Many people—including ones who comment at this website—have difficulty believing that we have been manipulated for centuries, and that both society and ourselves are the end result of those manipulations. I have said that this resistance is itself the result of those manipulations and, in a complementary fashion, of a privileged and sheltered life in which we never had to see, or be on the receiving end of, the raw power of these forces when they assume a less soft form of totalitarian control.
I think we are largely clueless how absurdly easy to manipulate we are. And while I can agree that “conspiratainment” is part of the problem and not the solution, the evidence it incorporates into its controlled counter-narrative is nonetheless compelling and finally irrefutable (which is perhaps why it mostly gets refuted with vague blanket statements, spiritual platitudes, or Marxist arguments about systemic problems).
I recently watched a Mexican TV show called An Unknown Enemy that shows how the CIA and the DFS (Mexican secret police) brought about a coup that was partially dependent on coopting the student protests and the international Olympics to oust one president and get their own man in place. It’s very well-done and seems historically responsible (I haven’t read up on it). Bear in mind that this was forty years ago, in an under-developed country, and yet the level of malevolence combined with ruthless efficiency—and success—is chilling.
What occurred to me while watching it was that most “privileged” folk look at these dark slices of history and they think they are evidence of how undemocratic certain countries are, or were, how brutal and unjust the government systems, and how much better our own are. My own perspective is that this is only because our own societies have been so effectively managed, shaped, and controlled that these coarser methods are no longer required. We have the luxury of believing we are free, which is akin to the comfortable stupor of livestock ignorant that they are raised in an abattoir.
It is possible that, since I was raised to be an abattoir manager, I was never deceived.
There is another end of the social scale on which a person is less likely to believe in the benevolence of our “democratic” societies, and knows all too well how subject to manipulation we are. Someone who grew up in Serbia, for example, after generations of being on the blunt end of that instrument, has less difficulty with the idea that the empire has terraformed the landscape of the human organism, both inner and outer, since time began. They don’t need “conspiratainment” to make them paranoid-aware; they have first-hand encounter with the forces that shape history.
With this in mind I asked Cedomir to share some of his experiences. (In bold below and throughout the remainder of this piece.)
Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) & Hollywood
To give a satisfactory explanation of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Hollywood’s role in it requires an understanding of its creation. To do that, I’ll have to oversimplify.
Yugoslavia was created after the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. Its creation had some support from the local population, including bizarre bedfellows such as the Serbian Masonic Lodge and the Yugoslav Communist Party. The support was mainly to be found among the intelligentsia (groomed by the Illyrian movement) and some patriots who recognized that a unitary state of kindred peoples was preferable to small nation-states which had little to no chance of actual independence. Of the Great Powers, France and the US were principal supporters in the establishment of Yugoslavia. Great Britain, as always, wanted to ensure a balance of power, which is to say that no one got too big for their boots. The US even sent two battleships to Rijeka (in modern-day Croatia) to dissuade the Italian army from trying to claim the northern Adriatic. France’s “support” was so significant that the Nazis considered Yugoslavia to be a French satellite state.
The above is just the tip of the surface of the water settling over an iceberg.
There’s no racial hatred in the Balkans, we’re all the same race. The language spoken is categorized by linguists as “polycentric.” The fact is that the languages spoken in Italy or Germany have greater diversity than seven separate Balkan countries, but they’ve resolved it by creating unitary states at the right historical moment and imposing a “common language.” We’re essentially one people divided by religious identity and dialects masquerading as separate languages. SFR Yugoslavia was a centralized one-party state. Officially atheist and materialist, it didn’t suppress religious feelings but it did treat believers as backwards and retrograde. If one wasn’t a member of the League of Yugoslav Socialists, the ladder one could climb was relatively short. When the war kicked off and blood was spilt, people (as people do) converged instinctively behind their local (religious) banners looking for safety. It proved to be a disaster for many as it was “their own” who betrayed them.
I was born in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, lived in London for 20 years between the age of and 11 and 31 and then moved to rump Serbia eleven years ago (The Autonomous Province of Kosovo is, according to the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and a NATO-led peacekeeping force). While growing up in the UK, I used to go home regularly throughout the war years. Because of the events in Yugoslavia, it became clear to me that the real story is very different than the news reports. I’d watch BBC and Channel 4 one day and then watch RTS (Serbian PBS) a day later. Brainwashing and mind programming, overt and covert.
