already unimpressed with these gallant leaders as human beings.
Slightly easier to accept in 2007 are the red, blue and yellow lists of wrong thinking people for either 'disappearing' or rounding up for 'retraining' through regional administrations at the point of the emergency powers being invoked [a la WW2].
I quote here, not from a political writer but from an allegedly abused woman who was privy to such talk in the late 60s:
What I understood was that they were planning a complete and utter economic collapse of the nations that would make the Depression of 1929 look like child's play and through that, bringing people financially to their knees, they would then come in and control them, and bring in whatever other measures they would want to in the guise of rescue - when it certainly wouldn't be that at all.
That's a little easier to accept for the general populace in the light of the financial uneasiness, Northern Rock and so on. Well, maybe it's still a year to early. However, you'd realize that if this quote had come to light in the boom times of the late 60s, before they turned sour, she would have been laughed out of town for saying it. Today the evidence is building.
I'm living in what was the SSSR, which until 1990 was well known [and nobody I know denies it] for the elimination of dissent, especially around the time of WW2. How do you think they actually went about that? The midnight car which came to collect you was known here as 'chornaya voron', black raven.
Brits and Yanks readily accept it could be so here. Why not in the west? Because everyone wishes to believe, wills it to be so, that the leaders are all for G-d, Queen or beloved President and country and couldn't possibly be Profumos, Lord Lucans, Lord Levys or Dick Cheneys.
Until now. Now it is slowly dawning on the good people in society that the writers writing all this, the Andrei Sakharovs, the Daniel Ellsbergs [who is a bit strange, admittedly] and some of the lesser known lights may not be so weird after all in their ideas and might just be investigators or victim/observers who blew the whistle on things which really, really were weird.
So people are starting to accept [and in Gordon Brown they have a fine example] that the leadership is less than pristine and not exactly looking out for the common folk.
The more forward thinking are starting to accept the internment camps of which Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are just the tip [you might like to investigate Nottinghamshire too] and a brave few are speculating that the common man is not immune from all this [look at the investigatory and detention powers in Britain alone – search for the RIP Act as a starter] and it is reasonably clear that the elected leadership is in fact putting measures in place to turn on the average citizens who won't shut up and stay out of matters which don't concern them.
This is an inversion and deception – an inversion of sovereignty and a deception through the MSM.
However, this is minor stuff compared to the real game plan which brings in the metaphysical. Why on earth do people pass over GHW Bush's references to 1000 points of light and his labelling of the gulf war on service certificates as his New World Order. I didn't invent this – he did. And the semi-religious tone of the language in a speech to the nation:
David С Whitney & Robin Vaughn Whitney, The American Presidents, 9th ed., Nelson Doubleday Inc, Guild America, NY, 2001, pp 433-459, wrote of GHW Bush at the Republican Convention, August, 1988:
He celebrated the nation's complexity with a captivating poetic image, calling it "a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky."
… but contrasted this appeal to the celestial elements with:
The campaign was criticized by many as being the most negative in recent memory with campaign commercials showing convicted murderers and sewer sludge.
His inaugural address included:
"A new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree."
Contrast this pure ancient mystery religion terminology with the peace and harmony he brought through laser-guided weaponry, televised for all the world to enjoy and marvel at.
Why do the European authorities, late at night, not raid the house in the photo above and publish the names of all those inside at the time? Where is a European Elliot Ness now?
Why does the characterization of the old money families in films such as Brotherhood of the Wolf, as distinct from its hotch-potch story, not ring bells in people's minds as to what they really do in the darkness?
The
first thesis in this post is that people cannot be presented with too much reality because the mind just closes up and turns savagely or mockingly on he who has presented the idea and that effectively kills debate.
The
second thesis is that the 'ten second grab' mentality of the average punter kills serious investigation. When I questioned why serious allegations about CP were not being taken up by the blogosphere, one answered that if we took two weeks in full time collation of every link, every scrap of data and worked it into a rational, plausible whole and presented it for his esteemed perusal, he might just deign to take a look at it.
That, with all due respect, is not what this thing is about. I've been lucky enough to have been fed fragments over the past few weeks [and before that I was going it alone] but it takes huge amounts of time to work all that into plausible arguments to lay before the unbelieving sceptic and I have, quite frankly, neither the time nor the inclination to convince he who will not see.
It's all there – one just has to get off the butt and do a bit of ferreting. That's why this post has no links, no spoon feeding. One has to go out and look at it oneself, just as I had to. That would be far more effective anyway.
If I present a fait accompli, then the only thing left for you to do is to give the thumbs up or down like an emperor. If you discover all this for yourself, on the other hand, then no one can gainsay you.
But you have neither the time not the inclination, in most cases. There are more important things like what Gordon or Hillary said today.
Time will win out in this situation. Even as I delay presenting the post on the tightening of the screws in British society, so many other bloggers are writing about it and so much more is coming out anyway, day by day, that my post will be largely surplus to requirements by the time it's collated and presented.
We only have to wait for 2009-12 for the macro-picture to be revealed. All the other things like corruption, wastage, internment camps and really weird things will be lost in the information blackout for national security reasons – and the blogosphere wil be one of the first casualties.
That's why we must do all this now and though people sigh and click out, it can only be hoped that some vestige of what went on in the blogosphere will remain with people during the troubles.
The most rudimentary investigation shows the overall direction of where Europe and the U.S. are headed. The justification is terrorism. Most intelligent people know there is a terrorist threat and an Islamic incursion into Europe but don't know what to do.
I don't either. People who have been rebuffed in referenda and are terrified to put it to the people still bring in the new laws in Lisbon, riding over public opinion. And they're certain they're going to get away with it.
Probably ordained by the ancient scribes, in their eyes.
Shan't give links but type phonetic dictionary in the site search for all entries. Here are ten of my favourites:
