I hope that all those who were denounced, like me, for calling out this totalitarianism and the bullshit narrative underpinning it, are feeling vindicated. I know I am.
Cheers, Morgoth, for that you've done and continue to do.
The people that denounced me probably still think they were right, you don’t need Jewish media to allow you to feel vindicated, just knowing your not an automaton and capable of thinking for yourself is more than enough.
There have been zero apologies from the doctors who refused to invite unvaccinated family over for the holidays for two years. If anything, they go off on the power rush. People don't realize how many people in this world are psychopaths.
Superb post. The essence of human nature has not changed from the times when one tribe was murdering another for food and water. I too loved ‘JFK’; I’m also reminded of another of Oliver Stone’s films - ‘Wall Street’. It’s most memorable scene is the speech given by the the corporate raider Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas in his best ever performance). Gekko extols the virtues of greed to meeting of shareholders in a company he is trying to take over (so that he can asset-strip and liquidate it for profit ultimately). He tells them that “Greed is good, greed is right, greed works..clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit”. Stone’s father had been a Wall Street trader all his working life; Stone has said in interviews that this gifted him some real insight into the machinations of money/power. Hancock is the patsy for far, far more powerful and Machiavellian figures driven by their own greed to bend the world to their will.
Thanks for sharing the link. As you said, Gekko's character is a corporate raider - the very class of people who asset stripped the West and sold it off to China.
As a recovering libertarian I'll say that only suggests there are limits to greed - or rather, personal greed must be balanced with national greed.
Asset-stripping implies the parts have a higher value than the whole, so if the liquidator makes money he has liberated the wealth of the nation from an unproductive enterprise (which was previously making things valued less, according to the price the nation was willing to pay, than what they consumed to produce it, above all, labour). The problem again is that what people pay for, whether local products or foreign inputs such as cheap foreign labour, must be limited by the state in the nation's interests, taking the burden of moral action upon itself to set a boundary on the market.
I genuinely think a mostly free market system of the sort depicted in that film is quite a decent one, as long as we have a firmly protectionist, martial, moral government, which isn't too dissimilar from 19th century Europe.
And the reason I am highly distrustful of a return to 19th century arrangements is because the share of the nation's wealth as enjoyed by ordinary working people was about a third of what it was under feudalism (!), people had virtually no rights or social protections and that situation is what gave rise to the Left / workers' movement in the first place. The life expectancy of a labourer in Manchester was 40 for god's sake.
The Western European countries from 1950 through to the late 80s were the most prosperous countries that have ever existed anywhere. That occurred due to strong states and strong workers' representation.
But it was the advent of the Welfare State in Britain that started the decline. The decline of our morals, education and healthcare began from that point on. Prior to that we were leaders in all three. Prior to 1948, the British had superb moral character at home and abroad, we were world leaders in the field of medicine and healthcare and our education system likewise. It was the take-over of the State that destroyed all this. We had world-leading manufacturing and heavy industry, we were self-sufficient in food and energy production until the government made it too costly for it to continue. See "The Welfare State We're In" by James Bartholomew.
No it wasn't. The welfare state (education, healthcare, pensions and social security) were what the British deserved after building the world's first industrial nation and the first global empire. Why should the rich live lives of ease with all their many errors and mistakes smoothed over? Millions of ordinary Britons were broken by unemployment, poverty pay and easily treatable diseases over the decades and centuries.
If we were "world leaders in medicine and healthcare" why did so many die for want of money? I'm talking about people in my family who worked every day of their lives. I'm talking about the lads whose health had been so wrecked by poverty that they were unfit to serve in the Boar war.
There were no problems with the welfare state until the contributory principle was broken. As Morgoth showed in his video "The Ballad of Terry Bell", the working class policed itself regarding the work ethic. It was shameful to claim when you could work. So who broke the contributory principle? The Tories in 1979. Because they KNEW how many people they were going to throw on the scrapheap in their determination to break the unions, to restore the rate of profitability and to fire up the spiv economy. THE TORIES created inter-generational welfare when they left entire swathes of the country to rot. Why are so many people in their 60s on Incapacity Benefit? Because the Tories used that to massage the unemployment figures in the 90s. Unemployment figures which never came down from 3 million after 1983.
What exactly do you think leaving millions of people to do nothing day in day out did for some of their morals? Libertarians can never answer what people are supposed to do when there simply isn't the economic activity to provide them with jobs. Because they don't care. Because they ENJOY the fact that people are put in this position. Because they can feel superior to them and as many Western men do in poor countries, can exploit them (the females especially).
In the same way libertarians can never address the fact that *their* ideology is the most elite-driven ideology ever. The original libertarianism came from the Left in the 19th century. The Right wing version appeared after the war when a tiny coterie of "classical liberals" decided that they wouldn't tolerate the gains made by working people after two world wars and a depression. Just as libertarians never have anything to say about the theft of the common land during the Enclosure movement nor anything to say about the compulsion of wage labour, so they can't even face the fact that their ideology was lifted from others. Nor the fact that their ideology is always quietly sidelined when things go wrong for the elites. Like when the banks collapse.
It's also absolute nonsense this narrative about "the state" ruining everything. The state is as competent as the people running it. States around the world have been instrumental in countless inventions and infrastructure projects. Very often it is public money which seeds new developments which are later profited from by private elements. That doesn't mean that the state can't be corrupt or incompetent (like private enterprise can be), it's just that the libertarian narrative is lies.
British industry declined because of greater international competition (you can't be the best forever), poor management and poor industrial relations. But if the free market had all the answers how do they explain the Depression and the fact that people starved in the 30s? How do they explain why the Left and the worker's movement emerged in the first place? They emerged precisely because the market very often exploited people.
Thatcherite thugs like Bartholomew have nothing to say to me. It's very easy to look at people who've consciously been left to rot for 30 years and then say it's all the fault of the system which stops them starving rather than looking at the people who CHOSE to put those people out work. But as a Thatcherite he wants to roll back ALL the gains for working people made after the war so he doesn't care. If he had any honesty and any logical consistency, he'd ask himself about the moral condition of people in places like South America where there is zero help when you have no job. Crime, theft and dishonesty is rampant.
100 percent. Arguably Gekko would be up to his neck in CBDC and Blackrock if he was manoeuvring today, I rewatched Wall Street during the lockdowns here, and was struck by how well it had stood the test of time.
One of the most crazy-making dynamics in clown world is the fashion in which the various organs of the technocracy will openly coordinate while shouting their plans for the transformational future from the rooftops, while simultaneously implanting in the heads of their hypnotized supporters the suggestion that any negative attention the technocracy receives is a right wing conspiracy theory. It is not the plan, or the actions clearly emanating from the plan, that is the crazy conspiracy theory - it is rather the suggestion that those formulating and implementing policy are motivated by anything other than unicorns, lollipops, and puppy smiles.
That is perhaps the key to why the tactic works so well. The NPC sees herself as the avatar of positive social change, filled with love for all humankind. Her motives are only ever pure and positive, and it follows that her thought leaders must be no less angelic. To even suggest that the motivation driving e.g. the UN Sustainability Goals or Agenda 2030 are anything but virtuous is to stab at the very heart of her self image as an enlightened change agent. She knows that she's one of the good people, and it follows that the people she takes her cues from must also be good people - so, those who suggest that maybe they aren't, or even merely imply that some of their policies might be just a little bit misguided, is clearly a right wing nut job animated by hatred.
Yes. She follows those who are even more convinced. They have been chosen to hold the light of God for the world. God's chosen vessel, doing his work, holding his light, what could possibly be wrong with that? The first and fatal misstep is to be self-annointed.
Great article. Hancock has been properly played. He is the inverse of Sergeant Howie in The Wicker Man. Whereas Howie's morality was tested to see if he was pure enough for the role that the islanders had in mind for him, Hancock being given the opportunity to enrich his local landlord with a PPE contract was a similar test to see how corruptible he was. Of course he couldn't resist, thinking that he and a few of his mates were going to make bank while heroically managing a public crisis. Perhaps he thought that the public might overlook him helping out a friend given his masterful handling of the pandemic.