While (as my readers and listeners ought to know by now), I fully allow that the conspiring of human elites is a symptom of something much deeper, I also inquire into whether that deeper something might also be by design. We know about intelligent design, because the evidence of it is everywhere. What about malevolent design? Are intelligence and malevolence mutually exclusive—or is there a form in intelligence that in its very nature is anti-natural?
Part of my strategy with 16 Maps of Hell and previous books is to surround the reader’s attention and create a sustained exposure to unpalatable evidence of how we have been unfavorably shaped by malevolent design. My hope is that the evidence will neutralize a continuous internal broadcast (a propagandized and traumatized nervous system) designed to maintain the crucial fiction that “this couldn’t possibly be happening, not here, now, not to me and my loved ones!”
Of course, this approach is limited and can backfire. Can one fight fire with fire? Can one use words to dissolve the spell that words have cast over our consciousness? Information is always finite, and when it’s especially unappealing it will be met with counter-narratives that reframe the evidence in a way that is less conclusive or disturbing, and easier to dismiss and forget. I suspect university training has a lot to do with it; less well-educated people, or self-educated ones, tend to be more open to my work.
But there’s also a lack of critical discernment (as compared to an over-developed intellect) that is just as crippling—witness David Icke and Alex Jones, hardly anyone’s idea of a nuanced or complex reading of social reality.
Meanwhile, those who don’t learn from history, become the unwitting instruments of it—either its agents or its sacrifices, or both.
Sending Bosnia Back to the Bronze Age
Southeast Europe (the Balkans is a bit loaded and of dubious origin) has been a battleground since the Bronze Age. It’s an interesting case study for world events.
During the war in Bosnia, from 1992 to 1995, Serbs were presented in the Western media as medieval central Asian marauders from illustrated history books. While the rape of civilian women did occur, and the perpetrators can be found on all three warring sides, the stories took on fantastic dimensions. The Serb army in Bosnia, made up of locals, was made to seem like barbarians storming the gates of western civilization. The accusations of rape became so ridiculous that one could reasonably assume that they had no military strategy or goal in sight other than to rape Bosnian Muslim women. The figures were exaggerated so as to present the Serbs as alien and menacing, if not pure evil.
Joe Biden made some memorable anti-Serb remarks, my favorite being that “Serbs were genetically predisposed to genocide.” Flash-forward four years when the most powerful military alliance in history (NATO) bombed Serbia against international law. This time, Serb soldiers were raping countless Kosovo Albanian women. Again, the numbers were ridiculous, and the implication was that the desire for rape was the primary drive of the Serb army. What made this particular piece of propaganda especially disgusting was that the NATO air force was dropping depleted uranium on the population it claimed to be saving. More bombs were dropped on Kosovo per square kilometer than on any other part of Serbia, and the last remnant of a system striving to be self-sufficient was destroyed.
Fast forward again, this time to 2011 and Libya: the media claimed that Gadhafi’s army was raping women in rebel areas from its very first reports. No superficial bullshit introduction to the conflict. It was immediate. However, this time the journalists came up with an even more bizarre story: Gadhafi’s army was using Viagra! For some reason, people think that wholesale rape of women is something that a retreating army, poorly equipped and fighting an immeasurably more powerful adversary, is especially interested in raping the women. The anchor just accepted that account as fact and moved on to further vilify Muammar.
The narrative against the Serbs was spun over a full decade. The stage was set. We were guinea pigs for subsequent military interventions across the world. He’s a Hitler (Saddam, Milošević, Gadhafi, take a pick) turned into defaming entire populations and peoples. If it weren’t for the Yugoslav wars, western propagandists would have had to make more of an effort before the invasions that came later. It’s important to note that the psyop by the media was directed at western audiences, not the target populations.
The Beginning of Wisdom
I can’t pretend not to see what I see or try and un-know what I know. People can call it dogmatism if they want; but from my end of the telescope, I am working with facts, not theories. It’s true that others look at the same facts and come up with a different interpretation. I think this shows that intellectual cognition is limited to how much we are connected to our bodily sense of reality, which is itself dependent on recognizing (sensing) and releasing trauma.
The question then is, is a non-paranoid perspective really post-paranoia, or merely uninformed and lacking the subtleness of thought to allow for the awareness needed to incorporate the horrible truth?
Besides Dave Oshana, I have yet to meet anyone who was able to grok the reality of our predicament to the extent I can, without getting bent out of shape by it. In other words, I don’t buy it when anyone else tells me they have moved beyond this “reductionist” paranoid worldview. From where I am swimming, they have dipped their toes in and found the water too cold, then rationalized that staying in the boat is as good a way to know the depths as diving.
My last five books present the evidence for something that, with hindsight, I have known since I first arrived on this mudball and that I never quite managed to fully forget. But as recent exchanges at the site show, they aren’t especially effective in persuading anyone who isn’t ready to dive in, that diving in is the only way to get to the bottom.
By dive in, I don’t mean into my books, necessarily—or even into conspiracy research, which obviously is not for everyone—but into the trauma that blocks our awareness from seeing reality. This is not just the darker aspects (if it was we might as well stay blind), but it is primarily the darker aspects, because those are the aspects that fear of seeing keeps us from looking past, into the deeper dimensions of our being.
For some, reading my books has allowed a fog to lift from the eyes and a deepening awareness to happen, of the world and of their bodies and the traumas trapped inside. There has been some degree of liberation and release. For the rest, my books may just be mind candy and it would be better they never read them. Those who came to me via channels of conspiratainment and have only an intellectual grasp of these realities, may use them to fortify their worldview of a malevolent design without ever twigging that the devil they have to deal with is inside them, not outside.
Those who do grok the books, and have an experience of visceral horror and corresponding cathartic release, or at least of Aha!, have either already moved past the question of hidden elite control of society or can now do so. That was really just the first step, but a necessary one—before awareness, paranoia. Fear of the devil is the beginning of wisdom.
I would guess that what makes the difference, once again, is that, like Cedomir, they know what I am talking about from having been on the receiving end of it. When you have a personal direct experience of being traumatized, exploited, abused, colonized, fragmented and controlled, you instinctively know that societies and groups can also be managed this way. At a deep level, we all have had this experience, that’s very much the point. But it depends on the extent of the trauma and of our ability or willingness to retain or regain awareness of it. Without this awareness, it’s all just more “history,” words on top of words.
It’s sobering to realize that people can read my books and still not get over this first hurdle: that we have been colonized for time immemorial, that society is what it is by design—a farm, a matrix—and that this is just the nature of the world, and perhaps always has been.
First Hand Fall-Out
When it comes to the actual war, the trenches, I have no first-hand experience, thankfully. I barely saved my sanity being on the sidelines observing the horrors. However, I regularly spent extended periods of time (months at a time) in Yugoslavia during the 1990s. During the sanctions of 1992-1995, I used to fly to Hungary or Romania and take a van across the border to Belgrade. I witnessed the immediate effects of the war first-hand.
The economic implosion followed by the economic depression, people losing their savings. Foreign currency exchange became dodgy men standing on street corners in loud-colored shell suits whispering “devize, devize” (foreign currency). The inflation rate was 23,000% per year during the sanctions, and family members were suddenly earning 3 Deutsche Marks (£1 at the time) a month, and were happy to have a job at all.
Many factories and companies shut down; prices increased twice daily in ‘92-’93. Long queues were ready to boil over into fights over oil, flour, salt, sugar and coffee (sometimes no one knew what was on the truck). There was rapid growth of the black market, a rise in drug abuse (specifically heroin) and alcoholism, and resulting overdoses and deaths. Guns and munitions could be bought on the green markets if you knew the right person (many brought them back from the army, and everyone knew someone).
There was a rise in crime and murder (one of my school mates murdered a mate from his tutor group on a basketball court where we grew up playing). Young men carried guns openly and threateningly. Moral values became inverted, respect and kindness became weaknesses and any means necessary was glorified. There were regular power outages. Garbage collection was irregular for months at a time and people resorted to burning rubbish in the middle of the city. Central heating became irregular and inadequate during the winter. My paternal grandfather died from a blood clot after he hit his head in the bath when the power went out and there was no electricity to power the scanner. There was severely limited access to medicine unless someone brought it from abroad. The list is not exhaustive, but you get the picture.
Imagine a regular European city become a favela almost overnight with no recovery in sight. Everything I listed, I’ve experienced. The only difference between me and my family and friends was that I knew I could leave whenever I wanted, and I spent most of the year away. Since moving to Belgrade I’ve been quizzing people across former Yugoslavia about their personal experiences. I find their testimonies to be very informative and useful in filling in the blanks regarding my understanding of events.
I’m aware of the living conditions of many Americans from documentaries and articles. I’ve visited ghettos in Europe, South Africa, South and Southeast Asia. I’m not claiming that any of the Yugoslav cities had it worse, it’s just that the change happened so suddenly and it was so dramatic that it turned peoples’ lives upside down.
