Who Believes The MSM?
Here we go again. False flags flying over Turkey. Lots of other places too. Why should we be surprised though, when these things work so well? After all, if the MSM says it, and repeats it often enough, it must be true. Right? Conversely, if they fail to ask an obvious question, there must not be anything worth knowing. No fake news here, citizen. Move along.
This week’s story? The entrapment/murder/dismemberment of Mr. Khashoggi. In Turkey, of course. The most titillating part, for those who enjoy the gory details (which is most of The Empire now), is that the whole thing was recorded. An hours-long interrogation and piecemeal dismemberment of the living victim, just in time for Halloween. And maybe, the upcoming elections? Funny how things pop up right about that time. Ask Judge Kavanaugh (who barely escaped his own quartering) if you doubt that thought.
Being a Barbarian, I gladly admit that I am always skeptical. Of everything. That trait has always served me well. My antennae are twitching badly on this story. Not because of the event itself, nor the behavior that describes it. Who can doubt that the characters involved are certainly capable of this murder? My concern is not really about what was done but rather, how we have come to know about it.
Tell me, how was it that the Turks knew so quickly of its occurrence (besides the wondering fiancé, who simply reported her intended as missing). Then tell me how the Turks were in immediate possession of these same audio (and according to some reports, video) recordings of the act? Who, in their right mind, would bother to continue recording an event that somehow ‘went bad’? And how, given the gravity of the act, could such recordings have leaked beyond the room? And so quickly? Surely everyone there was complicit in some way.
Since most embassies (especially in hostile territory) are hardened against electronic eavesdropping, could we really believe the Turks were somehow monitoring the event, ‘live’ as they say? Why did they not intervene, at the very least by letting the Saudi’s know in real time that they knew evil was afoot? Better the victim lives minus a few fingers than to lose them all. Plus his head. If the Turks were indeed so damned concerned, they surely took their time expressing it.
Let’s look at another false flag flying over Riyad. The flag that says it was just an interrogation gone bad. An ‘argument that devolved into a fist fight’. Never mind that a planeload of 15 Saudis was on the scene in no time, with one of them supposedly seen carrying a surgical bone-saw. Really? Who carries such a thing openly, given the task described in this alibi? Who was looking for it? Who would have the chutzpah to tell such a story if it wasn’t true? And who would believe it, besides the MSM?
Here’s another reason for my skepticism. If Mr. Khashoggi was such a thorn in the side of someone, why would you not just arrange a car-wreck? Or a heart attack? Or any number of other ways of disposing of him without leaving fingerprints (and DNA) on that handy-dandy bone-saw someone conveniently brought along on their holiday trip to Istanbul?
Have you noticed the bipartisan nature of the outcry? Surely this is a rarity in this day and age. How is it that all of our politicians are speaking with one voice when one side doesn’t really believe anything the Washington Post says?
The deeper question I have is not with the actors in these stories. Rather, I question the lack of questions from the supposedly interested questioners themselves. Where is their curiosity? This is beyond stupidity or sloth, although modern journalists are not lacking in these modern virtues. No, given the widespread nature of this curious lack of curiosity (amongst those supposedly paid to be curious), we must look for answers elsewhere.
What really happened in that embassy? Who knows. More importantly, who cares? The way this story is being reported is a lot more interesting to me than the supposed plot line(s). It seems to me that the real story is an attempt to present Donald with an un-appetizing choice. Either he must denounce (and punish) Saudi Arabia (specifically Mohammed Ben Salman), or buy the alibi that stinks to high Heaven.
If he punishes MBS the Iranians are happy. Along with a lot of Saudi princes (and others) MBS has pushed around since his recent ascent to power. The punishment proposed by those who write this stuff is the cancelling of arms sales to the Saudi’s. Donald doesn’t like that idea. Boeing and Raytheon don’t either.