He is far too stupid to have been aware that something a lot deeper and darker was going on. He is the perfect patsy, knowing full well that he is guilty of something but unable to point the finger at anyone above him because he was too dumb, greedy and arrogant to have worked out what was actually happening.
which raises the point that power is totally unaccountable in modern Britain. Various advisers, experts and other technocrats craft policy, civil servants implement policy, and politicians are just their to take the fall. Even then, the worst that will happen is that they'll have to resign a ministerial post. Democracy periodically cleanses itself through resignations and elections like a snake shedding its skin, but it's still the same snake.
I also feel that, from the perspective of power analysis a la de Jouvenel, it´s entirely implausible to effectively have "the experts", i.e. a bunch of middle management types, wrest control from national governments all over the world. Schmitt says that whoever decides on the state of exception is the sovereign. Well, the "pandemic" was a state of exception if I´ve ever seen one - are we really to believe that the "experts" or even the Hancock types are the global sovereign?
The original definitions were misinformation is simply untrue information and disinformation was part of an organized campaign to mislead. Disinformation was originally a KGB term. Now, it is simply applied to anything that contradicts the narrative put forth by the authorities.
I might add I recently saw a third term used by the narrative policing industry- "malformation". This is information that is true, but is harmful to the narrative (they don't phrase it that way, but that's what it boils down to). A good example would be publishing stories about people harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines. Everything you say can be completely true, but if it results in undesired outcomes like "vaccine hesitancy", then it is "malformation". I'm not sure if this will catch on in public, as it seems to really give the game away, but it is being used internally inside these organizations.
Stone's JFK and Nixon are absolute cinematic masterpieces of paranoia, power and intrigue. Would love to see you cover them for classic movies.
It's worth remember that JFK conspiracy theories are only acceptable in the mainstream as long as those theories stay on the kosher plantation. The pejorative term "conspiracy theory" was weaponized by the CIA, particularly in CIA Document 1035-960 to smear people digging into who was really behind the the JFK assassination.
"We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." — William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s first CIA Director (from Casey’s first staff meeting, 1981)
It is also worth noting "JFK" was produced by a company (Regency Enterprises) owned by billionaire Israeli spy Arnon Milchan.
Arnon Milchan publicly admitted in an interview that he was heavily involved in the operation to steal American uranium and smuggle it to Israel for their illegal nuclear weapons program. Funnily enough the the film does not mention JFK was trying shut down Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program. Coincidental omission, I'm sure. I'd like to see you and Endeavour try and discuss that angle on Youtube!
Two of the best articles on this subject are by Ron Unz where he covers in fascinating detail the vast lore and then hones in on the most likely tribal culprits at the end. Probably the best pieces in his superb American Pravda series, and his articles have an audio function so you can listen to them too.
Shame Ron Unz now has some of the worst takes on Covid, and it's a shame his wrong takes are being used by a few remaining guys on the DR to save face after laughing at people like us who did indeed say there was a deeper and far more nefarious agenda going on.
I remember a former Soviet spy once saying the life of a double agent is like wandering in a "wilderness of mirrors". So it is not surprising that some people peering into the deepest secrets behind the grandest conspiracy the deep state has ever pulled off (IE COVID), should get lost in that wilderness of mirrors and in some cases completely lose their mind. Like a tale from Lovecraft.
OT: Just got to your Small Boats rant in UO11.14 and I have a theory. ‘Small Boats’ is meant to subconsciously evoke Dunkirk evacuation. The Snow Goose.
Oh, and as for for Oliver Stone's JFK, I love it, too. I've lost track of the times I've watched it, down the years.
I have long thought that the sequence where Jim Garrison meets with 'X' by the Reflecting Pool in Washington, is one of the most gripping and electrifying in cinematic history. Likewise the spellbinding trial segment....which never ceases to grip me.
There is something deeply infantilising and chilling about a discourse that seeks to reject as a matter of principle the idea that people plot and scheme to benefit themselves. It is a historic reality. It is, unfortunately, simply part of the human condition.
It's fairly clear that part of the liberal worldview is the idea people can be perfected and a utopia is achievable; their refusal to acknowledge the terrible things that people can do is part of the cognitive dissonance they live with every day (which I think drives them literally insane). I've lost count of the number of times I hear a media "commentator," of some kind, default to the "evil Nazi" trope as the only answer they have to why really bad shit happens. Which is kind of odd in its own right since "evil" is essentially a supernatural idea and they of course are above believing in the supernatural.