The Age of Latahs
When the plan is to indoctrinate people and turn them into latahs, they will then carry out your plan for you with no further planning needed. People always seem to extrapolate from this the narrative of an all-powerful elite controlling everything. I say they just haven’t dug deep enough into reality (their own felt sense) to understand what I am saying and so they latch on to pre-existing Ickian narratives out there and assume I said something I haven’t said.
The qualifier is not all the people can be made into latahs, or all the time. But it is enough for society to continue to “evolve” along the tracks laid down for it, with increasingly unwitting engineers carrying it on—in ever-growing numbers—to its designated end-point. Hence the cultural bondage spreads, like a wildfire, as the global village “lights up.”
If I thought there was a real danger people would misread my work as fuel for a persecute-the-elite-drive, I would be worried. It seems to me the opposite is the case, however, and that I haven’t stated it plainly enough. This allows fence-sitters to ignore the horrible truth about how we have been culturally possessed and becomes guards in our own prison, so they can keep sitting on the fence and waste time worrying about whether I am being politically sensitive, or responsible, or whether I am verging dangerously close to nihilism. The route to truth is through nihilism, not away from it or around it; awareness through paranoia, remember?
Since I am writing about sociocultural realities, it is natural to want to put what I am saying into a social context. Ditto when I write about political aspects of reality, people want to view my statements a political ones. But this is not the context and never has been, not even when I first put paranoid pen to paper. The context is “psycho-spiritual,” and somatic. It’s experiential more than theoretical. The problem with words is that they reduce everything to the theoretical level. So I am forever hoisted with my own petard. (Had to look up what that expression means, here.)
While Yugoslav state film production was big budget, that only applied to propaganda films glorifying the Yugoslav Communist Party (later League of Yugoslav Socialists). All other film production was script and character based, closer to theatre than big budget films. While attending prestigious drama schools was held in high regard and state TV channels played movies from film festivals, our staple was Hollywood. I grew up watching John Weissmuller and John Wayne, not famous actors from the Soviet era. Czechoslovak animation and Soviet masterpieces were available but we were inundated with Clint Eastwood, Frank Sinatra, and Marlon Brando. We played cowboys and Indians. Popular music was in step with the West. One Yugoslav band called Idoli even appeared on Top of the Pops. We were so steeped in Hollywood, that young men on all sides during the civil war dressed like Rambo, red headband, leather fingerless gloves and face paint (none of which are standard army issue).
Hollywood undoubtedly played a key role in ideological warfare and ultimately victory. I recall my parents and their friends looking down on the Communist block and being frustrated by not living the American Dream. Even though many, like my parents, were well travelled and had visited the US, they always ignored the obvious failures of US capitalism (black youth dancing around a stereo ignited passion for the new trend, but no one bothered visit a ghetto and consider the causes of their poverty). Instead they chose to look for faults in the Yugoslav system by comparing the worst with the absolute best US had to offer. Inane shit was regularly quoted, like the salaries US garbage men earned comparative to how much they earned in middle-class jobs, never once considering the living costs, free education, healthcare, job security, etc. that Yugoslavia offered.
I recall people unquestioningly discussing life in the US through the Hollywood filter. Hollywood’s reach is truly amazing. It colonized people’s minds, ambitions, and worldviews, on a different continent in a sociopolitical system which was very much at odds with the US. Hollywood for Yugoslavs was like a beautiful woman who you have to jump through flaming hoops for, just so she might, just might, on a good day, glance your way. Other than the economic pressure from the US via the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and the Yugoslav state security apparatus selling out wholesale, it was the spell which Hollywood cast over the Yugoslavs which hastened our demise.
Hollywood specifically, not Cassavetes or independent films, promulgated the ideas of Western Capitalism and fantastic material wealth. The American Dream enticed the early immigrants, but it had a different role in the ideological warfare between Washington and Moscow. It served to promote a system which promised to award hard work with social status, freedom and unimaginable wealth. It was complimentary soft power to the US’s control of the IMF and World Bank, as well as direct meddling.
When Ronald Reagan assumed office, he pressured the US Senate to vote against an already agreed upon IMF loan to Yugoslavia which imposed serious financial pressure. Every subsequent loan (six in total during the 1980s, more than any other country in the world for the decade) included ever-finer small print which resulted in the privatization of state-owned industry and led to increased stratification and a growing income gap. Simultaneously, the Yugoslav State Security apparatus was compromised to the extent that the head of the Serbian (Yugoslavia was made up of six constituent republics) State Security was working for the CIA and head of the Croatian branch worked for the German BND. CIA and BND worked in concert. Even during Milošević’s reign, Jovica Stanišić as the acting head of the Serbian State Security was directly working for the CIA. These claims were proven in the Hague Tribunal and by their own admission in subsequent memoirs.
