Saturday, July 23, 2005

The tricks of Carl Rove are common on the web

This isn't really about Rove, just some tactics I've observed on the web that comes close to his. You know the act; accuse someone of something you are doing or would like to do yourself. The poor victim spends all his time defending his good name while the accuser does his dirty deeds unnoticed. No matter how much the victim show proof of his innocence the accuser screams his lies loud enough that the proof of innocence is seen by others as evidence supporting the lie.

There was an article in the NY times that describes how such a thing can happen. Yeah I know it's the mouthpiece of the enslaved who think they're free but it does have good stuff every so often. The article was what other people say may change what you see. It's a good explanation of groupthink and what I meant about proof of a victim's innocence being seen as the supporting evidence for his guilt. It's a topsy turvy world and this article came to mind after a friend recently told me about an internet rumour. She found and believed some slander against a group of people whose work she previously respected. I must admit it seemed initially to be a juicy piece of gossip as such can be, if it's not about you. When I began to look into it some more, it turned out to be disgusting and much more insidious than juicy gossip. What does this have to do with a Carl Rove style con?

We'll see.

I sometimes mention articles from this website on this blog. I also email friends and family when I fiind something very interesting about aspects of our enslavement, be it from that site or from a book. I was suprised to get an email from a friend and fellow Signs reader informing me that it's owned and operated by UFO cult leaders. She proceeded to inform me of all sorts of misdeeds committed by Laura Knight Jadczyk. Surprised and worried that I may have been duped by the logical and pretty much accurate material about the state of our world from that website, I asked where she got the info from and if she read the site's articles about their experiences with critics. She responded "it's all over the web, just do a search. " So I searched all over the web. You can too if so inclined. Anyway, I found stuff written by mostly ex members of the Signs owner's egroup pointing to the inherent evil of the signs owners. I also saw first hand what the signs owners were talking about in their various articles relating their experiences with said critics.

Now maybe they are evil and I am not in a position to know more than what they put out on their website and discuss on their public forums. I did however, compare it to what the others were saying. Consider though that we are enslaved, consider how what people say affects what you see, consider the various ways we are induced to serve the system by participating in discrediting those who do anything that may remotely help us in our work on becoming free. Consider how others may see the signs as a threat to the status quo.

Anyway, as I wanted to see what my friend's fuss was about, I also looked into who was discussing the Jadczyks work, what these critics work consisted of and so on. Afterall, one is allowed to be a critic but even the critic must hold themselves to the same standards they demand of those they are critiquing. As I said most of the critics were ex egroup members who are quite loud and insistent about the Jadczyks evilness. There are also a few defending the Jadczyks though not as loudly but defending nonetheless. That would make you wonder right? Why don't the Jadczyks get out and defend themselves. But then I realized the Jadczyks put up a Signs Of The Times page almost every day. They write articles and books and Mr Jadczyk does scientific research. They had also addressed their critics on their website. What have these ex egroup members done to date?

They tell you what to see based on what they say, either because they are saying it or they claim to have direct experience with the Jadczyks or have friends who had. Some critics say they don't know the Jadczyks but that their behavior sounds similar to experiences they have had with others so that makes them qualified to critique. One ex member has a reputation as a magical researcher and has done quite a bit in the field. I think he had the biggest issue with the Jadczyks because they were looking into similar topics but his magical background made Jadczyks want to distance themselves. He has also proven himself to not be so trustworthy either. In fact he sounds just as scary as he accuse the Jadczyks of being. But I give him credit for doing something since he has a web site about mystery schools and the like. Another critic is a webmaster linked with the former. He runs of various sites dedicated to bashing the Jadczyks. So he is a techie webmaster. Another is a writer who writes about UFO cults. I guess she is in a position to save us from listening to anything people like the Jadczyks have to say. Ok maybe that writer has our interest at heart but her writing doesn't seem to address anything the Jadczyks have to say about the state of our reality and the signs of the times. Instead it's purely character assasination. How learning to see what is going on around the world makes one a cult victim is beyond me at the moment. There are others too who also participate in the 'critique' by siding with those mentioned above but seem to do very little.

The Jadczyks on the other had are owners of an extensive and I mean extensive website that promotes objectivity by showing news stories from around the world along with their commentaries. They show by example their own battle against subjectivity. They are pretty tough on the religious and political leaders in our society and they have strong ideas as to why we are in this state of slavery. That will surely rattle a few cages. They also have an interactive page where one can discuss the articles or anything else as well as various egroups. One need not join the egroup to benefit from the service they provide through Signs of the times. So what if they believe in UFOs some of their critics do as well? So what if they also ask for donations? Some of their critics do as well. Even if you don't believe in UFOs and never join their egroups, the signs of the times is informative and helpful. I also saw for myself that if they are found in error they don't deny it or cover it up. They take responsibility and urge their readers to seek the truth and not just accept what the they say.

Through the accusations and name calling, when all is said an done it is the work that people do that is importnat to me. The people at signs of the times have only served to further those seeking truth and freedom. While the actions of these former egroup members seem to be about destroying this group's reputation. It is like Rove's role in destroying anyone that challenges the neo-con agenda via rumors, innuendoes and twisted logic. It is done with the aim of destroying the modicum of 'freedom' us slaves were allowed under the flawed but somewhat workable document called the US Constitution. As limited as that document is, it is better than the homeland security act but if you mention that, or mention how bad homeland security and the so called war on terror is, you are are labeled as being "with them" meaning terrorist. Just like those ex group members use the cult word.

The Signs of the times pages aren't perfect, it is better than a lot of those so called sites that claim to give us the truth or help set us free. That these former egroup members remind me of Rove and gang is a little harsh I know. These people may have ligitimate complaints but based on what I've seen so far it looks like a case of "believe what I say and if you don't you're a cult victim" rather than "I have this issue with the signs people." Like homeland security, they feel it their duty to monitor what you read or do and put you in a category.

From the discussions I've seen by the Jadzcyks critics, if you or anyone has anything positive to say about the Jadczyks, they label you cult member or soon to be cult member even if you don't participate on the so called cult's egroup. Such absolutes I can only chalk up to COINTELPRO or something like it. That is why I say Roves tricks are common on the web.

Digg / news