Composed 1/1/15, but posted on 1/4/15.
I thought I’d start off 2015 with a message of peace and love. These are two human conditions that generate no fear and raise little money. They don’t motivate people to move positions, to conquer others, or shake people down for their funds. In short, they are passive concepts that must be avoided if one is looking to control the majority.
What does that have to do with Simon? Well, since Simon and cluesforum.info… are at the pinnacle of psyOp research, he is a natural target of all those who don’t want you reading or engaging in the forum’s material. The best his critics can do is ad-hominem attacks, which say nothing of his points regarding his media fakery and psyOp simulation research. Yet Simon rarely, if ever, will resort to personal attacks. He will simply point out flaws and inconsistencies in his attackers’ arguments, laying them before the court of public opinion. Simon’s method of argumentation is more like a passive, friendly approach to argumentation, which typically neutralizes his opponents’ weak positions. I see no difference between his online persona and voice persona. Same laid back, patient, and studious approach to arguing with so-called truthers. His approach is peaceful, where his main detractors are more confrontational and war-like.
Some have argued that the online Simon is not the same as the Simon I have interviewed several times over the years. Simon writes English better than he speaks, in fact, he writes better than most English as a first language writers. As someone who got top marks in written French, I could barely speak or comprehend anyone speaking French, yet I could read and write it very well. If you don’t immerse or speak a language on a regular basis, you will have a hard time communicating in it at all. You will still be able to read and write, since you can do that at your own pace. Spoken language is at the conversant’s pace, which is rarely at a level for the non-fluent person’s. Therefore, for a man that speaks many languages (which I admire in anybody), who no doubt studied and learned written English, and who most likely speaks Italian as his main language (living in Rome), I think Simon does very well. Despite English as his third or fourth or fifth language, it’s clear Simon understands all the varying concepts of his writings. Whether it be satellites, nukes, or 9/11 imagery, Simon the voice has clearly proven he is the author of his writings to me. It’s doubtful someone given the script to learn could perform as he does in live and off-air interviews.
Lately, a meme about “Team Shack” has been circulated (by psyoptiCON/Evil Edna/Herge Degrelle?Negentropic?). Does Simon have a team? Well, he has supporters, like this blog and myself, but after two years of communicating with him, I have yet to see a team. I see some very strong characters (many with voices I’ve verified) that support his work, like Hoi Polloi (co-admin at cluesforum.info…), but none seems to be organized in any way that suggests an operation. Some have suggested I am on the team. I am certainly on my own self-appointed cheering team, as I am with many other people and sites I enjoy and agree with. If a team is defined as a group of people I agree with for the most part, then I am on the clues team, the hoaxbusters team, the K Ham team, the lower taxes team, the eat better food team, and of course, the fakeologist team.
Naturally, like here, those that agree with with the general thesis of cluesforum are going to be retained, and the others ejected. Since the goal of cluesforum.info… is to create a digest, a research tool, an encyclopedia of psyOps, then having too much conflicting information will make it a source of confusion, not clarity. To attack the admins of clues for retaining order and clarity of their position by ejecting shills is simply ridiculous, and promoting straw man arguments like “free speech” on a private forum is silly.
Even here at fakeologist.com…, I prefer to talk to people that agree with the majority of my point of view. Who doesn’t? I do like to hear conflicting ideas, but I still would like the blog to reflect my way of thinking. That’s what a blog is for – originally it was an online diary concept.
Not surprisingly, most of the anti-Simon anti-clues anti-fakeologist propaganda seems to be coming from only a very few online entities. Due to the ease of creating an online persona, those few appear to use the same tactics of discredit by accusing Simon of being multiple online identities, while they themselves inflate their presence by using multiple ids. This is classic deflection – pure sociopathic behavior.
The everything is fake slogan is another classic propaganda technique to dismiss a group like ours. It simplifies a position into an easy, one dimensional concept that can be swept away. The cluesforum.info… is the opposite of one dimensional. It is a great skeptic’s resource. It offers only concrete graphical evidence to dismiss what we see from these great simulations or psyOps. It only postulates with best guesses on how the magic tricks are pulled off. There is no way to get confirmation from any authority, so we must rely on our six senses to figure out what makes the most sense. Both Hoi and Simon offer the best postulations in the most detailed posts, which makes sense, since they lead the forum.
Since Simon often agrees with Hoi, they have been accused of being the same entity. It’s clear to me that they are not the same entity, as I’ve talked to both of them – simultaneously. I have seen no evidence that either of them are interested in attacking others or lashing out against those that criticize their forum. They appear to accept criticism as part of their skeptical research, and expect it too. The closer their research comes to the truth of what I think happened, the more intense the opposition appears to grow. This is the best sign that their decoding of the propaganda is accurate. Since the perps of these operations are never going to tell us how they’re done, they can only offer confusion and deflection when they think there are enough of us thinking the same way. This is the main weapon of (an information) war.
Simon prefers to tackle his critics on their own turf. Normally I wouldn’t bother posting such a long, distracting-from-the-task-at-hand thread, but since Simon engages these entities on a regular basis there, I will. I think engaging in these attack threads wastes too much time (and that’s the one commodity we can’t make more of), and takes away from promoting the whole psyOp concept.
Some other examples of Simon asking for answers and getting attacked with ad-hominem style replies: (ctrl-f to find Norwegian on each page)
Ian Greenhalgh wrote:
“Surely everyone realises by this point that these lowlife scum are nothing more than disinfo agents who are trying to stall serious investigation by wasting our time with their irrelevant nonsensical twaddle.”
Surely, Ian, surely… Good luck with that. As for the “irrelevant nonsensical twaddle” that you mention – we all know you as a champion of this dubious art form.
So how exactly am I a “lowlife scum” and a “disinfo agent”, Ian? Would you care to explain? Do you have proof to support such outlandish, libelous claims? Would you like me to track you up in that psychotic, power-obsessed little island called “Great Britain” and drop a libel suit upon you? Nah, don’t worry – I couldn’t care less.
A most pathetic clown you are, Mr Greenhalgh. You are nothing but a retired military man trying to top your measly pension allowance with some extra goodies – by joining the well-funded 9/11 gate-keeping scheme..
And – of course – so is Fetzer and all of his sock puppets at “Veterans Today” : a bunch of retired, “ex”-military old farts hoping to make an extra buck to live out their lives more comfortably.
In summary, Simon doesn’t need my help defending his positions. I simply wanted to offer my continued support for his efforts and his forum, to make it clear that I believe his views on the 9/11 media hoax are the closest to what I think happened, more so than any other place on the internet. If the opposition can only attack the person and not the theory, then that’s all the evidence I need that his position is closest to the “truth”.
No tags for this post.