What set off this late night train of thought were four things:
1. The events of the last four days in the UK which one might term the Chequers Betrayal;
2. A strange friendship which has sprung up in the past few weeks;
3. Noticing a video Youtube recommended on the Byzantine Empire;
4. Some reading from the past:
As a result of going back over all of that, it’s uncanny how the same themes keep recurring, in particular the theme of betrayal, something that N2 above has caused us to discuss.
Just a word about that – out of the blue or so it seemed, a person appeared from another land, thousands of miles away – different gender, different culture, different walk of life, hetero almost everything and yet we immediately dropped into the heaviest of discussions about the most fundamental topics and there’s an element of Christie’s Mysterious Mr Quin in this.
That series turns on some themes or ideas, one being that whenever this MMQ appears, he seems to be some sort of catalyst for things to be uncovered. In the case of those short stories, it’s an old murder finally being solved or another mystery.
Similarly, when this person appears from nowhere, sometimes in the middle of the night on my desktop ticker, some heavy things ensue and some incidents from my past and hers are played out when they never would have been, they’d been long forgotten.
And one of those themes is betrayal, another is the presence of evil. Now she already knows about this elite I’ve called Them from almost the first post in 2006 and knows of this force herself. If I openly speak of it now, so did JRM and others yesterday, quite openly, while others speak of the shadow government – again something I’ve been on about since day one of blogging way back when … though in those days, it attracted the usual tinfoil hat outflingings from the ignorati.
And I’ve also constantly put another theme over that time – the theme of incomplete knowledge.
Everyone and I mean everyone comes to a discussion not on the same playing field, not on the same page, not on the same plane because all have done different reading to the others. And yet how many times have I seen someone come in, suffused with his own absolute conviction of all-knowingness which only he can have, replying with something like, “No you’re quite wrong,” or words to that effect, “my only pet theory is the sole correct one.”
As you can gather, that gets short shrift from me because I have an entirely different approach. That approach is the dogmatic adversarial approach in which only his angle can stand and all else must either wholly agree or else it is wrong.
If we’re going to be discussing the forces at work in the world and you have not at least read through those two linked articles above, then I charge that we cannot even start to discuss this because you are missing vital pieces from the puzzle.
If you have read them, and then you bring in things from another angle – ah, now we’re getting somewhere, now we’re talking, now we’re having a genuine brainstorming session where various people bring in things from various angles and lay what they have on the table but they also consider and if necessary add what others say to their own perception of what the reality is. it’s called growth and it’s the single most difficult thing for anyone to do.
What I’m saying here is that your whole attitude to a discussion, before it even gets going, determines whether I stay or get up and go and yes, I am referring to some commenters we have had who are totally immersed in their own perceptions. To waltz in and open with, “No your wrong,” has me immediately stonewalling him, saying, “No, I am not wrong, you are the intolerant one and you have not done the reading I have. Goodbye.”
My approach when coming into a discussion is more, “OK, what do we have here?” I think you see where this is going and why I have zero time for dogmatists who will not even allow of what I can bring to the table.
There’s one more factor and that is other barriers to perception, something I’ve written of many times – people hamstring themselves with the most bizarre constraints on understanding, narrative-fed, and then wonder when they get nowhere.
An analogy here is maybe a person at the seaside who is trying to walk in the shallows from one pier to another but something is getting in the way, something is constraining him and he theorizes as to why this might be.
He devises a philosophy which states that at certain times of the day and with certain metabolisms, there is a slowing down effect, he later writes this up as a treatise and publishes it as the Smith Effect, named after himself, John Smith.
However, a little boy, observing, says to him – you’re trying to wade between the piers.
“Wade? What is this wade?”
“You’re trying to wade, trying to walk through water.”
“Water? What is this water you speak of?”
The little boy is nonplussed – how can he explain to this erudite man about water if the man will not admit its existence? And yet time and again that man must have encountered this substance water. And every time, he’s devised a new philosophy to explain it away.
And that is one of the prime barriers in this post today. The reality is crying out to be recognized, events point to it but no, it does not accord with the reader’s narrative formed over decades, therefore it is to be dismissed and no understanding takes place. Pity.
