Down into the rabbithole

 Quoting leftwing Newsweek

Not a good move. For a start, they run this:

A news source which runs that answers its own question, just like the BBC which replies to an attested piece of evidence with auto “Fact Checking”, which of course results in gainsaying, auto-denial, unsubstantiated, naturally, except by its own sources.

Connected to that is a second strategy called “bluster”, where someone opens with “bollox” or “nope” then makes an assertion, itself unsubstantiated, then using the third strategy … demanding, “Source?” to which any halfway assiduous site replies to look through the site for all references to the matter.

It’s an essentially lazy strategy, demanding ‘source’, employed by one character in the Meredith and Knox case some time back. I was sent a list of 100 questions … you do see the strategy … huge, time intensive delaying … whilst they do zero. Do not respond to such tactics. Because the moment you do, they just auto-nay-say and then a second toerag comes in with the next objection … then a third is posed … tag team.

Which brings me to the fourth strategy of blaming a ‘rogue element’, calling it an ‘isolated case’, ignoring all the antecedent brainwashing which led that person to that place, also ignoring the strategy of agencies having hundreds of assets, sleepers, awaiting the call. I suspect Oswald was ine of those … doubling as a patsy.

A variation on that strategy is a fifth, which combines the second above … the variation being the bold, unsubstantiated assertion … with a variation on the fourth, asserting that you’re the only one on the planet who believes that … you being a quirky whackjob or else you being the embodiment of all wisdom in your own mind.

It plays on this:

On the topic of the early dating of the gospels, one participant in the debate later wrote:

Anyone coming into a debate is coming in from the angle which is the sum of his own experiences to that date … he is therefore quite kind to his own side’s case, making allowances in an easygoing way, letting this one or that go through unchallenged, whilst being narrow of definition and stringent, even pedantic, on anything at all put by the other side … it’s just human nature … as distinct from unethical.

To an actual case … let’s say someone sent an article in which the writer is clearly anti British Empire, putting in big letters that the Chagos Islands were stolen from the people of the islands in the 1960s by the British govt. Uh huh … what about this though:

Puts a slightly different complexion on it, no? Leading to:

We’re now descending into a right rabbithole of international or interbloc law, n’est-ce-pas? Long ago, on the issue of the traitors Heath, Wilson, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, Starmer, to name a few, a chap I used to know, named Ian Parker-Joseph, sent me two opposed opinions on the precedence of legal judgments, directly related to sovereignty.

In a perfect example of double or triplespeak, the EU recognised the sovereignty of the nation, whilst simultaneously asserting the primacy of the various extra-national courts, e.g. the ECHR, whilst covering themselves by saying that it was nowt to do wi’them … different other body, mate.

Which is sheer sophistry, as they’re all part of the same bunch, even Gina Miller. They’re all aligned, in cahoots. And that’s before the “World” organisations kick in. Where’s English Common Law in all this?

The analogy I’d use is that of an uneven playing field … let’s say a home side’s playing field, deliberately tampered with to favour the home side, plus movable goalposts.

Solution? The only solution is to be in power, one way or the other. The opposition is always going to change the rules to prevent you ever getting that power back.