But if he buys the alibi, and saves the arms sales, Donald will certainly be cast as a craven Mammonite, just in time for November 9th. Nice little box, eh? Ask yourself something here. Could not this murder have been carried out by MBS’s enemies within his state (knowing MBS hated Khashoggi), thus tagging him with the baggage? A nice way to damage MBS and Donald both. I’ve yet to see this question asked. Nor the question of why MBS would have deliberately done away with Khashoggi in such a weird manner. He’s not an idiot.
Let’s move on and look at another fine flag. This one is flying over the Phanar. That’s shorthand for the Orthodox version of the Vatican. At least, Orthodoxy as defined by The Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, first among equals in the Greek Orthodox world. Or at least he was first among equals, before he apostasized. Before he unilaterally decided to become the Pope of All Orthodoxy, according to the head of the Greco-Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow.
This appears to just be a food fight within the Orthodox world. That’s how the MSM presents it, when they present it at all. Given the MSM’s ingrained antipathy to all things Christian, why would we expect anything different? But again, there are pregnant questions here that are not being asked, by anyone it seems. Anyone but the Russians, of course.
They see this whole thing for exactly what it is,another attempt to erase the borders of Russia. They see this as the flip side of Ukrainian membership in NATO. This incursion into Russian Orthodox identity is being pushed by a man (Bartholomew I) who has approximately 1,000 followers in Istanbul, plus a crown. But he’s evidently now flush with funds. I wonder where he’s getting all this dough?
Nobody in the MSM is asking this question. Nor do they seem to care that of the 14 other Orthodox ‘local churches’ world-wide, none of them agreed with Bartholomew’s request to join him in ‘granting’ autocephaly (self-rule) to the schismatic offshoots of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). The church in Little Russia which has been linked with Great Russia since the time of Vladimir the Great in 988. And a church which has been under the wing of Moscow since 1589, when the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem all elevated Moscow to it’s own status of autocephalous Patriarchy.
About five years ago, two schismatic groups broke away from the UOC (attached to Moscow) and started their own version(s) of the UOC, with their own Metropolitan(s) in Kiev. These two groups have started stealing the church properties of the original UOC. And beating up their clerics. Patriarch Bartholomew is going on to reward this behavior by granting legitimacy to these upstart twins. It’s like me telling my neighbor’s rowdy and disobedient teenagers that I recognize their right to take their dad’s car. And to beat up the old man. And change the keys to his house.
Guess who is supporting this? Our State Department for one. Mike Pompeo, specifically. It’s a rather tawdry story of blackmail, but once again, our MSM friends seem deaf, dumb and blind. After all, it’s being done in the name of democracy. Once again, Donald’s ‘friends’ within his own administration are setting him up for further confrontation with Russia. If Russia intervenes in any way (either ecclesialy or governmentally), guess who will be blamed as the provocateur? More importantly, who will have to respond? Donald, of course. No matter which way he goes, he will be pilloried as a wimp or an interloper.
There Is Nothing To See Where You Don’t Look
Truly fake news is, more often than not, really a sin of omission, not commission. It’s not really the questions our friends in the Fourth Estate ask in their work ‘on our behalf’. Rather, it’s the questions they won’t ask. Which brings us to the biggest sin of omission on their part. It is the sin they commit in their pursuit of the one enemy they hate worse than Donald. Who would that be? The Catholic Church, of course.
What false flag are they flying today over the Vatican? It is the flag of calumny. And silence. Silence in the face of Archbishop Vigano’s charges against Pope Francis, and in the Pope’s refusal to address the McCarrick scandal (or the larger scandal it represents). Calumny in printing the ‘reply’ of Cardinal Ouellet to Abp. Vigano without examining the reality of what Abp. Vigano actually said to begin with. All of this on top of a failure to pursue these same issues with Francis himself. Which Francis no doubt appreciates. Who says there is no honor among thieves?
What then is the actual ‘issue’ these paragons of reportorial rectitude wish to avoid? Is it Pedophilia? Hardly. They’re only too happy to talk all day long about that version of reality (even though actual pedophilia is only a miniscule portion of reported abuse cases). Is it ‘clericalism’, then, as Francis and his flacks claim? No problem there either, Komrade. The Free Press is happy to see the blame shifted to the victims, who have somehow tempted their shepherds by placing the undue pressure of trust in them, causing them to succumb to the temptation presented by those damnable sheep.