Ironic is that the term “Conspiracy Theory” came into being from the very same intelligence agencies that conspired and succeeded to murder JFK. After the Warren Commission’s conclusive finding of “the magic bullet theory,” all records were to be sealed for 50 years. And miraculously nothing ever ‘leaked’ or those investigating the matter suddenly ‘died mysteriously.’ To date records that are released are heavily redacted. Hence Conspiracy Theory has now become synonymous with The Truth to those of us who question the motives and actions of the ‘elite’ while the NPC’s are still drowning in obedient ignorance.
On this side of the pond we have we have our own version of Matt Hancock: the sociopath Dr Fauci to fill this position of patsy .Like you observed Morgoth ( and a phrase I just can’t seem to shake) “power needs coordination” and I believe we will soon see one patsy from each of the Five I’s but absolutely nobody will be held to account!
I didn't get to this until today (Tuesday), so I'm a bit late to the game. The trouble with this all is that it's a war on pattern recognition, as Auron MacIntyre put it today. I've seen so many instances of this approach by the powerful, setting up a "heads I win, tails you lose" result. It's as if that's the power elite equivalent of "crossing the T," the goal for every admiral in the navy. Therefore, the "misinformation" campaigns must be simply the response to recognizing that information containment is near impossible in a digital age. The best they can do is create a false story, surround it with lots of jargon, and finally pin it on someone else to take the fall when it all comes out in the end.
I hope that all those who were denounced, like me, for calling out this totalitarianism and the bullshit narrative underpinning it, are feeling vindicated. I know I am.
Cheers, Morgoth, for that you've done and continue to do.
The people that denounced me probably still think they were right, you don’t need Jewish media to allow you to feel vindicated, just knowing your not an automaton and capable of thinking for yourself is more than enough.
There have been zero apologies from the doctors who refused to invite unvaccinated family over for the holidays for two years. If anything, they go off on the power rush. People don't realize how many people in this world are psychopaths.
I feel vindicated, but the damage is still done.
Superb post. The essence of human nature has not changed from the times when one tribe was murdering another for food and water. I too loved ‘JFK’; I’m also reminded of another of Oliver Stone’s films - ‘Wall Street’. It’s most memorable scene is the speech given by the the corporate raider Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas in his best ever performance). Gekko extols the virtues of greed to meeting of shareholders in a company he is trying to take over (so that he can asset-strip and liquidate it for profit ultimately). He tells them that “Greed is good, greed is right, greed works..clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit”. Stone’s father had been a Wall Street trader all his working life; Stone has said in interviews that this gifted him some real insight into the machinations of money/power. Hancock is the patsy for far, far more powerful and Machiavellian figures driven by their own greed to bend the world to their will.
Link to Gekko’s speech..I love this film https://youtu.be/PF_iorX_MAw
Thanks for sharing the link. As you said, Gekko's character is a corporate raider - the very class of people who asset stripped the West and sold it off to China.
As a recovering libertarian I'll say that only suggests there are limits to greed - or rather, personal greed must be balanced with national greed.
Asset-stripping implies the parts have a higher value than the whole, so if the liquidator makes money he has liberated the wealth of the nation from an unproductive enterprise (which was previously making things valued less, according to the price the nation was willing to pay, than what they consumed to produce it, above all, labour). The problem again is that what people pay for, whether local products or foreign inputs such as cheap foreign labour, must be limited by the state in the nation's interests, taking the burden of moral action upon itself to set a boundary on the market.
I genuinely think a mostly free market system of the sort depicted in that film is quite a decent one, as long as we have a firmly protectionist, martial, moral government, which isn't too dissimilar from 19th century Europe.
And the reason I am highly distrustful of a return to 19th century arrangements is because the share of the nation's wealth as enjoyed by ordinary working people was about a third of what it was under feudalism (!), people had virtually no rights or social protections and that situation is what gave rise to the Left / workers' movement in the first place. The life expectancy of a labourer in Manchester was 40 for god's sake.
The Western European countries from 1950 through to the late 80s were the most prosperous countries that have ever existed anywhere. That occurred due to strong states and strong workers' representation.
