There was something Cherie wrote on the Mediaeval Myths post. The post posited a different view of what it was like in Mediaeval times and Cherie wrote:
Mmm… does it fit in with the definitive works which are ‘accepted’ true historical accounts?
This is a natural reaction from almost anyone – we spend a lifetime building up a body of “how things are” and there are sources we trust, sources we don’t. However, increasingly we’re finding that the “accepted” sources are anything but kosher and in fact have been deep-captured by a narrative.
A glance at Cherie’s site shows she is presenting a message of the awesomeness of life out there, coupled with the message [which is the Christian message anyway] that love and peacefulness have a practical side to them – they reduce the degree of and stay the hand of our bad sides. There’s a certain spirituality in that message.
And spirituality is what the Forces arrayed against us as a society now are trying to eliminate. From Weishaupt’s Illuminati through to Marx and the modern versions of the same game, it’s all about killing off people’s spirituality and hope as a precursor to substituting the State [once Der Vaterland, now Die Mutterland] as the ultimate arbiter.
It’s done subtly, by means of lovely, universally accepted buzzwords such as equality, tolerance etc., done in the nicest possible way and who could possibly oppose those lovely peace and tolerance image things?
It is woven into a narrative and the narrative is to be complied with. The coercive element is a key factor here – you vill comply!
Who is writing this narrative? Forces behind governments and other instrumentalities [sorry, Dearieme, for that word] – look into the backgrounds of Demos, the climate scam, each of those leading feminists of the 60s/70s, Tavistock and you’ll find a common thread, a common purpose.
One can deny such has being going on for a very long time or start to see that we’re being led along and diverted by forces referred to in Ephesians 6:12 or less fancifully, go to Louis McFadden’s words and those of Senator William Jenner of Indiana.
The left can partly see it in the banksters who are part of the game – JP Morgan has antecedents which are Peabody and travelling back in time, one goes through Jeckyll Island, the Warburgs etc., which brings in the Bavarian influence, the Black Nobility et al – let’s not do all that again here today.
Now this is not the stuff of fantasy – there’s a wealth of back-up on each part of it. For example – hard to accept for many but the beloved EU is not the altruistic body it purports to be but has its roots in the Club of Rome and if you look at the background of those participants, their interconnections are interesting.
And of course, if you oppose these technocrats, you don’t “love Europe”. Just in that alone is the whole falsehood of the project, for project it is – a trial run at the real thing as Them see it.
How do I, a humble blogger know all this? Easy – just read widely and develop a filtration process to hold the BS and let the undeniable seep through. But there’s the rub, is it not? For you have to be of a background for which deep cynicism and distrust are the precursor to finding out a disjointed, piecemeal collection of things true.
To me, it’s like the reconstructed dinosaur at the museum – they can do it because of background knowledge of what a thousand fossils looked like. If you have the foot, head and part of the spine, the rest must follow, unless it was a mutant.
Coming back does it fit in with the definitive works which are ‘accepted’ true historical accounts – accepted by whom?
The feminists and other socialists have been secreting themselves away for decades now in academia, rewriting the texts, suppressing Noddy and Big Ears, allowing only the narrativized texts to get to the children and a generation has grown up which we almost universally see as dumbed-down.
Can’t think for themselves. Searching around for things to be offended by.
Truth, in their eyes, is what the Narrative says it is, no more, no less.
The victors write the histories and the victors, the hegemony today, are the global socialists and their twisted Narrative which misuses and abuses noble concepts such as fairness and tolerance and turns them into weapons of oppression of undesirable sections of society who are perceived as having had the power to alter things.
Therefore they are to be opposed and brought down – the Judaeo-Christian tradition, families as a sacrosanct concept, free enterprise, men as the vested power – anything preventing the new power.
“Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power.”–
Himself very much one of Them and therefore one of the “accepted” reading list at university.
That’s why I had no patience with Uber the other day trying to deny this was happening and countering it with the Narrative’s invented scenario concerning women.
And the evil in’t is that it takes things undeniably true – that things had to change for women to an extent – most men support those – but then twisted it into the Narrative and now it is a campaign born of hatred [refer to Russell above].
Minette Marrin nailed it when she spoke of “hatred of things male”. So even women can see this. Women, that is, not sucked into, played upon and captured by the Narrative.
Yuri Bezmenov also nailed it inadvertently – he was referring to Soviet influence without seeing that as part of the overall global narrative [which we've done to death on this blog and thousands of others]:
The result? The result you can see … the people who graduated in the 60s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated.
They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.
[The aim is] to “change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that – despite the abundance of information – no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”
To get more specific:
This multi-stage process requires media complicity/mediocrity, control of educational policy, widespread corruption in politics and industry, and the unlimited money/credit of the international bankers.
And the most amusing part for Them is that the very money which funded OWS, the very people who occupied, railing against the banksters [quite rightly], were the very people captured by the Narrative and proposing a socialist solution which is precisely what Them wish to see happen – their man in the UK is highly amusing as well – Ed Millipede. Not to mention Clegg, Cameron [the pretend conservative] and so many others. They infest Westminster like fleas.
You’ve read Lord of the Flies. This is Lord of the Fleas.
Does it fit in with the definitive works which are ‘accepted’ true historical accounts?
That question takes on a new meaning when viewed through the lens of the body of knowledge which is there for the exploring, should one wish to do so.
Wisdom is not, IMHO, any innate ability to “see” any better than someone else, which the Adepts like to tell us it is, in order to make knowledge esoterically gnostic, something meted out in 32 or 33 degrees, from the blue orders to the masters. It is free and available to all – one just needs the resolve and patience to explore it, keeping an open mind.
If your nature is untrusting, which mine is, then it helps in that process. If you can look at your own and be willing to accept things wrong there – most unpopular with one’s own – as well as with the obviously wrong out there, then you can do as Holmes did and see the body of evidence dispassionately before you conclude, e.g. in the Kercher case.
Or at least develop working hypotheses which you’re quite prepared to alter in the light of new hard evidence.
This is what Bezmenov was going on about. Deep-captured by Sovietism, he saw that certain aspects were not right, that even though he was a priest of the narrative, he saw it was based on twistings and coercion – he explored and turned into a Sakharov.
What muddies the waters here is that everyone thinks he or she is already doing that – they he or she is completely dispassionate and has all the data at his or her fingertips – even the pub philosopher, even the deep-captured narrativist think they see how things are, think they have it sussed.
That’s precisely why the narrative has such a grip – it creates the illusion, as any good teacher does when the child thinks he or she has come to the conclusion him or herself. The child does not see that the whole scenario has been set up for him or her to come to those conclusions.
Does it fit in with the definitive works
Maybe, maybe not. It adds to the vast array of knowledge on the topic. It gives pointers to further investigate. If it doesn’t sit with you as true, then put it on the shelf for now and come back to it. But please don’t measure it against a Directory of the Acceptable.
Because that immediately raises that question: “Acceptable to whom?”