911 and 77 (21)
If so then you may like to know that
Bax It! backs it!
So use Bax It!
It's simple!
It's easy!
It's safe!
It's free!
It's yours!
Get it now
Use it often
All you need is
Windows,
a second
hard drive
and
Bax It!
Use
Bax It!
for all
your
backup
needs.
Thousands, if not millions of people, will have heard the phrase:
Let's just set the scene, one that is necessary before anyone would bother considering such an idea.
War after war, atrocity after atrocity or terrible event after terrible event needs to occur first and then at some point in the process or after it's closing curtain, someone will point it out. Such events imply that vigilance was missing in the first place though, don't they, otherwise, if vigilance did the trick and, obviously, providing it was applied, then we would stop such nasty episodes in their tracks during the early processes of being engineered, wouldn't we?
Nice and easy. Nice and simple. So what goes wrong then? Why doesn't vigilance, never mind eternal vigilance, seem to be working? It's a bit like "all you need is love" or "All that's needed to have a beautiful garden is nice plants" Such statements may indeed be spot on but producing results usually needs a set of circumstances to be properly met too. It's this set of circumstances I want to deal with.
Assuming that it is true, that the price of peace is vigilance, dropping the 'eternal' for simplicity, let's not dispute that for now or if you prefer, go away, dispute it to your mind's content, then, if you decide it IS true then come back and commence reading again.
So, for ease of limiting our 'discussion' here to the question why doesn't it seem to work and issues relating to that let us proceed along those lines at least for this article.
If I am sarcastic for a moment (with an added dash of cynicism which sarcasm implies after all), these days, we all know, that we can place our trust in our leaders, our government, the secret government agencies, the police, especially the chief constables (UK, their equivalent elsewhere), our military and so on, don't we? Vigilance then, so it would seem on this basis of trusting our leaders and those in positions of influence, as we are continually urged to do by them of course, is an outdated notion and principle. In fact vigilance, apparently, is a waste of effort and time and by giving voice to our vigilance we give support to the enemy and cause offence to those poor people who have lost loved one's in the terrible atrocities committed by the enemy, the terrorists for example, and so on. Vigilance means paying close attention to events and being suspicious when evidence seems to indicate that we are being lied to, but how dare anyone say that we are being lied to by our leaders and those in authority - they weaken our defences and damage our
fatherland homeland and isn't distrust just distasteful. Surely we must show confidence and trust and not whittle away at undermining our institutions that are only there to help us in our paternal society, community, culture and country... (You get the picture, the common attitude, right?)
Taking off my sarcasm hat again as it never really fitted me in the first place, let me now continue to write more clearly and directly without such obfuscation which only serves (apart from obfuscating of course) to confuse the simple issues and facts and make them seem impossible to untangle and deal with effectively.
Necessarily, to be vigilant, means to be watchful of our leaders and those in positions of influence and, especially, to the events that may seem to arise due to some hidden or secret planning or plotting by people (and agencies) of influence or power. Moreover, it is a danger signal when a sequence of events seems to be contrived as part of a plot and the people seem to be hesitant to speak openly about it or to just simply seem unable to face the implied fact that such events really are part of a secret and nefarious plot. Such plots by their very nature of being secret if not by their being nefarious will only ever be detectable if vigilance is recognized as being a part-exposer and rarely if ever a full-exposer of evil plots. It follows that the warning that we must be vigilant is only useful to any age if such an inefficiency is recognized and accomodated.
Thus it is that being vigilant usually means that we speak to others about evidence and what it MAY mean because we SUSPECT that it is part of a plot. In ANY such situation the term "outrageous conspiracy theory" is right, apposite, pertinent and cannot be side stepped or avoided. It follows that to mock or dismiss conspiracy theories simply because they are conspiracy theories is a clever way of disabling vigilance by attacking those who are vigilant. It should be obvious, if we had any kind of plausible system devised to maintain vigilance, that being told never to tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories (and by a major world leader, no less), is nothing less than an extremely loud and deafening red alert klaxon.