The Vatican has been an open enemy of the Serbs for centuries because they are Orthodox Christians. Given that it provided safe passage to Latin America for many leading local Fascists after 1945, and that it continued to operate in Yugoslavia during Communist rule, their role should not be underestimated. However, their outreach was limited to the faithful who were few in number. They played a pivotal part in igniting the war because they were the first to recognize Slovenia and Croatia as independent states.
Hollywood propaganda was not the primary cause of the country’s dissolution, but it was one of several complementary causal factors. Certainly I would say it was higher up on the list of influences than religious differences. (Bear in mind that most people had lost contact with their religious roots and customs.) It played a central role in dominating the narrative which supported secession because the seccationist movements promised the American dream of freedom, democracy, wealth and collective abundance only if the Socialist Federative Republic was broken down to its very foundations. That would not have been possible had the Hollywood dream factory not installed itself over decades as a filter through which Yugoslavs perceived social and political reality.
USA is a relatively recent political venture so a cohesive myth, or a series of myths, which would serve as a binding factor in developing a sense of common identity was needed. The colonization of the frontier had nothing to do with its’ portrayal on the silver screen as the “Wild West,” just as WWI & WWII as historical events bear no resemblance to their Hollywood interpretations. Initially, Hollywood represented the European colonists almost exclusively. These peoples were of disparate backgrounds, coming from regions whose histories potentially saw them as mortal enemies. This reality had to be adjusted to serve daily political needs. These people suddenly became neighbors and fellow Americans. While the initial impetus for Hollywood myth making seems obvious from a nation-building perspective (and far from exclusive to USA), its’ evolution to the current state is of an entirely different level of programming and intended for audiences worldwide, or everyone within Hollywood’s reach.
I have sincerely struggled to understand how any adult can be drawn to these films. The obsession with super-hero movies is especially interesting as, unlike traditional myths, they’re not grounded in or claiming to relate to some long forgotten historical time and event. Entirely fictional characters and universes are offered as a substitute to reality not as a filter through which to relate to the world, family, community, and one’s own ancestry, which is how myths almost exclusively functioned. This entire genre seems to center around the character’s foundation myth, which is almost always a traumatic event, and everything that is all too human is depicted as a weakness, to be shunned or be embarrassed of. The stories are so plastic, thin, superficial and lacking in substance that I struggle to comprehend what the deep rooted appeal is.
An uprooted fantasy with no intentions of it bearing any relationship to reality.
There Is a Plan
One thing I think we can all agree on is that it’s complicated.
If people like David Icke, it’s because he makes it simple. The irony is that Icke’s view of social reality is probably closer to being a true one than Noam Chomsky’s, even though Noam is smart and David is kind of stupid (which is why he has mass appeal). Icke’s dumbed down version makes it easy for average folk to get it, but it also makes it easy for people to dabble a while in paranoid awareness and then believe they have emerged from it by adapting more sophisticated viewpoints, whether spiritualized ones, philosophical ones, or sociopolitical ones. I still probably prefer Icke’s worldview, even if it’s sort of stupid, because I think it adheres more closely to the facts.
At the same time, I think Icke probably does more harm than Chomsky ever could, and certainly the dumbed-down version—that creates a release valve and an audience cult for the growing sense of suspicion and outrage among the latahs—might be more useful to the plans of the social engineers in furthering their schismogenetic agendas. On the other hand, if people come from Icke to me, I can probably set them on the straight and narrow more easily than someone who has studied Derrida (fugeddaboudit).
Fact: There exist long-term, transnational social engineering programs that can be traced back historically to specific groups and players (without being limited to them) at least as far back as Marx, Blavatsky, and the Fabian Society. (I lump these together because of the period, not to imply they were part of a single cabal or agenda, though there are surprising convergences.)
Fact: These historically traceable agendas conform, to a surprising degree, to the current configuration of society. There are many examples of this and my recent books are filled with them (if you wish to discuss these questions in any depth with me at this site, please do yourself the favor—and me the courtesy—of reading at least a couple of them). To give just one example (one I don’t cover in my books): how the promotion and distribution of illegal drugs has brought about the destruction of inner cities and the creation of ghetto areas. This is a complicated subject and there are many variables, nuances, and so forth. There’s also the more simple case of a plan being formulated, implemented, and carried through to an expected, predictable conclusion. Black people know about this. White people get called conspiracy theorists for talking about it.
