We need to be far more critical in our searches

This was my first post of the day across the way but it seems to me that the principles touched on can also apply to our own research and collating of data …

(0748) Before we take even one step further

Patrons are reader/authors, reader/commenters and then readers … and as well as all the wunnerful attributes of each, there are also flaws, repeating flaws, some of which can be categorised:

a.  Having our faves whose testimony we wave through more or less uncritically, with time … whereas there are serious question marks about them. Donny himself is one of those, still proud of his Operation Warp Speed.

b.  Part of this fave biz is that we brook no criticism of our darlings … not in the back of our mind. In fact, to criticise marks the criticiser as an underminer, as a subversive element … and thus we create dissent in the tavern … where the camaraderie and collective responsibility to the narrative we create outweighs sheer politically sceptical sense.

Let me mention two … first Gonzalo Lira, of whom Ripper wrote:

Oh dear.. Its appearing that Gonzalo Lira is an SBU asset. Scott Ritter knocks holes in Gonzalo's escape story (14:40 in video)

How do I know? I used the search engine, always remembering that engines have their own biases too, e.g. Wikipedia.  We have snippets on Lira which should not be ignored … not if we wish to get the whole truth, not just half truths.

Yet we do not like anyone criticising or calling into question the view we have settled on in our own minds … we can take it quite personally.

c.  Protesting that we do not do any such thing is virtue signalling. Naturally, no one likes to be vaguely accused of this and we demand corroboration … standard tactic of the Woke left is to ask one word: “Sources?” Esp. when the sources have been blanket suppressed … neat trick, that.

So easy to negate with one word, e.g. “Racist!” without that projecter/flinger himself being subjected to rigorous scrutiny.  There’s a standard retort from me to this habit of the insta-riposte:

Sir Norman Anderson, describing himself as "an academic from another discipline who has browsed widely in the writings of contemporary theologians and biblical scholars”, writing in Lawyer Among Theologians, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1973, p15, about the quality of the criticism of the anti-Christian so-called intellectuals:

"At times [I am] astonished by the way in which they handle their evidence, by the presuppositions and a priori convictions with which some of them clearly (and even, on occasion, on their own admission) approach the documents concerned, and by the positively staggering assurance with which they make categorical pronouncements on points which are, on any showing, open to question, and on which equally competent colleagues take a diametrically opposite view."

When Ripper criticises Lira, our job is to at least note it each time Lira’s mentioned or included in a report, esp. by the American side, e.g. judges, colonels and generals. Not leaving out Scott Ritter himself.

And then there are “Doctors” Naomi Wolf and David Martin.  It is wrong to include their medical opinions as any better than our own as their doctorates were not in medicine … they are pulling a sleight of hand to present themselves as authorities on matters medical.

Are they not entitled to a view, having extensively searched? Absolutely … just as we do … but we do not pass ourselves off as doctors, meant to be taken as doctors of medicine on medical issues.  That is my main criticism … that and the desperation to be included on the Big Stage as “influencers” … always on the Big Stage … that is the point.

d.  There is an element of either laziness or bloodymindedness … obstinacy if you like … in continuing to uncritically present people who have serious question marks against them, just because they seem to be our champions, once the criticisms have been made by those on our side of politics.

Another is Alex Jones. There was first of all Bohemian Grove … how he even got inside, how he was never challenged … then there was how he folded on Sandy Hook, when he was wrong to … those matters have by no means been addressed.  Also questionable were Rense in the old days of the net, plus Ted Gunderson.

e.  The opposite applies too … to have the word WEF attached to you or to have used a horned hand sign is a major red flag, e.g. Tulsi Gabbard. Then there are Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.  Explore the negative literature first … how many patrons just put a name into the box and press, using what comes up, exploring that which ggl have helpfully arranged at the top of the first page?

You might put it down to no time to search further … those doing it to us though put it down to our human laziness. Thing is that to thoroughly research something can take years. On one issue … that of conceal and carry, a judge has just produced a 620 odd page report alone … who has that time?  

That’s not laziness to baulk at that … but just typing a name into a search box is.

f.  Always type in a negative, e.g. Steve Harley gay, or Tara Fitzgerald slut, something you’d like to see vehement rejection of … remember you’re not saying they are, you are searching … why search eulogies? For example, when searching for Pippa M, also type in “walk of shame”.

People such as me who type in negatives the whole time, who are cautious, cagey, untrusting … are we unpleasant people to be around? I could make a case for that, yes … but what do you want … the truth … or something nicely sugarcoated?

See, the problem is that we are are also community spirited here and to a point, it’s good not to push our fellow tavern denizens because we also need some solidarity, rather than being completely unherdable cats … and ultrasensitive to personal criticism too.

In short, a balance is required … but also not to let an obvious anomaly to slip past un-noted … particularly if there are people who’ve done a fair amount of work to bring those anomalies too us.

g.  We are ageing and the memory is genuinely deteriorating, plus we’recstressed out by the whole global situation as it seems increasingly likely to affect us … I don’t mean the climate bollox itself but the egregious draconian “measures” the evil muvvers in control are grinning as they impose on us sheeple.