The opening discussion
The one addressed by that youtube vid was whether the Byzantine Empire could have survived at any point along the way, post first crusade. His conclusion was no and this was especially so at the time of the fourth crusade:
To understand the fourth crusade, who they actually were, what they believed, why the atrocities, why the sacking of Constantinople [it was no accident or ships off course in a storm, it was always intended to happen], you really need to know about Clovis and the Merovingians from the C5th, also about the Venetians during this time of the Crusades, also about Genoa and the papacy, also about the Knights Templar, also about Masonry and the Illuminati, about the double-cross, about the skull and cross-bones, about the Skull and Bones today, about the rise of usury and the church, about all of those things.
Many of those come up at the end of those two links but not all of them. See, you can understand all this at two levels – first you can say Man has always been base, greedy, has always ransacked for gold and wimmin and the fourth crusade was just this bunch of uncivilised yobs using the pretext of Innocent III. You can bring Barbarossa into it if you like and he does have his place but all of this ignores some realities from the year dot.
There was always a falling away, in Egypt between their gods, in Assyria, in Babylon with Nimrod and Semiramis, when Moses went up on the mountain and the people all fell for the golden calf, with the Nephilim – even the Rolling Stones understood what it was all about – people, let me introduce myself.
There has always been the great negator present, which explains the paedo gangs of pollies, the Washington parties, all the rest of today’s horrors, the sheer diabolical and pitiless excess we also see in Antifa, which acts with utter impunity. Left without a code of conduct, people descend [see Lord of the Flies]. But even Lord of the Flies admits the truth of this external entity.
And once you admit that – you only need see Taylor Swift or Beyonce vid clips, plus all that other evil guff on TV now – then one of two things is true. Either a whole lot of people, e.g. Hollywood, are fascinated by legends … or else there really is this entity and his greatest success so far has been to convince people he does not exist.
And you know very well that once you admit that entity, then the field is wide open for a different entity, a good entity, to exist – not in myth and fable but in reality. But not in your reality of course, a reality constrained by the physical world, which is the new Orthodoxy of the past two hundred years which explains all life in terms of the observable, using faulty perceptive apparatus.
Now I’m not even going to bother arguing that further because there’s no percentage in it and because I believe most readers here are fairminded people who will give something a listen before deciding … but I am going to say that all history falls into place once you can allow yourself to see things through those dualistic eyes.
Unfortunately, it also leads to the conclusion that we alone cannot counter this thing.
Which is so close to the rationalist position anyway that the rationalist and I can get along. I can look at the elite, Them today and how they are controlling May, which explains fully why she did betray her land and how difficult it is to overcome the forces behind her and the rationalist can come to roughly the same conclusion via his own path.
But if I go back to two paragraphs ago and accept that model of how things are, then the word is no longer “difficult” but actually impossible without outside help.
In other words, while a rationalist eternally entertains hope and points to the “natural” rise and fall of civilisations [whereas I say these things are contrived, designed to happen] – if we can all combine to resist [something I wrote in a previous post], if the EU disintegrates … and so on … then we can be free.
A rationalist is entitled to ask me – well why bother trying to organise resistance, why bother if you think we’re inevitably going to lose this war?
And I answer – something to do perhaps in the meantime? But there’s a more serious answer and that comes down to the enemy making errors, that its not quite as clever and clearcut as he supposes it is and one more thing – what if something was intended to go wrong for them – we need to be present to mop them up. [See Lord of the Rings trilogy].
I’m the first to accept chance, coincidence, incompetence but I also accept design, malice.
In Lord of the Flies – what chance that naval captain standing on that shore at the end? What chance Britain surviving Hitler when he turned to address Russia and let us off the hook? Some have said that was divine intervention, some have said that the seeds of German doom were already in place. I say perhaps both.
Will May succeed? That depends on all the elements in the equation and I’m not sure we know them all yet – at this time, we’re still observing the theatre. But I do know they do need a resistance, a ragtag of us to make life difficult for Them, if only to be a nuisance – I’m good at being a provocative nuisance – and we’re needed for that job.