Going back over the events of the US election, one aspect was that Wikileaks (and Anonymous - if such a group really exists in any coherent fashion - about which I am unsure) lost credibility by making very specific predictions and claims (at the level of information, time, place and person) which were not delivered in a timely fashion:
This was clearly an error - although it is not at all clear at present where the error lay. For example, Hillary Clinton was neither charged nor arrested. Thus the Alternative Media in general, and Wikileaks in particular has lost some of its hard-won reputation for accurate information and delivering on promises.
Why such errors?
1. I think one reason is a kind of naiveté - the false assumption that people will get what they deserve according to civilized standards.
The media (whether Mainstream or Alternative) can (potentially) accurately state whether somebody ought to be arrested or charged with a crime - but they cannot predict whether this will in fact happen.
There are too many other factors at work. In particular, those whose job is to act; may for many reasons choose not to act, or somehow be prevented from acting.
2. Secondly, the Alt Media were very foolish indeed in stating I some detail what they intended to do; because that enabled powerful people to stop it from happening.
It looks to me as if there was some combination of sabotage, bribery and intimidation which meant that what were probably sincere intentions were not fulfilled.
The lesson is surely that it is stupid to behave like a Marvel villain engaging in a gloating monologue, describing all the terrible things you are Going-To Do.
IF you really intend to do something, for Heavens sake get on with it.
Don't warn them: Just Do It!
3. I regard it as significant that these Alternative organisations are all of the Left - they all see themselves as idealistic and uncorrupted Leftists, fighting a fake and corrupt Establishment which they fail to recognise as also Leftist in history, aims and methods, and basic world-view (ie. the global conspiracy and their puppet Establishment are precisely 'the pragmatic Left').
Being Leftist inevitably means that the Alternative Media world view is significantly distorted compared with true reality.
Most of the idealistic Left get a free pass for misbehaviour from the pragmatic, most of the time - indeed they are encouraged in misbehaviour by hidden hands and funding agencies (e.g. the recent Establishment organised race riots and current Astroturf anti-Trump riots). Thus Wikileaks used to be a darling of The Establishment.
But during this election the Establishment were very afraid; and the Alt-Left were for a while being treated like The Right gets treated all the time. The kid gloves were off. The slander, dirty tricks, bribery, corruption and sabotage were all wheeled out against them.
This just is what the Left does - and why not? They are Godless materialist hedonists! What's to stop them doing whatever is expedient?
The Alternative Media need to reflect on their encouraging yet also chastening experiences over the past days, weeks and months; and learn from their own systematic weaknesses and distortions.
How is this elite behavior a thing? Is it some kind of demonic initiation where they become acclimated to it? Is mutation accumulation severely widespread or somehow selected for in the elites? The Saville stuff seems incomprehensible and scary to a "normal" person.
@George: "How is this elite behavior a thing? Is it some kind of demonic initiation where they become acclimated to it?"
My understanding is that there is a complex (and only vaguely understood) mixture of a minority of demonic possessed individuals; those 'initiates' who have pledged themselves to serve evil (these are the only ones who purposively pursue evil = the strategic destruction of The Good) -- and a much larger number of people who are roped-in by their un-repented sins, desires (pride, lust, greed, sadism etc), and cowardice...
Plus a mass of people who have forgotten or reject God, and therefore (because Man cannot survive spiritually or even biologically, without religion) have become both psychotic (deluded, out of touch with reality) and also unable to resist short-term expediency (because they have no compelling reason to do so, nothing to lend courage).
All this is critically worsened by wholesale mass media addiction; and the immersion in a manipulative false-reality.
I don't think decline of genetic quality (mutation accumulation) has much to do with this - because the process got going in the ages of genius, and was indeed driven by many bad geniuses. In The West now, evil is positively correlated with intelligence.
It is therefore actually possible that genetic decline may eventually lead to a spiritual awakening and the restoration of religion (ie it may be spiritually beneficial, leading to mass repentance; even when it is materially a mega-disaster in terms of human suffering).
Bruce, I'm coming to think that university education is something to be avoided. I'm quite serious. The more intelligent, as in intellectually trained (or conditioned) one is, the less one's natural instincts develop. The modern intelligentsia are practically without exception the most spiritually deluded of people. Exceptions might be made for proper scientific training but that's about all.
Of course, I didn't go to university so I may be prejudiced!
@William - I regard it as a simple fact that the great majority of university and college graduates are actively damaged by the experience - spiritually of course, but also in terms of skills and knowledge (i.e. they forget more than they learn; and emerge with no extra skills but a lot of new bad habits).
I was immediately suspicious of Wikileaks in 2010 when I noted the *enormous* coverage given to its pedestrian leaks by the BBC and other major outlets while Cryptome had existed for fourteen years without a peep.
My working assumption is that Wikileaks is a doppelganger site, set up to siphon off the attention that would otherwise be directed to genuinely disruptive sources. Indeed, around 2010 Wikileaks seemed to be blatantly 'leaking' cables that provided support for US intervention in the Middle East - so much so that it seemed Wikileaks had become another tool with which to insert unverifiable lies into public discourse.
Post a Comment