But it was the advent of the Welfare State in Britain that started the decline. The decline of our morals, education and healthcare began from that point on. Prior to that we were leaders in all three. Prior to 1948, the British had superb moral character at home and abroad, we were world leaders in the field of medicine and healthcare and our education system likewise. It was the take-over of the State that destroyed all this. We had world-leading manufacturing and heavy industry, we were self-sufficient in food and energy production until the government made it too costly for it to continue. See "The Welfare State We're In" by James Bartholomew.
No it wasn't. The welfare state (education, healthcare, pensions and social security) were what the British deserved after building the world's first industrial nation and the first global empire. Why should the rich live lives of ease with all their many errors and mistakes smoothed over? Millions of ordinary Britons were broken by unemployment, poverty pay and easily treatable diseases over the decades and centuries.
If we were "world leaders in medicine and healthcare" why did so many die for want of money? I'm talking about people in my family who worked every day of their lives. I'm talking about the lads whose health had been so wrecked by poverty that they were unfit to serve in the Boar war.
There were no problems with the welfare state until the contributory principle was broken. As Morgoth showed in his video "The Ballad of Terry Bell", the working class policed itself regarding the work ethic. It was shameful to claim when you could work. So who broke the contributory principle? The Tories in 1979. Because they KNEW how many people they were going to throw on the scrapheap in their determination to break the unions, to restore the rate of profitability and to fire up the spiv economy. THE TORIES created inter-generational welfare when they left entire swathes of the country to rot. Why are so many people in their 60s on Incapacity Benefit? Because the Tories used that to massage the unemployment figures in the 90s. Unemployment figures which never came down from 3 million after 1983.
What exactly do you think leaving millions of people to do nothing day in day out did for some of their morals? Libertarians can never answer what people are supposed to do when there simply isn't the economic activity to provide them with jobs. Because they don't care. Because they ENJOY the fact that people are put in this position. Because they can feel superior to them and as many Western men do in poor countries, can exploit them (the females especially).
In the same way libertarians can never address the fact that *their* ideology is the most elite-driven ideology ever. The original libertarianism came from the Left in the 19th century. The Right wing version appeared after the war when a tiny coterie of "classical liberals" decided that they wouldn't tolerate the gains made by working people after two world wars and a depression. Just as libertarians never have anything to say about the theft of the common land during the Enclosure movement nor anything to say about the compulsion of wage labour, so they can't even face the fact that their ideology was lifted from others. Nor the fact that their ideology is always quietly sidelined when things go wrong for the elites. Like when the banks collapse.
It's also absolute nonsense this narrative about "the state" ruining everything. The state is as competent as the people running it. States around the world have been instrumental in countless inventions and infrastructure projects. Very often it is public money which seeds new developments which are later profited from by private elements. That doesn't mean that the state can't be corrupt or incompetent (like private enterprise can be), it's just that the libertarian narrative is lies.
British industry declined because of greater international competition (you can't be the best forever), poor management and poor industrial relations. But if the free market had all the answers how do they explain the Depression and the fact that people starved in the 30s? How do they explain why the Left and the worker's movement emerged in the first place? They emerged precisely because the market very often exploited people.
Thatcherite thugs like Bartholomew have nothing to say to me. It's very easy to look at people who've consciously been left to rot for 30 years and then say it's all the fault of the system which stops them starving rather than looking at the people who CHOSE to put those people out work. But as a Thatcherite he wants to roll back ALL the gains for working people made after the war so he doesn't care. If he had any honesty and any logical consistency, he'd ask himself about the moral condition of people in places like South America where there is zero help when you have no job. Crime, theft and dishonesty is rampant.
100 percent. Arguably Gekko would be up to his neck in CBDC and Blackrock if he was manoeuvring today, I rewatched Wall Street during the lockdowns here, and was struck by how well it had stood the test of time.
One of the most crazy-making dynamics in clown world is the fashion in which the various organs of the technocracy will openly coordinate while shouting their plans for the transformational future from the rooftops, while simultaneously implanting in the heads of their hypnotized supporters the suggestion that any negative attention the technocracy receives is a right wing conspiracy theory. It is not the plan, or the actions clearly emanating from the plan, that is the crazy conspiracy theory - it is rather the suggestion that those formulating and implementing policy are motivated by anything other than unicorns, lollipops, and puppy smiles.
