Are We Boiling Frogs?
Page 1
A Dangerous Ideology
1
A Dangerous Ideology
A Dangerous Ideology.
Why No One Believes the State Any More.
by Iain Davis
Copyright © 2019 by Iain Davis
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof
may not be reproduced or used in any manner
whatsoever
without the express written permission of the publisher
except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
Printed in the United Kingdom
First Printing, 2019
ISBN: 9781793871718
www.in-this-together.com
2
A Dangerous Ideology
Contents:
Preface: – [p.5]
Part 1: The Dissonant Battle
Chapter 1: Surely It's All Just Conspiracy Theory? - [p.15]
Chapter 2: Who Are The Conspiracy Theorists? - [p.25]
Chapter 3: Are Conspiracy Theorists Extremists? - [p.41]
Chapter 4: Set Yourself Free. - [p.61]
Part 2: Twin Pillars of Deceit
Chapter 5: 9/11 – Disrespect or True Respect? - [p.89]
Chapter 6: Where Did All The Money Go? - [p.109]
Chapter 7: Where Did All The Security Go? - [p.121]
Chapter 8: The Collapsing Hypothesis. - [p.142]
Chapter 9: No One Could Have Believed. - [p.169]
Chapter 10: The Able Danger of Intelligence. - [p.191]
Part 3: London Laid Low
Chapter 11: The Lacking London Narrative. - [p.218]
Chapter 12: No Witnesses to a Forensic Mess. - [p.236]
Chapter 13: The Success of Failure. - [p.254]
Chapter 14: Oops! Looks Like We did It again. - [p.272]
3
A Dangerous Ideology
Authors Note
Thanks so much for reading my book. I hope you find it both
challenging and rewarding. I wrote it because I care about the
core message and hope you give it your consideration.
We are living in a time of 'fake news' and disinformation. Society
has become less certain of the narratives that weave their way
through, and bond, our shared values and perspectives. This isn't
necessarily unwelcome. We shouldn't blindly accept everything
we are told. We need to be free to ask questions.
What concerns me more is the way in which this uncertainty is
being exploited. It is fertile ground for those who want to push us
towards the political extremes. When accepted 'truths' are
eroded, many are tempted to seek out new explanations to fill the
void. The vacuum also provides justification for the clamp down
on our freedom to openly debate and share information.
However, outlawing opinion foments discontent and stirs
resentment. The increasing polarisation of society is evident.
The foundation of our entire way of life is free discourse based
upon reasoned argument, empirical evidence and logical inquiry.
We are all capable of critical thinking and already have the tools to
withstand any nonsensical stories or claims which lack supporting
evidence. We don't need to be told what to think. We just need an
opportunity to apply our natural inquisitiveness to the information
we are given.
If this book interests you, please consider writing a review. I need
them to promote the book. Please be honest, I need to learn how
to become a better writer and your feedback, good or bad, will be
welcome. If you can’t write a review any comments or shares you
care to make would be appreciated.
Many thanks.
4
A Dangerous Ideology
Preface:
Following the election of President Donald Trump,
his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, appeared to hugely inflate
the attendance figures for the presidential inauguration.
Justifiably criticised for talking nonsense, Counsellor
Kellyanne Conway later defended Spicer by suggesting that
he was simply providing “alternative facts.”
The suggestion that facts could be malleable, and didn't
necessarily require any substantiating evidence, was actually
debated as if it were 'a thing.' This was perplexing. Facts are
not subjective. They are either accurate or they aren't facts.
The 'alternative fact' is not a concept at all welcome within
this book. I consider 'alternative facts' to be rather like
'alternative cheese' in that they are neither cheese nor facts.
Admittedly there has been no suggestion they are cheese,
but nor is there any evidence they are facts. 'Alternative
facts' just don't cut the mustard. Ironic, given that cheese
does cut mustard quite nicely.
For similar reasons so called 'fake news' is equally
unwelcome. It appears the concept was introduced in an
effort to highlight the problem of 'news' that is neither based
upon evidence, nor facts. Hitherto this has been referred to
as 'fiction' or 'propaganda' and no one, prior to the
announced existence of 'fake news,' has ever felt the need to
define stories based upon myth, unsubstantiated opinion,
ramblings of the imagination or statements that lack any
evidential basis, as anything other than fiction or
propaganda. Such fictions have never, to my knowledge,
been considered 'news.'