No, friend, the real word the MSM is terrified of is this: homosexuality. Read for yourself what Abp. Vigano has said in his third broadside against these filthy practices and their acolytes in The Church. Note too, how Abp. Vigano deals with his own sin of omission. Read what he fears his judgment will be because of that. Then tell me this isn’t a huge story. Huge. But have you seen in in your local front page? Or even the back page?
Let’s think again about our omissive ‘friends’ in the supposedly free press, and how they manipulate us more by what they will not ask (or report). The question now is how should we respond to them in their insidious and spineless behavior? What will change their behavior?
Now before I answer that, I want to mention two things. The first is the fact that in the past few election cycles, we have been constantly bombarded with stories built around the results of non-stop polling. Polling that, in fact, has been quite wide of the mark. And to the same side each time. Polls consistently have under-represented the eventual (conservative) performance. I think this time will be no different. The press will say it is because of the difficulty in obtaining a truly representative sample (due to voter mobility, cell phones vs landlines, etc). The press will entertain any idea but the one that says that people are lying to them.
The second point is that Mueller has been silent. He has nothing of substance to report, and therefore his true worth (as an enemy of the people) is in keeping the charade going as long as possible. If this means staying silent for now (and does he dare release anything this close to election day?), fine. Why fold now when your opponent may yet commit some political faux pas that make the investigation issue moot on election day? Mueller’s silence also explains what is going on in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine etc. The left are getting desperate. They are looking for anything they can use to ensnare Donald before election day. Expect to see more insanity in the headlines as we count down the days.
The Best Joke
The question arises (for the long term), how should we best respond to the enemies of the people in their continued attacks on our faith, our families and our freedoms? What is the best means of response that will serve to show all of The Empire what the MSM actually stands for as they fail to pursue the truth? Should we answer with research? With polemics? With reason? No, they are immune to all three. Deliberately so. Anyone who watched the Clarence Thomas hearings in the past, and the Kavanaugh hearings of today, understands that the trajectory of these kamikazes has already been set. Nothing rational will alter their approach. But can anything else, anything beyond reason or facts do the job of shaming them into telling the truth? I believe so. Let me illustrate my point before I state it.
The tradition of The Church holds that Lucifer, the ‘Bearer of Light’, was reputedly one of the Seraphim, the highest rank of the angels. This meant he was superior in intellect to all those below him. Their intellect is the root of angelic power. Michael, on the other hand, was an Archangel, which is the next to the bottom of the nine angelic ranks. Yet supposedly Michael was able to drive Lucifer from the heights of Heaven. Given the disparity of their relative positions of endowed power, how was this so?
The key to this puzzle is in the particular sin of Lucifer, which of course was his pride. We all (should) know that wounding someone’s pride can be the most devastating thing that can befall the proud. How best to wound such a one?
The answer is in the name of Michael. Or more properly, Mi-cha-El. Translated, it means ‘Who is like God?’ When Lucifer and his fellow rebels favorably compared Lucifer to his Creator, Michael gained his fame (and name) by exclaiming Mi-Cha-El!
Michael asked a rhetorical question whose answer should be obvious to anyone, even the proudest of all. Lucifer certainly knew he didn’t create God, and that meant God must have created him. But Lucifer’s pride was not about to yield to this lowly Archangel just because of the intellectual content of Michael’s retort to Lucifer’s boast that he would place his throne above that of The Most High. So what was it, beyond the intellectual content of Michael’s retort, that pushed Lucifer over the literal edge of Heaven and into the abyss?
Loud, hilarious laughter at the absolutely ridiculous presumption of that fat-headed Seraphim. When the rest of the angels who had not rebelled followed Michael’s lead and joined in with this scornful laughter (thus elevating Michael to the position of leader of the Heavenly Host), Lucifer’s pride was wounded to the quick, to the point that he had to flee. Since there was only Heaven at that point in time, Lucifer threw himself into the abyss to escape his utter embarrassment.