That is perhaps the key to why the tactic works so well. The NPC sees herself as the avatar of positive social change, filled with love for all humankind. Her motives are only ever pure and positive, and it follows that her thought leaders must be no less angelic. To even suggest that the motivation driving e.g. the UN Sustainability Goals or Agenda 2030 are anything but virtuous is to stab at the very heart of her self image as an enlightened change agent. She knows that she's one of the good people, and it follows that the people she takes her cues from must also be good people - so, those who suggest that maybe they aren't, or even merely imply that some of their policies might be just a little bit misguided, is clearly a right wing nut job animated by hatred.
Yes. She follows those who are even more convinced. They have been chosen to hold the light of God for the world. God's chosen vessel, doing his work, holding his light, what could possibly be wrong with that? The first and fatal misstep is to be self-annointed.
Great article. Hancock has been properly played. He is the inverse of Sergeant Howie in The Wicker Man. Whereas Howie's morality was tested to see if he was pure enough for the role that the islanders had in mind for him, Hancock being given the opportunity to enrich his local landlord with a PPE contract was a similar test to see how corruptible he was. Of course he couldn't resist, thinking that he and a few of his mates were going to make bank while heroically managing a public crisis. Perhaps he thought that the public might overlook him helping out a friend given his masterful handling of the pandemic.
He is far too stupid to have been aware that something a lot deeper and darker was going on. He is the perfect patsy, knowing full well that he is guilty of something but unable to point the finger at anyone above him because he was too dumb, greedy and arrogant to have worked out what was actually happening.
"Who but a fool would be king for a day?"
Great article Morgoth! Brought to mind this article
https://inflamermedia.com/2023/03/05/is-britain-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-modern-world/
which raises the point that power is totally unaccountable in modern Britain. Various advisers, experts and other technocrats craft policy, civil servants implement policy, and politicians are just their to take the fall. Even then, the worst that will happen is that they'll have to resign a ministerial post. Democracy periodically cleanses itself through resignations and elections like a snake shedding its skin, but it's still the same snake.
This looks good.
I also feel that, from the perspective of power analysis a la de Jouvenel, it´s entirely implausible to effectively have "the experts", i.e. a bunch of middle management types, wrest control from national governments all over the world. Schmitt says that whoever decides on the state of exception is the sovereign. Well, the "pandemic" was a state of exception if I´ve ever seen one - are we really to believe that the "experts" or even the Hancock types are the global sovereign?
The original definitions were misinformation is simply untrue information and disinformation was part of an organized campaign to mislead. Disinformation was originally a KGB term. Now, it is simply applied to anything that contradicts the narrative put forth by the authorities.
I might add I recently saw a third term used by the narrative policing industry- "malformation". This is information that is true, but is harmful to the narrative (they don't phrase it that way, but that's what it boils down to). A good example would be publishing stories about people harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines. Everything you say can be completely true, but if it results in undesired outcomes like "vaccine hesitancy", then it is "malformation". I'm not sure if this will catch on in public, as it seems to really give the game away, but it is being used internally inside these organizations.
Great article, as per usual.
Stone's JFK and Nixon are absolute cinematic masterpieces of paranoia, power and intrigue. Would love to see you cover them for classic movies.
It's worth remember that JFK conspiracy theories are only acceptable in the mainstream as long as those theories stay on the kosher plantation. The pejorative term "conspiracy theory" was weaponized by the CIA, particularly in CIA Document 1035-960 to smear people digging into who was really behind the the JFK assassination.
"We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." — William Casey, Ronald Reagan’s first CIA Director (from Casey’s first staff meeting, 1981)
https://www.globalresearch.ca/weaponizing-the-term-conspiracy-theory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia
It is also worth noting "JFK" was produced by a company (Regency Enterprises) owned by billionaire Israeli spy Arnon Milchan.
Arnon Milchan publicly admitted in an interview that he was heavily involved in the operation to steal American uranium and smuggle it to Israel for their illegal nuclear weapons program. Funnily enough the the film does not mention JFK was trying shut down Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program. Coincidental omission, I'm sure. I'd like to see you and Endeavour try and discuss that angle on Youtube!
