Before commencing the main body of this article, I’d first like to defer to those virtuoso past masters of psychological insight and political analysis...
Many in the 'truth movement', particularly the high profile voices, constantly preach the 'question everything' mantra but don't think it applies to them, which is a massive red flag.
Your articles and those by Francis and the discussions with Leo, have raised so many important points and questions. All three of you have also been happy to answer questions yourselves when asked. As you say, the truth does not fear investigation.
The rational questions about Bob Moran raised by Francis should not have caused fury and emotional responses from Bob's fans/friends. No one can doubt that he is a talented cartoonist and has hit 'the target' many times over the years (although not so much recently, which is puzzling), but it's very difficult to understand how his work commanded such high prices. Being an active member in the genuine dissident community yourself it must be hard enough to get people to part with a £5 subscription. Hopefully the cash rich truthers will find their way to you now that Bob is no longer producing art for tens of thousands of pounds.
Miri yes, absolutely it's the evidence which we all need to weigh. Fair play to Francis, he's coming at the King and he'd best not miss. Bob is generally held in such esteem, Francis will have known the sort of shitstorm that would have been heading his way.
I decided to watch Bob's recent two hour chat with James D. it reminded me of that Spitting Image scene 'where Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud talk bollocks'. It was two hours of hot air. Complacent, reassuring, and did nothing to dispel the concerns raised (not that that was the intention). And in fact they both said how they weren't here to go on witch-hunts, but to just do their own thing, in amongst the mutual back slapping. It was all very cosy.
And yes, the evidence is all circumstantial. But a big tell for me is the links to the aristocracy. this was when I first hit a wall with Delingpole. Having listened to him outline the ancient bloodlines that had been dogging humanity's path for generations, I mistakenly assumed that such would include the English aristocracy. Whereupon I was unceremoniously flung from his telegram chat. No no, they're all fine you weirdo, I was told. What's wrong with you, are you 77th?
And so we have the same with Bob. Leading the resistance from Lord Monsoon's drawing room, or wherever that reception was held. Not proof, but odd.
The real kicker though for me, is that awful signature, and his explanation. 'There's only one way to write Bob, and it's in capitals'. But actually, it's not in capitals. He's got his Bs as capitals, but for some reason the O has gone lowercase. And the only reason for doing that is so that the number is 33, and 303. Theres no other reason.
“Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud talk bollocks”
That reminds me of those Newman and Baddiel sketches featuring two doddering old professors who can speak in a highbrow cultured tone …which inevitably gives way to a puerile slanging match (“That’s you, that is!”) I have found this to be an astute comment on self-styled feted “intellectuals”. Especially those with a media reputation to hold up. As one critic noted, there are the “Big Names” of academia: Foucault, Adorno, Derrida, Zizek etc. and each of those is like a brand name signifying a certain style of rhetoric and a personalised nomenclature. And each comes up with a certain “buzz word” or “catch phrase” that functions like a pop hit.
The bottom line is that they give the impression of being subversive and radical. But they’re basically just “academic rock stars”.
Sad to hear that Francis has been taking some flack for raising some questions. He wrote a quality article after uncovering some important information that needed to see the light of day.
Probably not much more than a year or so ago I would have been affronted by the idea that Bob was a wrongun but I’ve reached the point now with my understanding of the enormous infiltration of the truther space that it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he is
JD still passes the sniff test for me at the moment I but if he also falls then that’s fine because I have no sacred cows
I've had a few run ins at live truther events. If you ask awkward questions the crowd turns on you ( happened at least 3 times with high profile speakers eg Ivor -really -good spreadsheet which- will- topple- the -cabal Cummings, Bridgen and De Buisseret were the main ones) . If you have beliefs such as sodomy is a sin they turn on you: I quote '' you cant be in the awake movement with those sorts of beliefs''. Here's my tuppensworth- I don't think there much in Bob's signature - the main thing for me is whether the allure of selling paintings for 70k has given the devil a foothold to corrupt Bob further.
I would like to forward this to the Popular front For The Liberation of The Isle Of Wight but as I am a member of The Isle Of Wight Popular Front For Freedom it would not be accepted lol
Not so high on the alliteration scale this time, Miri, but then, this topic called for an academic-prose quality, like textual ballistic armor, to deter any trollish smear-merchants from responding with their customary arrow slinging.
