Showing how knowledge changes

It’s important to show how knowledge changes. In an era of Never Explain, Never Apologize it’s crucially important to show and (at least implicitly) apologize for previous ignorance. In previous item I mentioned that I gave up on Boris when he joined the Ballgag Brigade. It was actually a bit earlier.

Here’s an overlong and somewhat tangled piece from a year ago that shows the power of keeping a daily blog or journal.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

I’ve been keeping this blog for 16 years, about 1/5 of my life. The near-daily record tends to keep me honest. I can’t claim to have been “always right” or “always wrong” about any specific issue. There are a few exceptions, a few big things that I understood clearly almost from birth. Language and grammar, experiential education, constants and variables.

But most opinions have changed during these 16 years, and the record shows it.

This morning I decided to use the record to see when I clearly caught onto the Deepstate “both sides” game. The recognition feels fairly recent. Was it?

Answer: It was gradual. In 2005 I already knew the two-teams trick:

This has been obvious in any Internet forum for many years. Whether the subject is Mac vs PC, Windows vs Linux, Jesus vs Darwin, Universal Health Care vs Free Choice … you name it, you’ll find exactly two teams, and each team has a standard playbook of permitted opinions. As long as you stick to the playbook, you’ll get cheers from your side and jeers from the other. But if you ask a deeper question, or (worst of all) favor side A for the wrong reasons, you’ll be thrown out with remarkable alacrity and consonance.

But in 2005 I definitely DIDN’T SEE THE TRICK in the political realm. Just one illustration of hundreds:

The Red Cross is putting out some strange PSA ads. A dry-voiced feminist recites “I don’t talk like you, I don’t dress like you, I don’t go to your church, …. but I will help you.” Who is this appeal aimed at? Other feminists? Academic multiculturalists? It ertainly isn’t aimed at traditional-minded Americans, or males of any stripe. I lost all faith in the Red Cross two days after 9/11 anyway. On 9/12 I gave a substantial contribution, then the next day the local chapter REFUSED a contribution from a local rifle range (gun club), because the club had put a picture of Osama on its paper targets. It was too late to stop my check, but I’ll never give another penny to this pro-terrorist organization.

When did I start to see the “terrorism” fraud as just another two-sided stageplay? Hard to spot by keywords, but the first doubts showed in 2007. The ‘Dubai port’ thing helped me to see that Bush wasn’t really fighting Saudi, but I still didn’t see that fighting Saudi was a fraud. Using terrorist as a keyword, this 2009 item shows similar incipient doubts.

The strange ‘buzzing’ of New York by the substitute Air Force One may have been a really, really dumb mistake, but I don’t buy it. In the first place, as everyone has noted, you don’t need real planes to “update your photos”. Anyone familiar with graphics could create this picture digitally in a few minutes, if you wanted this picture.

And that’s the first question: Why in the hell
would the gov’t want this picture? How in the hell would a 9/11-style picture be part of your media publicity packet? What would the caption be? “Lookie here! We’re still vulnerable! You can get away with another 9/11 easily!”

The second question: If it was just a photo-op, why was the fighter jet apparently trying to intercept the airliner? From what I’ve seen, the fighter looked fairly serious. I can’t imagine the Air Force risking its aircraft and pilots on a just-for-fun gag shot.

This was either a real practice run (war game) or a real incident. Perhaps a pilot gone insane, rather than a real terrorist?

I wasn’t able to stand back and see both teams on this question until I threw away the TV in 2010.

The point of inflection is shown clearly by a series of basic questions in 2011. From the first of the series:

Isn’t it odd?

The whole point of the Enlightenment in religion and science was to trust your own logic and senses, and distrust the flat statements of the priesthood.

And who’s Enlightened?

The Muslim world and the Soviet world are Enlightened. They understand from long experience that government lies 100% of the time. They want to see evidence that they can trust.

America’s experience with 100% transparently false government is shorter, basically beginning in 1964 with the Warren Report. So the population of Enlightenment thinkers here is large but far from universal.

The American media, and the blind followers of the Parties, are pre-Enlightenment thinkers. Party members implicitly trust whatever My Party says and distrust what The Other Party says. Since the two Goldman Sachs “parties” create “fair and balanced debate” on only a few trivial and numerical points, the Party people end up trusting government on nearly all important questions, no matter how obviously absurd.

To the priesthood of media and government, Enlightenment thinkers are “conspiracists” or “paranoids” or “deniers” or “skeptics” or “truthers” or “birthers”, who can be safely tossed overboard without a proper religious burial ceremony.

In those questions I finally stood back and saw the fraud.

= = = = =

And I’m still unable to see both teams on ‘color revolutions’ like Brexit. I’m totally bamboozled until the revolution (and the country) is finished. I was fully on Boris’s side until Brexit was fully consummated. He immediately started to follow Greta’s Gaian genocide, then smoothly switched to the “virus” holocaust. That’s when I saw that Brexit was meant to free Boris from EU constraints, not to free Britain from EU constraints.

= = = = =

Why does this learning feel recent? The Skripal stageplay, though not especially important in itself, gave me a HUGE burst of learning in 2018. “Both” “sides” were starting from the assumption that a poison EXISTED. They were arguing over timelines and point of origin. Was the poison from Russia, or from the bioterrorism lab in the same city? Ockham orders us to eliminate all UNNECESSARY entities. The poison was an unnecessary entity. When you start from the assumption that no substance existed, the whole picture is perfectly clear and consistent. The only NECESSARY assumption is the FACT that the Skripals were employees of UK Deepstate. They were willing actors, not unwilling victims. Thus the entire thing was a stage production.

This Ockham learning helps to understand the current holocaust. There’s no reason to assume that an actual microbe is involved. The entire picture makes vastly more sense from the viewpoint of branding and labeling. The deaths attributed to the “virus” are deaths that would have happened around now anyway, so the label doesn’t change any facts and can’t be logically traced by police procedures. Relabeling those deaths doesn’t save or kill anyone.

The “necessary” “measures” “to” “beat” “the” “virus” are doing all the killing. In order to prevent those inevitable deaths from being relabeled as “virus”, we’re killing everyone else. But we’re NOT relabeling the “virus” deaths back to non-“virus”, so we’re not doing anything at all for those dead people, even symbolically. The deaths caused by lockdowns and loss of medical services and unemployment and despair and starvation and loss of immunity are NOT inevitable. These are actual new deaths.

%d bloggers like this: