User:Peter
The following is lifted verbatim from my Sabretache Blog profile [1]
It is dated February 2007 but actually dates from the start of the blog in 2005 where it formed the bulk of an original post. For anyone interested, it is still a reasonable resume of where I am coming from and provides some insight into what motivated the WikiSpooks Project:
Retired Englishman. Still self-reliant BUT...., until a definitive Blue Pill/Red Pill moment a few years ago, trapped in the 'consensus trance' by nearly 60 years shouldering of "The White Man's Burden"
- By which I mean adherence & loyalty to the Establishment narrative of an essentially benign, well-intentioned, 'Washington Consensus' promoting British State, busily engaged in 'making the world a better place' - or words to that effect. Since rank, position and place are of no consequence to me, I took the Red Pill.
For better or worse, the results are manifest in the Sabretache blog and the WikiSpooks project - plus several thousand comments in blogs too numerous to mention.
In modern Britain, loyalty and adherence to the 'Consensus Narrative' - manifesting, in Richard Heinberg's memorable phrase, as 'The Consensus Trance' and instinctively understood by the ambitious - remains absolutely central to success in Business, Public Affairs, Academia or the Main Stream Media, trumping all other considerations - including intelligence and ability. Why? - Because, proportionate to one's approach and proximity to the thresholds of REAL power, to EFFECTIVELY question it is to threaten and therefore become toxic to the Arbiters of your advancement, whose rank position and place depend upon it.
But... BIG BIG BUT.... It turns out the narrative itself is entirely bogus. It is a clever ego-stroking Orwellian illusion designed, developed and molded by self-perpetuating Power Elites to serve purposes far and away removed from those of fond and credulous popular belief. The history of Gallileo's run-in with The Roman Inquisition over 'Heliocentrism' and its implications for the teachings of the Catholic Church is an apt analogy.
My own adherence to it was shattered by deep involvement in what on any scale of serious issues facing humanity must rank close to bottom - The UK Campaign for Hunting - but it brought me face-to-face with gross abuse of political power together with the deception and sheer viciousness that our police are capable of when 'given their head' and can smell which way the political wind is blowing.
The result was my 'Blue Pill/Red Pill' moment and the shattering of some cherished and long-held beliefs (or rather illusions as they turned out to be). As a consequence, life in polite orthodox company (ie among those living the 'consensus trance' which, by definition comprises the overwhelming majority) has become 'difficult'. My contributions to discussions on politics, philosophy and world affairs in general are likely to be considered, in varying degree, unwelcome, threatening, scary, treasonable or simply mad; which naturally enough renders me 'persona non-grata' in circles where I cannot be indulged or patronised as the token madman - which in practice means whenever such discussions arise (attempts at patronising or indulgence being hazardous to the intellectual dignity of those inclined to try so-to-speak)
It has one overriding, neurosis banishing consolation though: that of genuine, relaxed, honest, open-minded, sceptical, illusion less enquiry, free from any pressure - self-imposed or otherwise - to align with the powerful (ALL power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely) and I therefore sleep like a baby.
Some other consequences of 'Taking the Red Pill' - in no particular order:
- Deep and abiding distrust of 'The State', its Apologists, its Spokesmen and especially its 'Security' Services and Enforcers.
- A clear understanding that the central operating principle of the State Executive Branch and its myriad collaborators in the Senior Civil Service and Judiciary (including Privy Council rank politicians of all Parties) is deception, compounded by obsessive secrecy and born of fear of the general population, which must therefore be subjected to ever more comprehensive and intrusive surveillance. A safe operating assumption for the average Joe is that, if government clearly wants you to believe a particular proposition, then it is almost certainly false.
- Conservative, Labour, LibDem, whatever. All are effectively hitched to the 'Consensus Narrative' and hence distinguishable by little more than their differences on the trivia of domestic politics. They generate a lot of heat and noise but very little light; they inflame passions; they inspire blind loyalty and/or visceral dislike but, on the epoch-defining issues of the age they are either silent (eg. peak... oil - or rather peak-just-about-everything) or complicit (eg. the need for perpetual 'growth' on a finite planet as a sacrosanct article of faith - together with the essential 'goodness' and benign intent of the Western World). Deviate persistently and effectively from these 'Articles of Faith' and you (Gallileo) will relinquish any prospect of political advancement (support from the Catholic Church) - If you are lucky enough to avoid the Guantanamo's of this world and escape with your life that is. (As a relevant aside, did you know that, with just 5% of the planet's population, the self-proclaimed 'Land-of-the-Free' boasts close to 25% of its prison population? ( more here ) - and very profitable business it is too for the Private Contractors that run most of it - the shape of things to come eh?)
- Outright rejection of "The 'WAR' on Terror" as an honest, accurate description of the over-arching issue facing the world - The first time in history that we are allegedly waging war on an abstraction with nobody available to agree armistice terms; perpetual war for perpetual peace is the promise; a plausible and to date supremely successful method of keeping populations fearful and thus placid and grateful for the State's 'protection' - very useful for diverting a bit of self-righteous anger at the 'enemy du jour' too (like 'Hamas', or 'Hezbollah', or soto-voce 'Muslims in general', or .... whoever; you get the drift - we just gotta have enemies you see. Scary Evil Baddies - preferably of dark complexion and with unkempt beards - that we can get all worked up about). It will be over when our political masters tell us it's over. In the meantime, be afraid. Be VERY afraid - but take care crossing the road since you're several thousand times more likely to be killed that way than running into a 'terrorist')
To be continued......
Perverse and bloody stupid abuse of our vote
From that blog back in May 2006 (lightly edited):
A few months ago (ie 2005?) the Department of Culture media and Sport launched an 'Icons of England' website to discover what people regarded as quintessentially English. To their acute embarrassment, Foxhunting was not only nominated but received the highest number of votes. So what did the Department of Culture media and Sport do about it?
Why, they decided to include foxhunting in their 'Icons of England' results, but renamed it "Foxhunting and the Ban". Talk about changing the rules after the fact. It is crystal clear that the hand of a deeply embarrassed New Labour minister is behind it.
Just hours before the expiry of a FOI request by the Countryside Alliance, The Department of Culture media and Sport has justified the decision with the words: "Images of hunt saboteurs and scuffles with the police spring to mind alongside hunting as an icon of England". The Countryside Alliance response:
"Foxhunting is an icon of England, an activity inextricably linked to the English countryside. Public opinion opposes the Hunting Act, which has been shown up as a worthless law which merely allowed Labour backbenchers 700 hours to express their prejudice and bigotry.
Foxhunting was nominated as an icon; the ban was not; and while laughable, it is extremely concerning that the DCM&S suggests that thugs in balaclavas fighting with the police is an icon of Englishness. The DCMS has succumbed to political pressure, and in doing so, is promoting precisely the sort of animal rights extremism which the rest of the country is at pains to avoid.
There has never been a picture of a hunt saboteur on a beer mat, and there never will be."
Quite.
Addendum January 2001 - even after a change of government we're still being insulted over the icon we chose as the single most important part of being English, the picture on "Icons" page is entitled "A huntsman from the Cheshire Forest Hunt doffs his riding hat to anti-hunt campaigners in the village of Lach Dennis, December 26, 2003 © ".
Please remember that we're English and we don't want a "Sarah Palin shoots Gabrielle Giffords" moment so nobody is going to name the minister responsible. Though it would be difficult not to describe him in a single short and pithy epithet and the actions taken in this affair with the matching adjective. Toolbox 10:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