For example, when, in the spring of 1917, the Times of
London and the Daily Mail reported the Germans were
boiling human corpses in factories to extract glycerine, this
was not 'news.' It was reported as if it were 'news' and
millions of British people believed it, but the total absence of
any supporting evidence meant it was, in fact, propaganda.
It was the story's estrangement from any 'facts' that
rendered it fictitious, regardless of how many people were
5
A Dangerous Ideology
daft enough to swallow it.
Traditionally we have all differentiated between news and
fiction by virtue of the 'fact' the news attempts to objectively
report an event based upon observation and available
evidence. Whereas, fiction is 'made up' and blissfully free
from these tiresome constraints. This is why reading fiction
makes train journeys more tolerable while reading 'the news'
often makes them seem utterly pointless.
Consequently, all this 'fake news' stuff seems a bit odd. Thus
far, the term appears to have been exclusively linked to those
who are reporting the news, rather than its evidential basis,
or lack thereof. As far as I can tell, anything written or
broadcast by the mainstream media is extolled as 'fact based
journalism,’ whereas anything which challenges the
mainstream narrative is labelled 'fake news.'
The origin of the term 'fake news' has largely been attributed
to Donald Trump. A Twitter addicted orange man, with a
terrifying comb-over, who has been elected to the office of
President of the United States by mistake.
Given the 2016 U.S. presidential ele
ction offered the
American people a choice between a vacuous, serial
bankrupt, TV personality and a woman widely accused of
war crimes and child trafficking, you can't really blame the
people any more than you can blame a cow for being milked.
The only people with any legitimate right to complain are
those who were wise enough to stay at home and not vote for
any one. Realising that whoever you vote for you always get
the government', only those who refuse to support the
system have any right to criticise it. The rest of us, who keep
falling for the same ruse time and time again, in the forlorn
hope that it will change something, which it never does, just
have to suck it up.
Though give him his due, President Donald Trump has
achieved something of note. He has invented a form of
language which is apparently based upon the arbitrary use
of words, loosely flung together, to form something he claims
are sentences but lack the required 'meaning.' Remarkably
he has surpassed the not inconsiderable achievements of his
6
A Dangerous Ideology
predecessor in this regard.
Language is not a haphazard construct. It is a precise tool
we use both to understand one another and to form our own
thoughts. Not only the conveyor but also the recipient of
language must agree upon the meaning. Otherwise we are
babbling incoherently to the clueless, even in our own
minds, unable to express anything other than basic emotion.
Objectivity requires far more clarity.
For example, it is difficult to know what Trump meant when
he tweeted, “guys are total losers—they had their story stolen
right from under their bad complexions—other media
capitalized.” Similarly, while “Bett Middler (his spelling, not
mine) is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that
because I always insist on being politically correct,” doesn't
necessarily fail the grammatical construct requirement, it
does fall into the presumably Lewis Carroll inspired
'nonsense' category.
Admittedly 140 characters or fewer (Twitter's former limit)
isn't the ideal linguistic form for conveying complex, or even
very simple ideas. Which is why you would have thought
someone in his inner circle would have stopped him from
doing it. Who knows? Maybe they tried.
So to 'understand' what Trump meant when he popularised
the term 'fake news' we should perhaps look at the
etymologies of 'fake' and 'news' in an attempt to decipher his
intention.
Linguist Anatoly Liberman, writing in the Oxford University
Press's publication 'Academic Insights for the Thinking
World,' traced 'fake' back to the colloquial language of the
18th century London underworld called 'Cant.' The Oxford
English Dictionary (OED) defines the word as meaning 'to do'
in Cant. They also offer further Cant based interpretation
including to 'kill, wound or plunder.'
Liberman traced the first written use of the word to Charles
Dickens 1819 novel 'Oliver Twist' which included the term
'cly-faker.' 'Cly' was a Cant word for pocket, indicating that
a 'cly-faker' was a plunderer of pockets. A 'pick pocket' in
more modern vernacular. Liberman then sought to
7
A Dangerous Ideology
determine how 'fake' was originally adopted by Cant
speakers. He identified the Cant adoption of Germanic words
like 'fik','fak' and 'fuk', meaning “to move back and forth” or
“to cheat” . He wrote:
“They probably meant 'go ahead, move; act,
do,' with all kinds of specialization, from 'darn
(a stocking),' to 'cheat,' to 'copulate.' Once they
were appropriated by thieves, 'go ahead, do,'
naturally, became 'deceive; steal, etc.'”
