One of the most frustrating things for someone who discovers something is to have it met with disbelief. Not only frustrating but it lets the guilty off the hook as nothing else could. Just how many films have revolved around that premise?
I’m the first to say it needs testing – rigorously – it needs corroboration, it needs some context in which to be true. And the discoverer, being a bit of a strange type in the first place is often given to grandiose guff with which he surrounds his discovery in lurid colour, capitalization, pictures of Satan, vigorously underscoring key points, as if we can’t read for ourselves.
People of a calmer, more sombre nature don’t like that.
So, corruption at the top with Hillsborough becomes lizards from Mars and this plays right into the hands of the narrow, phlegmatic sceptic whose favourite catchphrase is: “I don’t do conspiracy theory,” as if it’s some genre, like romance or thriller.
The type I mention won’t investigate by himself, he’ll sit and pronounce judgement. There is a shift though of late towards a certain interest in these things and an attitude of “let’s wait and see”. That at least is healthier than auto-denial.
For so long, for example, the vanguard was charging MK Ultra and HAARP [Russian Woodpecker] but simple denial from the authorities was sufficient to satisfy the self-satisfied. Then came the admissions and the tune had to change. It was still auto-denial but tempered with “well, s*** happens, doesn’t it?”
The tunnels under that pre-school in America, resulting in the False Memory Syndrome group being set up by the authorities – have you followed up what happened to all those people who pushed FMS? Very interesting read who they actually were.
There was mass hysteria at the time, those making the claims were caught out overshooting the mark and collaborating with unfortunate elements whom when they were debunked, seemed to debunk the whole story in the public perception.
And the perpetrators walked free.
David Kelly is a perfect case and Blair must be looking over his shoulder for something else to come out. Frankly, it stank, just as the Hillsborough coverup stank, plus Sheffield Council, plus Common Purpose and the list goes on. For rational people to look at these and then say that Calvi’s being found hanging beneath Blackfriar’s Bridge was just one of those things – that’s an amazing attitude when there are backstories to almost all the publicly exposed cases.
Thus we get to yet another one in the Independent. OK, it’s a leftist rag [Lib Dem] but if it has the goods, it has the goods:
Secret networks of Freemasons have been used by organised crime gangs to corrupt the criminal justice system, according to a bombshell Metropolitan Police report leaked to The Independent.
Operation Tiberius, written in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted officers” inside Scotland Yard, and concluded it was one of “the most difficult aspects of organised crime corruption to proof against”.
The report – marked “Secret” – found serving officers in East Ham east London who were members of the Freemasons attempted to find out which detectives were suspected of links to organised crime from other police sources who were also members of the society.
Famous for its secret handshakes, Freemasonry has long been suspected of having members who work in the criminal justice system – notably the judiciary and the police.
The political establishment and much of the media often dismiss such ideas as the work of conspiracy theorists. However, Operation Tiberius is the second secret police report revealed by The Independent in the last six months to highlight the possible issue.
Project Riverside, a 2008 report on the rogue private investigations industry by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, also claimed criminals attempt to corrupt police officers through Freemason members in a bid to further their interests.
As I’ve pointed out before – why wouldn’t they corrupt the judiciary? I mean, given what they’re about, why wouldn’t they use everything in their power to further their cause? How is this any different to insider trading or 2nd home expenses scandals?
This is where I cannot for the life of me understand the person who says, “Oh, they’d never do that. Wingbattery, conspiraloonery.” How on earth does this person know one way or the other?
I mean, who’s the true rationalist here? But to answer my own question – the reason it is rejected is because it mentions key words which can never be used in rational debate, according to the type I’m referring to – such words as Freemason, Illuminati, Bilderberg, Templars, Venetians, Black Nobility. You’re allowed to say mafia, weapons of mass destruction and David Kelly, you’re not allowed to say Diana or WTC7.
The power of a buzzword to stymie debate.
And what do we do with this knowledge now? Forget all about it or file it away for future reference, bringing it out to add to the next revelation which will inevitably come out?