This is simply my reading of how it went down. Strictly me, and not the Church. But I ask you, what other power would Michael have had over Lucifer other than to see the ridiculousness of Lucifer’s pretension, and to laugh it to scorn? What prideful being can abide such a thing?
What does this have to do with us, here on earth, locked in combat with those who wish to relegate us to serfdom in their dark animal kingdom? Simple, my brothers. We must use the same tactic. After all, we too are fighting vastly superior beings. Seraphims, Cherubims, Principalities, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues and Powers. We must never think that we can outwit them, for such is not within our grasp. We can only resist with faith that stays firm. If we have true faith, then we know the war is over, even though the battle still rages.
If we know, by faith, that the war is already won (and death is defeated), then how can we not feel confident when our enemies use their seemingly superior weapons and tactics against us on earth? We must be confident enough in our faith to know that no matter what the enemies of God’s People propose to do, their whole power here and now resides in the power of their pride. There’s only one real weapon that works against them: laughter! It will drive them insane. Literally.
The next time someone tells you evolution is reality, or that they are transgendered, or that socialism can work, or that equality is natural, or any other ridiculous prideful thought, do the kind and Christian thing. Laugh them to scorn. It’s the only thing that works! The look on their faces will be worth your eventual death. And theirs too.
Faith, a light heart, and a loaded rifle are great comforts in times of trouble.
“Something inside so strong”?
“…evolution is reality…”
See a video of a simple bacteria evolving in the face of antibiotics:
This also highlights that belief systems are one of the most robust means of resisting facts and being blind to facts. That such belief systems tend to be somewhat predominantly associated with religious faiths that concurrently emphasis “truth” as a virtue such that a faith-based “truth” is maintained in the face of reality/facts that disprove it is, as they say, ironic.
The other adage, attributed to many and going back, apparently, at least as far as Confucius comes to mind: ‘Empty heads have long tongues.’
Laughter works when the basis for it is supported by reality. When it isn’t, the laugher comes off as more demented, perhaps like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ZpB0IHIyM
Laughing in the face of truth isn’t sensible.
It takes a sober and sensible mind as well as a critical and analytical thinker to sort these things out.
On the other hand, fiction is usually barbed and not calm.
FunDeMentalism. That’s what it is.
“If Christian belief is causing you to hate then it’s a false belief. ” Keith Ward.
People don’t need any encouragement to find reasons without blaming God for it. Myself included.
It usually burns itself out though, directly.
I.W. Says: “The question arises (for the long term), how should we best respond to the enemies of the people in their continued attacks on our faith, …”
Hhhmmmm. Who is the “enemy” if the particular item of faith being attacked is truly false? That would seem to be the one/those holding onto false belief. Watt mentioned evolution as false, though some Christian faiths accept evolution…which illustrates that some faith is false.
I.W. Says: “If we know, by faith, that the war is already won (and death is defeated), then how can we not feel confident when our enemies use their seemingly superior weapons and tactics against us on earth?”
IF you truly believe the war is won, then you ought not feel any need whatsoever to counterattack against enemies using only words, as that is about what it all amounts to, name-calling and such. Which makes the following somewhat inexplicable coming from one purporting to be of faith:
“There’s only one real weapon that works against them: laughter! It will drive them insane. Literally.”
“Laugh them to scorn. … The look on their faces will be worth … [their eventual death]”.
How does such vindictiveness and gloating arise from a faith that espouses themes such as ‘turn the other cheek’?
There seems to be some hypocrisy there. I suspect that’s what Joy referred to, above.
@Ken — you ask, “IF you truly believe the war is won, then you ought not feel any need whatsoever to counterattack against enemies using only words”
Here’s the thing. God likes to share with us, his beloved creatures. He likes for us to share in his actions (which are, by definition, loving). Correcting falsehoods, and rebuking sins, and reviling evil, are good acts. Furthermore, truth, sin, and evil are not things that change, no matter how much people think we’ve evolved beyond them, or into new understandings of them.