Two of the best articles on this subject are by Ron Unz where he covers in fascinating detail the vast lore and then hones in on the most likely tribal culprits at the end. Probably the best pieces in his superb American Pravda series, and his articles have an audio function so you can listen to them too.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/
Shame Ron Unz now has some of the worst takes on Covid, and it's a shame his wrong takes are being used by a few remaining guys on the DR to save face after laughing at people like us who did indeed say there was a deeper and far more nefarious agenda going on.
I remember a former Soviet spy once saying the life of a double agent is like wandering in a "wilderness of mirrors". So it is not surprising that some people peering into the deepest secrets behind the grandest conspiracy the deep state has ever pulled off (IE COVID), should get lost in that wilderness of mirrors and in some cases completely lose their mind. Like a tale from Lovecraft.
Good one Morgoth.
OT: Just got to your Small Boats rant in UO11.14 and I have a theory. ‘Small Boats’ is meant to subconsciously evoke Dunkirk evacuation. The Snow Goose.
Wickedly cynical I know...
Just an idea.
Kept listening and AA actually mentioned the movie Dunkirk. So credit there.
Oh, and as for for Oliver Stone's JFK, I love it, too. I've lost track of the times I've watched it, down the years.
I have long thought that the sequence where Jim Garrison meets with 'X' by the Reflecting Pool in Washington, is one of the most gripping and electrifying in cinematic history. Likewise the spellbinding trial segment....which never ceases to grip me.
Might be one for classic movies
Definitely! I'd love to hear your and Endeavour's take on it.
Excellent analysis.
Cheers Wolly.
This is spot on:
There is something deeply infantilising and chilling about a discourse that seeks to reject as a matter of principle the idea that people plot and scheme to benefit themselves. It is a historic reality. It is, unfortunately, simply part of the human condition.
It's fairly clear that part of the liberal worldview is the idea people can be perfected and a utopia is achievable; their refusal to acknowledge the terrible things that people can do is part of the cognitive dissonance they live with every day (which I think drives them literally insane). I've lost count of the number of times I hear a media "commentator," of some kind, default to the "evil Nazi" trope as the only answer they have to why really bad shit happens. Which is kind of odd in its own right since "evil" is essentially a supernatural idea and they of course are above believing in the supernatural.
Ironic is that the term “Conspiracy Theory” came into being from the very same intelligence agencies that conspired and succeeded to murder JFK. After the Warren Commission’s conclusive finding of “the magic bullet theory,” all records were to be sealed for 50 years. And miraculously nothing ever ‘leaked’ or those investigating the matter suddenly ‘died mysteriously.’ To date records that are released are heavily redacted. Hence Conspiracy Theory has now become synonymous with The Truth to those of us who question the motives and actions of the ‘elite’ while the NPC’s are still drowning in obedient ignorance.
On this side of the pond we have we have our own version of Matt Hancock: the sociopath Dr Fauci to fill this position of patsy .Like you observed Morgoth ( and a phrase I just can’t seem to shake) “power needs coordination” and I believe we will soon see one patsy from each of the Five I’s but absolutely nobody will be held to account!
March
2023
I didn't get to this until today (Tuesday), so I'm a bit late to the game. The trouble with this all is that it's a war on pattern recognition, as Auron MacIntyre put it today. I've seen so many instances of this approach by the powerful, setting up a "heads I win, tails you lose" result. It's as if that's the power elite equivalent of "crossing the T," the goal for every admiral in the navy. Therefore, the "misinformation" campaigns must be simply the response to recognizing that information containment is near impossible in a digital age. The best they can do is create a false story, surround it with lots of jargon, and finally pin it on someone else to take the fall when it all comes out in the end.
Brilliant take as always.
Wanted to say the 'indigenous act' you mentioned with AA would be pure genius as a mechanism to quell the vile Blair equalities act.
I hear somebody is working on it, as a tester.
Guess that might be why corporate media has recently been spewing out that the UK has 'always been a land of immigrants'.
It's as if the cathedral is trying to head this kind of manoeuvre off at the pass by making the normies believe no one's indigenous in the UK.
On the question of misinformation and disinformation, one is done by our government and the other is done by foreign governments