Chronicle of Dissent - Spy Vs Spy, Censorship And Delusion

Politicians and media blindfold each other

Mar 01, 2023

(1,600 words or about eight minutes of your company).

Mar 1, 2023

The Woke brigade has children’s writer Roald Dahl — Charlie and the Chocolate Factory — in their sights. This time the politically correct are within the citadel; they are the owners of his legacy.

It is not a surprise. The co-director of Roald Dahl’s literary estate is his daughter Ophelia, who describes herself as a “social justice and health care advocate.” She runs Partners In Health, which she founded after a visit to Haiti and which provides “high-quality health care to the poor, from Haiti to the Navajo Nation, Siberia to Rwanda, and, most recently, in West Africa in the wake of the Ebola epidemic there.” [1]

Fifteen years ago, before the World Health Organisation began orchestrating a series of health panics, and before the Haiti earthquake of 2010 and the corrupt response, including the arrest, for a second time, of Clinton family associate Laura Silsby trying to smuggle children out of the country, one might have have accepted without question the good intentions of charities in such regions.

No longer. There is, sadly, sufficient evidence of human trafficking, organ harvesting and medical experimentation in these regions that even the best-run non-profit must know what is going on. Yet they all support, by their silence, the dark side of medical tyranny.

Partners In Health bought in fully to the Covid response, developing contact tracing from Mexico to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Declaration: I never liked Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The use of slave labour and its eugenic undertones, along with Wonka’s dictatorial impulses were too much, even though the writing, characterizations and names — Augustus Gloop and Veruca Salt — are brilliant, and precisely the elements of Dahl’s writing likely to be excised.

James Bond has become the latest target of “sensitivity readers,” the press reports. Author Ian Fleming’s racist and sexist language is to be removed

Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl were both prominent military intelligence officers during WW2, members of British Security Coordination, aka The Irregulars, working out of Rockefeller Center in New York.

It is notable, given the prominence of military intelligence in directing today’s censorship — part of what the army has designated a state of hybrid war in which the enemy is as much at home as abroad — that they are disowning their forebears. This could be a new Woke generation of military intelligence officers or evidence of foreign penetration.

See Moneycircus Jan 31, 2023 — Chronicle of Dissent - Rant In Age Of Narrative

Orwell next?

When I was a teen George Orwell was commonly despised as a traitor to the Left for having exposed Stalinists and, worse, for having cooperated with military intelligence to finger politicians allegedly on Moscow’s payroll. In the eyes of conservatives he was at best a fellow traveler, perhaps an anarchist, certainly an enemy of his Eton College school pals.

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, was the then Eric Blair’s teacher in 1917-1918.

Since 911 Orwell has enjoyed a renaissance and in the past three years has been raised up and canonised in memes such as: “1984 was a warning not a blueprint” etc.

Is the tide about to turn?

Stirrings in the Astroturf where a YouTuber, one Hakim, purports to keep the Bolshevik flame alive. He tells us Orwell was a snitch, a rapist, a racist, a colonial cop, and a CIA puppet and “a dogshit writer.”

Weather overground

Geo-engineering or weather control has been a fave at The Guardian newspaper which moved from being critical of geo-engineering, before ridiculing the idea as a conspiracy theory, and finally promoting it as a not-so-bad idea after all.

In May 2010 for example The Guardian published “Bill Gates' cloud-whitening trials 'a dangerous experiment’.”

Four months later the newspaper accepted Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) money under the guise of a new development website. “The Guardian launches global development website with Gates Foundation.”

Its new technique was to ridicule geo-engineering, “My month with chemtrails conspiracy theorists” (2017) [2] while gradually introducing it as inevitable: “What if it’s too late to save our planet without geoengineering?” (2021) while failing to disclose that BMGF funds both The Guardian and geo-engineering research.

The reality is that geo-engineering has been going on for decades. It was a military research project into weather warfare long before it was rebranded as climate engineering to save the planet. In Moscow cloud-seeding is a staple to ensure the sun shines on Victory Day.

