911 and 77 (21)
Objectivity versus conviction or "Over The Fence We Go". My approach to the conspiracies that I believe, and say are true and write about from that point of view, is that there is evidence, good information, elsewhere for anyone who really wants to know the truth and wishes to discover it, and therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat it here. Instead I have a kind of "moving on from there..." way of going about things here.
When I write I do so very often with a kind of teacher's hat on. I am not a teacher really nor have I ever been one but my nature is quite teacherlyish and when I speak or write I recognise that I adopt a certain teacherly kind of approach and it may be useful for you to understand that approach. Firstly, I generally make an assumption that you already have come over to some degree to my way of thinking. If you haven't then it may be best to become convinced of one of my pet conspiracy ideas before reading too much of what I have to say about it because what I try to do is to try to 'leverage' you to the next step.
Many people won't state where they really stand on an important thought-issue and often it is because they don't know themselves which is another way of saying that they are ignorant, not in a derogatory sense but in the literal sense, of that issue, they just don't know.
There are plenty of web sites, blogs and even books that can take you across that belief-threshold, but there is almost nothing that goes the next step, that takes us to the next level, and of that 'almost nothing', nearly all of it, it seems to me anyway, is wrong or significantly wrong.
For instance there are just a few 'Bigger Views' if I can so term them which are presented and one that often crops up can be summed up, a bit like this: "The reason for all of this (the totality picture) is that people have lost their way and are godless".
Writers who put that kind of Big View out usually don't clarify what they mean but just generally imply that we all need to go back to Sunday school, read our bible devices before we go to bed and generally make our slow and labourous way back down the roads of history in reverse gear, find out where we all went wrong, turn to god (the bible really I suspect) and march all the way back again, singing hymns to the same boring tune. I mock this idea lightly here, and with the same degree of barest attention that it deserves, because such lack of thought goes into their Big View that it hardly deserves much appraisal.
This particular kind of total-picture is just poking around in the dark and reaching for something just to provide an answer when the more truthful answer, or less unlikely at any rate, is that the person does not have a clue - which is actually a perfectly reasonable state to be in.
I also think that it is a kind of folly to think that anything is achieved in spending one's time trying to convert people to take onboard a strange idea. So far as I can see it is a waste of intelligence, time, energy, effort and so on. People, myself included, don't switch over because of those who do this kind of work but for other reasons. Wisely so. I don't mean to decry, necessarily, others who do adopt this method - they may be successful at it, and have a personality more suited than mine to be able to do it well.
JFK was killed in 1962. How many people believe it was an Inside Job after all this time? And of those who do, why do they? And even if the number is large, where has it got us, now, nearly half a century later? I suspect it is almost a meaningless event, in the sense that it has not served as a lesson or as a trigger to try and restore society to sanity - a sad reflection but better to acknowledge it than pretend it is otherwise.
It is the availability of convincing evidence together with an actual wish to know the truth that changes people's beliefs. Each of us needs both things to make that transition. Personally, I have always wanted to know the truth of certain things that people mostly dismiss as too unbelieveable and so I have come further along that road than most people. I have acquired a lot of good information, a rock solid appreciation of what this world is about and what is going on in it. I mean conspiracy-wise, that kind of knowledge. I won't waste time arguing with anyone over the matter because I see nothing useful that can come from it. Likewise in my writings.
Few people can believe an extreme idea being presented by someone they find it difficult to evaluate. And why should they. I can tell you that JFK was an Inside Job. That's what I came to believe recently, for sure. But why should you take my word for it. Of course you shouldn't. I would and should simply tell you what I believe and why, and ask you to do your own research if you are at all interested enough to want to know the truth. Then, I can relate what I think it must mean and that exercise, those articles, have some potential value, but probably only then.
On the JFK killing, I wavered in my belief, being 'agnostic' or 'conspiracy' depending on the documentary I watched. Even JFK the film didn't convince me, although the second viewing more or less did. But then a TV, de-bunking documentary would be aired and I would 'drop back' into agnostic mode again.
Much the same occurred with the Diana murder history. A decade of swinging in one direction only to be swayed back again, all depending on the news or documentary that I might have viewed. But I made a drastic change when I realized that these sources are disingenous, false.
I now realize that the 'media' is a much more controlled system than I had ever dreamt of and only internet evidence I have seen recently made me wake up, and this realization has made me degrade the reliability of media documentaries and the media generally so that now I believe that it just cannot be trusted when it comes to any important issue.
In January 2007 I made a number of shocking discoveries on the internet, most are terrible but at least one is wonderful. One of these is that I grew to understand that in the UK we had, for decades, been duped by the media in a single-minded and blind way. Some of the most important ideas have been virtually censored or effectively censored. I do not say censored exactly but effectively so. I cannot believe it is direct, knowing, complicit, censorship. But it is effectively more efficient than censorship. Censorship would involve inefficiencies. What I was subjected to, as a UK resident, along with sixty million others of the population there, was efficient mind control inasmuch that certain very important ideas were killed off at birth and thereafter totally misrepresented. One example will prove my point...