These words, once used by English Cant speakers, then
apparently morphed with 16th century English words like
'fukkit' and disused verbs, such as 'feague,' to produce
arguably the most useful, and certainly the most adaptable,
word in the English language. 'Fuck'.
So for 'fake' it is not unreasonable to associate it with the
word 'fuck' meaning, in this case, to cheat, steal, plunder or
deceive. Therefore, perhaps when Trump coined the term
'fake news', he possibly meant 'fuck news.' This is very close
to the popular expression 'fuck knows,' which is a
reasonable response to anyone who asks what Trump is
talking about.
My point here is, before assessing if something is believable
or not, we need to be clear, not only about the intended
meaning (what is implied) but also about our own
comprehension. What do we understand? The only way we
can understand anything is by examining the evidence, while
being mindful or our own confirmation bias.
Liberman also pointed out, in his estimation, at least 10% of
words currently defined by the OED lack a clear etymology.
'Fake' being an example. This leads to the calculated
probability that we have absolutely no idea what we are
talking about at least 10% of the time. This is a conservative
estimate in my view. Personally I am fairly certain that I
don't know what I'm talking about 50% of the time at best.
Of course, because I don't, I could well be wrong about that.
We are going to explore the evidence, offered by people called
'conspiracy theorists,' that the official narratives of both
9/11 and 7/7 are questionable. The concept of the state
8
A Dangerous Ideology
using false flag terrorism to manipulate public opinion is one
of the most pervasive beliefs among the conspiracy theorist
diaspora. It is also one of their most absurd allegations as
far as the rest of us are concerned.
So if we are going to understand these seemingly ludicrous
beliefs, which politicians suggest threaten the widespread
destabilisation of society, seeking to understand why they
adhere to this apparent nonsense would be a good start.
The September 2001 attacks in the U.S led to the launch of
the 'war on terror;' the London transport bombings, four
years later, coinciding with the G8 summit in Scotland,
refocused the Anglo-American electorate on the threat of
international terrorism.
Following the launch of the war in Afghanistan, in response
to 9/11, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq, which
plunged the country into social and political chaos, bogging
western troops down in increasingly costly conflicts, support
for the U.S and UK lead coalition's 'war' on Islamist
extremists was rapidly waning.
The 7/7 attacks reinvigorated public support for continued
military intervention. It also diverted attention away from the
growing realisation that the proffered reason for the Iraq war,
Saddam Hussein's alleged ability to attack the west with
weapons of mass destruction, was 'made up.'
A lot of people already knew this, and millions of them took
the time to march
through the streets to point this out.
However, unlike U.N weapons inspectors like Hans Blix and
David Kelly, who urged caution and further investigation, the
politicians were eager to crack on with the 'war on terror.'
Millions of people also ‘know’ that both 9/11 and 7/7 were
effectively 'false flag' operations. They are certain they were
either carried out or guided by agents of the so called 'deep
state' (the military industrial & intelligence complex) or were
'allowed' to take place by the same.
Many claim these catalysing events cannot be seen in
isolation. They form part of an ongoing program, to deceive
the tax paying public into funding a global war machine,
9
A Dangerous Ideology
which generates trillions in profits for multinational
corporations.
In order to facilitate this continual wealth transfer, we must
all be convinced that a clear and present danger exists.
When the situation dictates, the 'deep state' is fully prepared
to effectively attack its own populations to achieve the
necessary political and social conditions it requires to
maintain its profits and reinforce its social control.
The use of false flags by governments to start wars and
manipulate public opinion isn't particularly contentious.
There are numerous, proven examples throughout history.
So the possibility that both 9/11 and 7/7 were false flags
isn't unreasonable, especially given the massive holes in the
official narratives.
Or so the sceptics claim.
The vast majority of us reject this notion as ridiculous. We
are reliably informed, by government, academia and the
mainstream media, that the people who suggest this
possibility are stupid and probably delusional. We are able to
identify these intellectual pariahs by collectively referring to
them as 'conspiracy theorists.'
Yet before we simply dismiss their claims shouldn't we at
least consider the evidence they say they can demonstrate?
This doesn't mean we will agree either with their record of
events or the conclusions they draw but, if we don't even
consider their evidence, how can we be certain they are
wrong?
Indeed, how can any of us be certain we know anything at
all?
The classical Greek philosopher Socrates, often credited as
the founder of Western philosophy, said “The only true