If you are new to the topic Dane Wigington is the researcher to follow. Here he talks to a sceptical Del Bigtree. [6]

Censorship agenda

Following up on the recent newsletter, The Public-Private Censorship Industry, Glenn Greenwald weighs in on the push for censorship.

Brazil, he writes, is poised to become the first in the democratic world to implement a law censoring and banning “fake news and disinformation” online, and then punishing those deemed guilty of authoring and spreading it.

“For the globalist order increasingly petrified of internet freedom - they blame online free speech for everything from Brexit and Hillary's defeat to skepticism of health authorities and growing opposition to U.S. support for the proxy war in Ukraine – Brazil has become the perfect test case for seizing state power to censor the internet in the name of stopping ‘fake news and disinformation’…
As has been widely reported, the new industry to define ‘disinformation’ is largely a scam. It is funded by a small handful of liberal billionaires, and employs highly politicized actors who claim a fake expertise – ‘disinformation experts’ – to masquerade their ideological views as science. Any attempts by the state to make fake news and disinformation illegal will almost certainly rely on this fraudulent industry to justify their censorship decisions by claiming that their assessment of truth and falsity has been supported by ‘experts’.” [7]

The official or corporate attitude to truth is the greatest threat to public discourse. What is dangerous this time around is that so much of the public support these little Napoleons. Political polarisation is dangerous; mysterious actors are waiting at every corner to mininform us, we are told, thus we must be censored and propagandised.

See Moneycircus, Jan 14, 2022 — Insight: Brazil A Testing Ground For The NWO?
and Jan 11, 2022 — Insight: Judicial Overreach Mars Brazil's Election

The degree of censorship and propaganda is, of course, proportionate to the need to defend the establishment's lies.

Jacques Ellul wrote that the propagandist and the propagandised participate jointly in the endeavour.

Blaming disinformation is rather conventient for those who are less informed. It is a self-defence mechanism that boosts their ego: “If I haven't heard of that, it cannot be true.” Like the so-called disinformation experts and the Fakt Cheka, it is a kind of hubris. It also spares us from questioning why we believe what we believe or considering what we don’t know.

The bureacracy manipulates a public with disinformation, touting a rational system of democracy while undermining it. Propaganda, after all, works most powerfully not on the general public but on those fuctionaries who need to believe in their institutions — the bureaucrats, academics, the media and the corporate managers.

When real-world events call into question that rationality and effectiveness, the establishment needs the threatre of the reds and the blues, and the appearance if not the reality of street protest and violence, to keep themselves relevant. The public must be made to look maleable and vulnerable so that the institutional system can rush to their rescue — for otherwise the system is irrelevant.

Disinformation is not about a “war for truth” because the truth, like the scientific process, can overturn assumptions from one day to the next. In that sense “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose and it will defend itself.”

Paper tigers

Listening to a CGTN and Schiller Institute presentation on China-EU relations, a French politician bangs on about the need for a formal agreement but in the meantime we should increase cooperation on the main issues: public health, hunger, security....

It strikes me that politicians yearn for cooperation but don’t know on what to cooperate — so they latch onto these fake issues, pandemics, hunger, political polarization, because they lack experience of business or real life.

Hunger has fallen rapidly, and the free market takes care of it. Yet politicians are at this very moment putting farmers out of business in the Netherlands and the UK, while fighting a war in Ukraine, the “bread basket” of Europe. So they are increasing hunger, not reducing it.

As we have discussed here, if hydrocarbons were running out, you would think that politicians would make a plan to replace them, or for society to live with less energy.

Instead they are shutting down the energy supply before hydrocarbons run out, and before alternatives are ready. Even the state corporate media has noticed. [8]

See Moneycircus, Sep 2022 — Opinion: Not Enough Minerals For Green Energy

Pandemics are, like polarization, largely figments of the bureaucratic mind prodded by financial interest. Humans survived for millions of years until @BillGates came along...

What are the real issues on which countries could cooperate to make a difference in the real world, as opposed to that of bureaucratic do-gooders looking for a subsidy?

Moneycircus