Reply #32: *on return*... Excellent piece, vast in scope and implication,...

[Psyop Samurai]

...and amazingly concise, considering.

I don't post much, since the most important things usually leave me too upset to respond. This would ordinarily have fallen into that category, but for our brief exchange, and wanting to let you know that I had indeed returned for a careful reading.

To me, the grotesque nightmare to which some of us have awakened, is like attending an unending snuff film, where the perpetrators have full sanction to continue their rampage, long after the crimes have been fully and meticulously exposed. That attendance is, I maintain, a form of torture in itself - a torture reserved to those not sufficiently uninformed, dissociative, and compartmentalized.

Even your excellent synopsis and the fine sources you quote are too euphemistic, although it's good that someone can present this material "respectably". My tendency is either to go ballistic or collapse in despair, which tends not to accomplish much.

I do wonder who is left to reach at this point though, no matter how respectably the information is presented. If I had any indication that appropriate momentum was building, it would be one thing, but I see little hope of reaching a supposed "critical mass", little hope of people sufficiently integrating this information. Regrettably, the timelines are nowhere near to matching up: the psychological underpinnings - we're looking at generations, possibly centuries out. Yet, the reality, the consequences (ever more dire), are here and now.

This points to a nagging and important question about free-market ideologues: Are they “true believers”, driven by ideology and faith that free markets will cure underdevelopment, as is often asserted (and as they claim), or do the ideas and theories frequently serve as an elaborate rationale to allow people to act on unfettered greed while still invoking an altruistic motive? ….

Ms. Klein indeed presents a nagging question, though I'm not sure how important, since, when assessing the results of a zombie murder cult, the practical difference is nil. So far as I can tell, the distinction achieves importance only in its efficacy to divide people and marginalize potentially effective dissent. Those poor, unsophisticated souls who accept the consequences of their actions, who accept the basics of cause and effect, who stubbornly maintain that 2+2=4, who cannot fathom the intricacies of doublethink, are "conspiracy theorists", who must be disavowed at every turn, in order for the "responsible" work to proceed. Nevermind that we would not accept such transparent excuses for unaccountability from a twelve-year-old - that they "really meant well"; they "really believed it".

Thus the Orwellian nightmare has come to encompass its nominal opposition as well. In a world were up is not down, not only could the motive of mass murderers not rationally be presumed to be good, "motive" is an entirely secondary consideration.