“Propagandising”

Earlier, I wrote in comments that when there are issues, when genuine people – and I believe all who comment here are that, the real trolls being blocked – are hot under the collar about something, then it needs addressing.

I believe that heads in the sand is NOT the way to go. It’s one thing mindlessly “bashing” and it’s another addressing real issues. I believe Luther needed addressing, that the Church had to get its house in order, otherwise it would split yet again.

I’ve studied the Great Schism and there were some blunt, belligerent fame seekers involved in that, big heads. This was Man inserting himself into the frame and his own foibles taking over, rather than just following the gospels as they were.

The Church met the Renaissance in the middle years and there was certainly evil intent mixed in with the natural desire for knowledge, that is it was not only a desire for a return to the classical fora which motivated certain figures, it was not just addressing Church abuses, there was also a desire to tear down the only real bulwark against the evil we’re seeing today out there.

If you’re in a castle with cracking walls and rotting mortar and wood, it’s still a castle for the moment. You repair it, don’t you?

And so to today. Blogger Tom Paine said to me some years back that I like blogging in a personal style, don’t I? Well yes I do, we all see the events out there through our eyes, so why not admit that and put them as we see them?

I believe we have work to do, that we’d do well to keep this blog open and let some debate go on between rational people, which does require blocking the trolls pushing the world view we’ve already debunked, so yes, it is debating anything but people doing that who have shown they can do that without propagandising for this nebulously defined cultural marxism so beloved of Them and their lackeys, the far-left-liberals. If you want that, go to Maddow or the Guardian, go to CNN, go to Schumer, plenty of sources for the brainwashed.

We’re for rational discussion here.

Now that’s a subjective call of course and this came out in a letter to me on the weekend from an old friend and I hasten to add that he is still an old friend after it – I’m not that fickle – but I really did not like his choice of word. He had seen the post mentioning the heart developments and yesterday they were present and so I needed to have and do now have an emergency plan, which is about all one can do.

He suggested I’d be less stressed if I dropped or did less of this “propagandising”.

Wo-ho-ho, is that ever a loaded word or what? I was quite disappointed in that charge for the reasons I’m about to outline but also because only a leftwing perspective could possibly use that word about what we’re doing.

Propagandising

The act of propagandising presupposes that there are people going about their business and into this come “change agents” who have one of two motives. One motive is to improve, which is what the legions who follow it think, and the other is malicious – to destroy, using feelgood buzzwords and concepts, shutting down all who would naturally oppose this change.

False words are used by the “change agents”, words such as “progressive”. Progressive presupposes that there is an improvement going on, a march upwards towards the light and all sorts of Third Reich feelgood concepts attend it, e.g. equality, diversity, tolerance, words which, in themselves, no one could argue with. But these words are twisted by these people, by the malicious people I mean, not by the followers, to mean something quite nasty in fact.

Plus, accompanying this, in pursuit of this “progress”, people like Zuckerberg and Dorsey undertake to shut down any voices opposing this narrative, any “reactionaries” in other words. And recent posts all over the net, including the Donald himself, have pinpointed it and named the names of those involved.

Why Zuckerberg and Dorsey? Because Murdoch and others have already completed the job in the MSM – see CNN and MSNBC. So the net is the only forum left, including blogs and Twitter. There is always Gab and to be fair to them, how can they get “reach” unless people are on their platform?

Yet the action is still on Twitter in the realpolitik going on – every single major leader uses it. Any serious pundit must be there in the action. blogs then become the less frenetic second fora in which to discuss in more depth. Both have their purpose. It’s sane, it’s healthy, until someone starts trying to shut down dissenting voices.

There comes a point when the question of what is a private company and what a public utility when the big players take it over for heavy announcements? We’re in that debate right now.

Meanwhile, my friend said I was propagandising. Certainly I’m putting a point of view, a reactionary one. Were Them plus their RINO, CINO, leftist and Millennial acolytes [and I use that term advisedly and deliberately] not laying this crap on us, then there’d be no material for us to debate, I’d post on things like Salmon Fishing in Iceland and on architecture, art and music. Maybe on Christianity.

But they are laying the Blight upon us and we need to oppose it. Opposing something, being reactive, being reactionary, is NOT propagandising. Propagandising is coming in to a situation which is, coming in cold, and trying to change things according to an ideology or religion. That can be good or bad, there are often abuses to address and neither side seriously disagrees that abuses need addressing, so let’s not be childish about that. Seriously, let’s grow up about that.

