During my time away from blogging, I sent a letter, a real paper letter, to the headquarters of the Montana Democratic Party in Helena. I asked them, in the name of decency, to take the following words off their AstroTurf blog, Montana Cowgirl:
“The online voice of the left in Montana.
That’s a quote from the Billings Gazette, a source that would know as much about “the left” as George W. Bush about wisdom, Hillary Clinton about honor. I found it infuriating that the word “left” is devoid of meaning, and that cynical manipulators at that outfit have no qualms about claiming it for themselves.
I have been reading the work of Miles W. Mathis, and alternating hot and cold. The man has an enormous ego, and yet, like Pete Rose, perhaps for reason. Much of what he writes is very insightful, and I am continually taken aback at his ability to see things right before my eyes invisible to me. For instance, in a 108-page paper, he discusses the Manson murders of 1969, and comes to the conclusion that no one died, that Charles Manson is not even in prison, and that Sharon Tate made a brief TV appearance in the early 1990’s before retiring from public view again. It’s a compelling argument. (Hint: Beards are not allowed in the California prison system.)
It sounds crazy, I know, but then … in our larger tapestry with fake events like the Boston Marathon bombing and Sandy Hook, it would fit. The difference: Better technology. In 1969 we were neophytes, and had no access to the physical evidence. Now we do. We knew within days that Boston was faked. Tate-LaBianca? It took years. (The LaBianca’s really were murdered, he says, a copycat mob hit. LAPD had spewed out all of the evidence at the Tate scene in the media, inviting such a deed.)
This all ties together – a Montana connection, fake events, and a paper Mathis wrote called “The Real Matrix.” I urge you read it, but cannot take you to places where you do not want to go. I could dissect it here, but won’t do that for you. I’ll just offer a snippet or two, and you’ll see how The Montana Cowgirl, calling herself part of the “left,” fits perfectly.
The meaning of the word [liberal] has flipped since the 1960’s, and this flipping has been no accident or natural outcome of change. In 1968, a liberal was anti-war and distrustful of the government. If you thought the government was generally benign, that it was waging wars for good reasons, and that its corporate ties were healthy, you weren’t a liberal, you were a conservative. That’s what conservative implies: conserving the status quo. …
Today, these terms have flipped in most important ways. It is now liberals who are more likely to be status quo. Liberals or Democrats no longer have much of a problem with continuous and illegal wars. Yes, the current anti-war movement still tends to come out of the Democratic Party, but it is so small it is almost negligible. Most liberals are now fine with war…
Ergo, Cowgirl’s use of the word “left” to describe their attitudes. It’s an empty word, robbed of meaning. I want to be a lefty, but I ain’t no Cowgirl. I don’t fit anymore. Where do I fit? That’s the whole point – nowhere. There is no coherent movement that draws in fellow travelers. We are adrift.
Like many other things, propaganda is best hidden in plain sight. It is most covert when placed where people least expect it—which is everywhere all the time. People expect a little buffoonery like the Peacekeeper missile, but they don’t expect a Spanish Inquisition. That is, they don’t expect everything to be a lie. It never occurs to them that the entire structure around them—language, news, media, entertainment, science, art, everything—is manufactured and false. They can even see a movie like The Matrix, which tells them precisely that, and they think it is something to do with the future, or with robot bugs. But it has nothing to do with the future.
Total immersion is the key, no escape. If you ask a fish about water, you’ll draw a blank stare. “Huh?” Same with Americans and propaganda.
And then out comes Miles the arrogant …
Since they [our overlords] don’t have the direct spin option on papers like mine, they have to rely on the small size of my readership. They figure that I marginalize myself by my own intelligence. Since only intelligent readers can follow me, my maximum damage is limited to 3% of the population. They don’t have to waste any resources marginalizing me, since I am pre-marginalized by Nature.
Well, it’s a mixed bag with Miles W. Mathis. But I have been reading a lot of his work, and at times imagine that the next one might be number 4,257.