This example is factual. I would add that similar cases can be presented in hundreds if not thousands of other areas of society and history.
TL;DR: There is a plan, it is old, and it is unfolding before our eyes (2020 vision, right?).
There are certainly questions (some raised at this site) that are more nuanced and perhaps more interesting than whodunit, how, and even why. But so long as these questions dodge the Fact of a Plan, as outlined above, I find them distracting, intentionally or otherwise. I say, first acknowledge the adversary and his influence—give the devil his due. Then we can talk about what constitutes his nature and how he can be seen to be natural, or systemic, or subtly provoking (stimulating) our growth and development, despite himself, secretly working for God, or whatever.
When I think of a controlling elite, I don’t think of the Clinton Foundation, Bilderberg, or the Rockefellers. I think of Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, some of the “finest minds” of recent times. I don’t presume to imagine I am smarter or more far-seeing than these intellectual giants. I may be more ethical, more conscious, more responsible (I hope so); but I am certainly not more intellectually prodigious.
I recognize, therefore, that those who are in control of society’s development, to whatever degree, aren’t there merely by dint of ruthlessness, savagery and self-aggrandizement, but through a kind of cunning, ingenuity, commitment, and sheer brilliance that boggles the mind. To refer to such “elite” simply as power-mad sociopaths is ridiculous, and only underscores how thoroughly hoodwinked we have been (and/or hoodwinked ourselves).
I also allow that the end they are working towards might justify the means. How can I know, so why would I speculate? I stay focused on the means, on all the broken eggs. I don’t see the omelet, or even whether there ever will be one. That isn’t the exit I am seeking. Hell is a Chinese soul trap. We cannot outsmart or out-think our jailers.
We can only transmute suffering with the willingness and deepening capacity to love. Love exists and moves in the blood and in the body—the heart, and not the mind.
Postscript from Cedomir, in response to some probing from me:
Irrespective of my contribution, I would like to see your text posted. It has a certain quality of finality. I have an image of you putting a book down, one that you were writing or reading. Like it’s done and dusted, you’re finished with ‘it.’
If you decide to post the text, please add in the footnotes that I’m rather fond of Icke for all his faults. It was David who helped me embody my conspiracy theorist weltanschauung and stop apologizing in conversation for having a very different outlook on world affairs. Curiously, that never occurred to me before tonight. It nicely backs your point about him. I was quite into Chomsky as well, but this particular text isn’t about the folly of youth.
Chomsky was important in my late teens, early twenties, when I was looking for academic authority figures to expose the disturbing underbelly of official history and current affairs. Icke stepped in when I realized that a sinister force was directing events throughout human history but lacked a coherent picture which I desperately needed to formulate a sensible argument and worldview. That state of being was one of uncertainty grasping for conclusions. Hadn’t yet heard of the Liminal state. NB: A case for language: the term liminal led me to and helped me allow/exist in that state.
FYI It’s not Chomsky – Icke – Horsley/Oshana, any more than it is Strieber – de Ruiter – Dave for you. You just happen to mention the two of them and I wanted to be upfront.
Chomsky is compromised as an establishment academic would be. He’s a gatekeeper. The way he dismisses ‘conspiracy theories’ is not only telling but smells of intellectual dishonesty. One would assume he would only need to look, like the rest of us, to know that 9/11 wasn’t perpetrated by Osama’s super-Jihadists. Just an example that sprung to mind. His role as gatekeeper is matched by his haughtiness and righteousness. He reminds me of my history teacher who once told me that you can gauge the truth of any current affairs topic if you read all the broadsheets while I was trying to explain that the US air-force was employing local warring factions in Yugoslavia as foot soldiers to achieve their strategic aims. He brushed it off as unfounded. The information I was sharing was first and second hand witness accounts, but it wasn’t in the Guardian or Sunday Times. An establishment mind who wants to improve the system, as if the system was ever humane.
Icke has blind spots that he prefers not to notice. He reminds me of a failed artist who ‘made it’ late in his career/life and is convinced that he’s faultless, that he’s earlier failures were an injustice, and now can’t put a foot wrong. He’s flawed, not as a current affairs analyst, not as a man fighting the good fight, and not as a brave man, but as a truth seeker. Absence of subtlety and nuance, not the reptilians, are his Achilles’ and make him ultimately unreliable.
Since my mid to late twenties my goal was to become independent, beyond cause and effect. So I was never in danger of being anyone’s advocate or apologetic.