No, what we are reacting to is what is also bundled in with the addressing of those abuses – the real propaganda, ideologically driven, in other words – the cultural marxism. And even that term is loaded and inaccurate because it preceded Marx, it was around in the French Revolution, as Churchill noted.

The personal side

This old friend of mine was the same one who said to back off in 2007 because of its effect on me and he was right back then, so let’s say that this was motivated by real concern for me as a friend. That’s fine but using the word “propagandising”, just as someone used the words “overweening arrogance” and another used “salacious”, these are highly loaded and need to be pretty accurate.

In the case of “propagandise”, clearly not. Because that is what this blog is for – to expose and oppose humbug. As for me personally, as I explained, it’s all physical, i.e. the circulatory and pulmonary systems, I feel no stress psychologically, except that brought on by seeing the atrocities out there and being very angry about them.

And what human should not be appalled? What human should not speak out? Actually, speaking out is a release, it’s cathartic, a rant is good for the soul. Plus I do have just a few very special, close people who are doing a huge job keeping me this side of the line of sanity, before even speaking of what faith does.

Now, when I use the loaded word “faith”, instantly some see a bout of proselytising coming on. Haven’t they woken up yet that I’m no evangelical, I’m too secular for that. By faith, I mean that it has been looked at by medical research and is seen as a way some conditions are ameliorated or stopped – faith plays a role in the treatment for sure. People of no faith, with no code, often fair worse.

The pressure I feel is due to the boat and to something coming up at the end of next year with the govt. The latter I can do nothing about. The boat is one I think I’ve found the solution to and if I could get well enough, I could continue. There is pressure to be out of the yard and launched. The design is sound, better now, eminently liveable, and so it’s just a case of completing her.

The world out there

The political world pressures me not at all – those clowns up there are going to get theirs, end of. The blog and Twitter are fine, the only parts of it I can’t handle are the actual atrocities and stupid Millennials and other ordinary folk who are obtuse to a degree I could scarce have imagined.

Their sources for their reality are mindboggling.

There’s an idiot on national TV over there who – yep, she’s a Millennial – was saying things last evening about Trump rounding up people like her [not the Occasional Cortez, another one, they’re now coming out of the woodwork]. Little twerp, no understanding that people like her are in zero danger from our side – it is her brainwashing and the evil muvvers who are using her on TV who are her dangers.

We are actually working to protect her, despite herself, as parents used to do with children.

Enough for now.

6 comments for ““Propagandising”

  1. August 20, 2018 at 11:40

    With you all the way, James. As well as the heart related issues, (quadruple bypass in 2013). Hereditary CAD.
    Mrs OR regards my political ranting and blog activity with a degree of resigned patience but she does accept it can be cathartic. She however finds our garden more to her choice of therapy. Both of us, like you, find non evangelical, unassuming faith to have helped both of us survive serious illness. Sadly we also both despair at the decline we see all about us, or at least the towns and cities now saturated in less attractive and primitive cultures.

  2. Mark Matis
    August 20, 2018 at 13:14

    I would note that Gab is hosted by Microsoft, and is thus constrained by that entity’s quirks and foibles:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/microsoft-threatens-to-pull-gab-services-over-anti-semitic-posts

    Bill Gates has NO problem with Antifa. At least, not for now, anyway…

    • August 20, 2018 at 13:49

      Interesting.

      • Mark Matis
        August 23, 2018 at 00:14

        I see now, though, that Gab is changing their web host:
        https://gab.ai/WRSA

        Looks like Gab is telling Bill Gates to shove his Azure where the Apple don’t shine!

  3. Mark Matis
    August 21, 2018 at 01:47

    This is your government:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/britain-backing-south-africas-land-confiscations-white-farmers

    And your “Law Enforcement” have no problem with same. Just as they had no problem with murdering Charlie Gard. Just as they had no problem with murdering Alfie Evans. Just as they had no problem with trying to murder Tommy Robinson.

    Nothing will change for the better until their corpses are stacked in the streets.

    And those of their spouses, because they know full well what their husbands are, yet cheer them on anyway. And under the very Rules of Engagement that they use against Mere Citizens, that makes their spouses accessories, and therefor subject to the full penalty for the crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *