Buy the Drip
anti-truth societies engage in ethical gymnastics
The few paragraphs in the Times editorial about the leaked documents coming out of America this week perform the function that you'd expect them to.
Reinforcing shameless gung ho neo-conservatism as part of the war on truth.
Forever promoting vindictiveness over compassion.
As a society this appears to be as far as we are allowed to go when communicating on large platforms.
The military and banking guild have no interest in spontaneous outbreaks of world peace.
The plan appears to be to bore free thinkers into submission before then claiming victory.
And they're doing a great job.
But the problem with permanent dishonesty is that not everyone falls for it.
You have to start labelling honest people liars and lawbreakers.
Nothing new, but an effort still.
Then you have to get everyone to repeat the lies.
Not always easy to co-ordinate.
But thankfully we have an honours system and other ways of rewarding people for never going off message!
How we love the smell of vindictiveness in the morning.
Here it is:
The Evening Standard called the source a “dripper”, some papers are calling him a leaker.
But nobody wants to call him a whistleblower.
The role information plays in our society is key to understanding modernity.
But the goalposts keep shifting - and in plain sight megalomaniacal tendencies rather give the game away.
The Times Editorial’s display of strength is just another demonstration of weakness.
The general public tend to believe that when the “National Security” is mentioned, the “powers that should not be” have Joe & Jane Public’s interests at heart and their security in mind. Nothing could be further from the actuality. The State is a business a.k.a U.K. Plc and the “National Interest” and “National Security” represents the interests of the Stakeholders (TM WEF) business. As Liz Truss found out when she thought she held the levers of power, it was not so….
"What I found out when I got into Number Ten ... was that I was not holding the levers [of power]. The levers were [being] held by the Bank of England and the [City of London controlled] Office of Budget Responsibility, and not by the prime-minister or the chancellor [head of the Treasury] ... What I am saying ... is that if the Bank of England governor cannot be sacked and the prime-minister can be sacked, then the Bank of England governor is going to have more power than the prime-minister. And that is a problem in a [so-called] democracy". https://www.bitchute.com/video/FDJH8bFA1mZp/