Not just what did they know but when did they know it?

My initial cynical thought was ‘just another piece to fill the column inches’.  After all, readers expect something significant to keep the reassurance going that we do see what’s wrong and are calling it out.

Then I saw this:

We are – we are constantly being told – living in ‘unprecedented times’, facing ‘unprecedented circumstances’ requiring ‘unprecedented measures’ for which there is no historical precedent and because of which – is the unstated implication – those in power cannot be held to account for the consequences of their actions. ‘Unprecedented’, however, is one of those words that should set alarm-bells ringing, implying, as it does, that we are in a moment about which history can teach us nothing. 

History tells us that we should always be suspicious when those in power start claiming we are in a moment about which history can tell us nothing. The call to forget the past is always made in the service of power; but there are very few things that history cannot teach us. Once upon a time, we studied history precisely in order to learn from it, rather than stumbling around without memory in the apparently unprecedented newness of the present. 

Whether that present is a product of ignorance or deceit, the past inevitably has a lot to tell us about supposedly ‘unprecedented’ moments, and so it is with the coronavirus ‘crisis’.

Absolutely.  Over at Gab, there are constant reminders of just what, for example, the Danchenko trial in the States really signifies.

https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-igor-danchenko-trial-day-3

In essence, it shows that the State knew full well that there was no Russian collusion, even before any of the committees, appointments to “try” Trump.  Similarly:

https://principia-scientific.com/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die/

So what?  Anyone who lost someone in the 2019 to 2021 period, after which the issue became the vaxxes themselves … or even if they were endangered, recklessly and needlessly … when nurses themselves are leaving the service, not putting up with this any more … anyone suffering would see that question as decidedly hollow.

How did any of it come out anyway?  Whistleblowers, followed by social media calling it out and following it like terriers or bloodhounds, in each western nation.  And the reaction from those in authority? Mocking, vilification, being thrown off soc-med platforms.  We can make jokes about it being a badge of honour but the point is … why in the first place were we mocked for calling something out?

Why not instead, ‘Oh dear, wasn’t aware of that,’ which is the scientific principle of learning … modifying a view as further evidence comes to light, is tested and is either dismissed at that time, shelved for better corroboration, or else adopted.

Compare that to “the Science is settled”.  Take for example what is really going down with the Greens … fortunately they’ve shot themselves in the foot so many times of late that it’s easy to either not know at all … whatsoever … or else have forgotten such things as:

a.  In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to writer Daniel Wood in which he discussed a novel he'd like to write:

'Each year,' he explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot, 'the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO'S, prime ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.'  

With this as a setting, he then says, 'What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world leaders.'  'They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered a panic, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich countries -'

... and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.  - West Magazine (May 1990)

He told Maclean's in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." And his career combines oil deals with the likes of Adnan Khashoggi with links to the environmentalist Left.

"He's dangerous because he's a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system]," comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. "I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left." 

b.  Agenda 30 is just a subset of Agenda 21, which was the one presented and which all bar one nations signed off on, the last nation, The Holy See, only doing so recently. We ran a video link yesterday on it.

But we’d already run this on September 3rd:

Agenda 21 AKA Agenda 2030, Great Reset Or NWO Explained In Layman's Terms

https://www.bitchute.com/video/5J4EI7UCJAf2/

Why are so many, even good people at heart, still making wrong statements?  Well, there are various factors.  Firstly, they’re quite convinced they’ve explored “the Literature” in conveniently presented general consumption places such as the Telegraph, the NYT, even Breitbart (Shapiro is controlled opp, as seems Jones).  

Kudos that they’re even interested, which cannot be said for the masses and those calling talkback radio of a Monday morning. Hell, I can even make a case against Trump myself, nothing to do with the bollox the DemRats and RINOs are pushing.  Here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200807181213/http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2017/05/the-triangle-swept-trump-to-power/

The Donald appears there as one apex of a triangle of power.  His crime?  He went Abe Lincoln and JFK and really thought he could be a Statesman to make a difference, he broke with the path which had got him there … the warmongers … and came out anti-war, in the Monroe tradition.

Now my question of readers is this … were you au fait with ALL parts of the above?  If not, why not?  And allow me to provide an answer … because there is too bleedin much to take in … everyone and his dog is writing his opinion.

Doubtless you could compile a dozen snippets I’ve never seen either … how on earth could I have seen them?  So the only way is to gather, accumulate, day by day, hour by hour, dossiers. Being prepared to tweak our view on what actually happened.

Who has time for that?  Wwweeellllll … retirees?  But far more is the need for ‘good’ comments threads … that in itself is fraught.  MSM threads are dire.  Some major bloggers’ too. Essentially, it comes down to trusted sources over the journey, being always wary of trolls and being aware of our own bias confirmation … as the opposition surely are not.

One last thing … note the last url.  Why web archive?  Why not the original?  Because the site was taken down.  Why would anyone want someone’s site taken down?