Note the emphasis of 'may' and 'suspect' there. That's because normally it is not altogether a good thing to be suspicious of each other as private individuals unless we are SURE they are up to something. I point that out because the notion of being suspcious of leaders just because they may be up to something is usually read as the same thing. It absolutely is not. The media speaks of 'public interest' and 'openness' but whatever terms are used it boils down to the need for vigilance and the tendency is, indeed the certainty (I would say in the light of my recently acquired knowledge of 9/11, 7/7, Diana, JFK etc) is that no matter how benign initially and no matter how high minded, humans, as leaders and powerful people, just about always seem to go the way of becoming part of an evil plot. No matter if that is true always or just sometimes, the absolute nature of it or if it is just a dangerous and very common tendency, either way, vigilance cannot be put to one side or be assumed to be fully functional or unnecessary, ever. So the notion that, for whatever plausibly nice reason, it isn't quite nice to be suspicious, it is essential to be suspicious very easily when it comes to leaders and people who exercise or influence power. In other words 'MAY' and 'SUSPECT' really are the right terms to use. You see, it is always going to be the case when a plot is hatching that we will probably only ever see things that are a small part of the bigger plot, just the tip of the iceberg, so we cannot allow ourselves to wait until proof is available because that proof is only going to be found if it is actively sought and no one is going to seek it unless they have suspicion that a plot MAY exist. It is thus a big mistake to trust such people implicitly. The trust needs to be rock solidly qualified, precisely and specifically limited, with a rapid rise to strong vocally expressed suspicion as soon as something MAY be up. Governments that aren't properly controlled will end up doing all the controlling and this is always a very dehumanising process and state.
Think about it for a moment. Virtually the only way to expose a hidden plot is by someone suspecting that there is a plot because evidence happened to be uncovered. And if such evidence is voiced along with the suspicion of a plot then, axiomatically, we have a conspiracy theory. And think about this too, who wants to discourage the expressing of any conspiracy theory other than those who are part of such plots?
The now well know phrase
Yes, I have re-worded it slightly, so it is mine now, but please do repeat it as I will here:
This is not a call to anyone to end up being "Dianaed" or "Menzied" (or "Kellyed" or "Cooked" (UK, MP Robin Cook) or, put another way, "Accidented", "Manchuianized", "Suicided", "JFKed" or simply "Psychiatricized". No. It is better to live on and not throw your life to the wolves, but to take no risks at all? If one tenth of the people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered, based on the available clear evidence, actually said so openly then there is absolutely no way that the truth could continue to be kept secret and there is no way any one of them would be silenced (by murder) for speaking their mind, for voicing their beliefs.
That is a crucial factor, numbers, the number of people who suspect but stay silent or only whisper, they are the real problem. They disempower vigilance by falling for the "ooh! he's a '''''conspiracy theorist''''' better avoid him, he's trouble, let's all pretend he's not there and maybe he will go away."
I do not believe in rioting in the streets or violence as the way forward but in the simple process of making oneself as an individual more aware and in your own private life expressing this awareness to at least some others that you trust.
By being cowed into silence and being herded (as those cowed or more as just sheep?) the evil plots succeed and we assume all will be well in the end. That's not actually how it ever works though. The point of vigilence is not that evil plots will stop being hatched and mostly, it seems to me, they mostly do hatch out and become monsters rather than fluffy chicklets, but that the plots are detected early and exposed for what they are so that while the plots succeed, we as individuals are not fooled and are not complicit more than we can avoid being.
There is one other thing too. Those behind criminal plots, they, their kind, will probably always be with us. Their principle motivation is part of a flawed and surprisingly ignorant philosophy and understanding. Their greed and selfishness is due to a widespread and popular set of ideas which amount to a terrible and vast body of great ignorance, a totally blinkered and false view of life.
But that aside, perhaps the main point to take away from this article is simply how crucial vigilance really is, far more vital than assumptions like a "free press" might ever satisfy. Even if there happened to be a genuinely free press it wouldn't be enough to rest on our laurels, to sit back and just take it for granted that all needs for vigilance are currently taken care of and nothing more needs to be done. The fact is there is an extreme urgency, a great pressing need to resuscitate it. The current plotters have stifled it and suffocated it and have done it extremely expertly and I for one am very impressed with what they have gotten away with considering the overwhelming evidence that leaves no doubt about what they have achieved. To me it seems that almost no one has any clue or suspicions and that is truely a remarkable feat. The parallel that occurs to me is the conmen, exposed as such on some TV documentary, who have built up a highly successful organisation that not only thrives and provides a service but where the employees are happy and respect the con-man and then he blows it all away after all his hard work by ripping everyone off in a one fell swoop totally oblivious to what he has achieved and the pointlessness of his sudden criminal act. That's why I surmise that these secret agencies and those intelligent people who dream up these nefarious plots I refer to, do it as part of a diseased mindset of great ignorance. I mean, ask yourself why these con-men, who often fit my description, behave like that, why do they not see what they have built and continue building on their great success? The answer doesn't matter for this article's purpose, instead, it is more important to take on the point that they often don't and that the rest of us always have to maintain vigilance to limit their inevitable excesses of destruction. I say 'maintain', but it's worse than that, the resuscitation of vigilance has to take place first and this article has been my feeble kiss-of-life in an attempt to revive it.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