Zero point energy. This, also known and was then called "Cold Fusion", broke the news in 1989 in the UK and worldwide too in fact. It was truly wonderful news for two or three days and then the "hit" began. This hit, in retrospect was efficient, it worked to ridicule the idea and demolish what had been claimed.
Now, more than 25 years later, I learn, on the internet, the truth. Cold fusion is real. Inventors who discover it are being silenced and it gets worse. The truth about it has been tightly controlled and hidden. The truth was and is controlled, suppressed, lied about, ridiculed, falsified, misrepresented and concealed. What is the scheming behind that? I don't know much, I don't know exactly, but I know enough to understand that it happened and is still happening, that it is ongoing. I see part of this but I don't lay claim to be doing much more than that. What I certainly won't do is make an unwarranted leap into saying it is a worldwide controlled conspiracy with ABC or XYZ group behind it. But I will take the next step that comes from knowing some of the truth about this.
The "free energy" as it is also called, is a wonderful subject to learn about because it brings great hope for the future.
Like a few other sensible people who really want to find out the truth, I go from agnostic to conspiracy and back again, repeatedly, depending on what kind of documentary or news we have just seen on television or read in a newspaper. But this whole presentation of important ideas is not really how we think it is, it is not part of a "free press". The whole system is riddled with a kind of information cancer. You cannot depend on it's reliability. In fact you can only suspect it as dubious.
Anything strange is severely dealt with and it is not possible to retain a balanced, fair-minded or correct view of reality concerning many very important subjects as a result. That is one absolutely awful conclusion to come to and I really don't state it lightly but with a profound sense of disappointment in our leaders and people in positions of responsibility that they have allowed this to happen. I also recognize that there are brave people who are killed when they do try to stop it from happening. So what can anyone do? This, again, is part of why the next step is so important to focus on and why I do it and why I explain, in this article, why I do it.
Another very important reason I am reluctant to write about the evidence that should convince others is that in doing so I would be providing a priceless free service to the very people who commit these evils and they can then go about damaging that evidence. Let me give you an example.
A few days ago I saw a photograph taken on Mars and the person publishing this explained why it must have had a major colour change applied to it and he even said that he would check the source again to see if it would be 'covered up', which he did and it was. So in showing people on the internet that the pictures taken on the surface of Mars have been tampered with, altered, and explaining the proof, he was also alerting the people who had done this altering to the fact that they had 'let the cat out of the bag' and they hastily destroyed the proof of their tampering.
I just don't want to give those people the kind of information that will enable them to go about destroying such valuable evidence for the truth.
So if I say that I am convinced, and you should be too, that 7/7 was an Inside Job and that Diana was murdered and that I ought to explain the precise pieces of evidence that convinced me then firstly I probably wouldn't convince a single person if I did do that and secondly I will be providing priceless and free information back to the perpetrators if I do so that they can then set about destroying or covering up that evidence.
If, on the other hand, I stick with the 'next step', that kind of, after you jump over the belief-wall or obstacle, then I can assume that my readers have already chosen to read my writings because they already know and they are ready to take that next step with me. Thus neither of us has any need to mention the evidence that is still vulnerable to interference by perpertrators. This is important with ongoing conspiracies which are yet to be exposed to proper legal process and therefore such evidence must be treated as though it may one day be called into a court of law to be examined.
Yet another observation I make is that of books on "difficult information" usually take an "objective" stance. I put it like that because even if the author is a convinced believer he or she will often take on the role of objective investigator. My own view is that if this is disingenuous then it spoils the whole work. I would rather read something coming from a sincere and genuinely expressed viewpoint than one that is contrived to be more appealing and more acceptable.
Such authors want to convince you of their ideas but they put what they have to say in objective form. Some actually do it very well. But that is not my style. I would much rather reach fewer people but people who don't need me to convince them as they have already converted.
By "difficult information", by the way, I mean things like conspiracy ideas, UFOs, aliens, Inside Jobs of 9/11 and 7/7, the Diana murder and many more.
I don't sit on the fence usually and I don't want to pretend to be sitting on the fence just to be more favoured and, in fact, I actually prefer to be on the lonely side of the fence because for a start there's actually places to stand, sit, park a car, stop and have a picnic, enjoy the view and be out of earshot of the rat race and all "The Great Noise" that being in the rat race produces. So it is actually quite nice over here and that fence, well, thank you for putting it there because it certainly keeps out the slobs and the scum as they always prefer to be where the noise and the action is, don't they?
You can now understand why I won't spend much time presenting evidence that others have provided well enough elsewhere on the internet, although I might just add a few of my own observations especially if they seem to be unique. My objective is not to argue my case with you but to assume that you already know and accept certain important truths concerning "difficult information". When I write about things such as 9/11 or 7/1 or Diana's murder and some other conspiracies, I will probably assume that you have seen the light too and have come onboard with me, after all, if you really want to know then the truth is easy to find on the internet and once you have found it and got some of it under your belt (I suppose that means you have eaten it, metaphorically), digested it, then you will probably want to know what it all means and why it is happening and how come so few people want to know about any of it. Let us explore these questions and others like them together.
Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
15th April 2007
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