Using a structural inversion of Proust's Madeleine (crunchy exterior encapsulating a creamy filling), you did well to surround the rugged, no-nonsense heart of the essay with front and back Pythonic humor. (American here, no extraneous vowels used, usually, but feel free to add a U if it suits U).
Not sure about the 'obvious fookin' plant' paragraph, but I would probably be able to quote it here in polite, though probably not 'progressive' society, as long as I slowly and carefully documented the gender and geographic location of the original author. First amendment, sure...try it, pal.
Not sure if this family is as popular there as they are here, but if you ever need a quick funny clip to show how asking the obviously unasked unexpected question can either break the ice or shut down the whole symposium, here's Odin's funniest little girl with an exemplar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCO4j4MrxE
Ever since I started to use the internet (roughly around the arrival of the new millennium), I have noticed a depressing pattern. It seems to happen in a cycle. You find a group that is lively and mostly respectful of each other. Though even the friction can be creative. I’ve seen exchanges which were enormously entertaining and ultimately even quite revealing. Because there is an art to invective i.e. those who are good at it can bring out fallacies in the arguments of their opponents and sometimes even reveal who is and who isn’t a troll.
But then comes a Big Issue that divides everyone. 9/11 and covid are excellent examples. And sometimes there’s an internal scandal of a sexual nature. There was one group that was shot down by some such sexual scandal whose details were impossible to assess since they were surrounded in mystery.
And then you have what may be the most infuriating split caused through some self-appointed judge who sets himself up (and it’s usually a he) as the one to figure out the “proper approach”. I recall one small group in which the “guru” figure insisted that everyone take a Freudian view. Psychoanalysis – that was where it was at! And this guru had a Jekyll and Hyde personality. He could sound reasonable most of the time. But “cross him” and he turned into the Joe Pesci character from Goodfellas. Quite ironic considering that he was clearly in need of serious psychotherapy himself!
Baddiel ( urggh) and Newman’s History Today was more inspired by AJP Taylor I think. Taylor was probably a good egg and I think he did call out zionism back in the day.
Jews shouldn't be trusted to count either. You'd think they'd be happy when shown the huge accounting error in their holohoax sums which would mean less of them died but they seem to get furious if LESS of them died ( or pretended to die)
I just posted the following on The Big Picture 16 Leo Biddle:-
Another great chat. You two have become quite addictive. Moran and Delingpole high profile suddenly sacked made them instant ‘good guy’ heroes. A Tavistock dream team. Their assignment to muddy the waters in the truth movement. Delingpole more obvious with many of his guests being somewhat flakey plus his constant push on religion. The danger is they are making our team talk about their team in a sidestream and keeping everyone away from what is really going on.
You’re spot on. What makes it all so wearingly annoying is some people’s staggering inability to put personal rancour aside & join forces resisting what we all now know to be a common enemy of the very things we all need.
Small example. Many years ago - I met someone I was on a course with for a coffee in London.
It wasn’t especially memorable - but (as is often the way with some people who have thin, prickly skins - they get easily bent out of shape). I found this out soon afterwards when one of my social media posts was torn into by this person.
I’d forgotten all about them - but they clearly hadn’t forgotten about me.
Cue a particularly spectacular ranting diatribe in the last few hours about how I was a Zionist & a sociopath.
Hmm, my response was a cup of soothing herbal tea might be in order, but on closer investigation - my new ‘free follower’ was none other than this person from the cafe many years earlier.
And that’s what every single one of us who want to improve things faces.
Sad, pathetic twisted little people who cannot put the lid on their crock of smouldering petty spite.
All you can do is block & move on with relentless optimism that someone, somewhere in the eight plus billion soup of humanity has aspirations beyond being a hollowed out, trolling Reg from the PFJ.
Freedom has millions faces; tyranny has one. There are no surprises the latter is always complied as a dirty flat swamp and the former are always clashed as a crystal mountain river.
You really would make a good lawyer, Miri, but I'm afraid on this occasion I am not buying your argument.
1. Yes, we all have different opinions, we do not all speak as one voice as wittily indicated in James Delingpole's coining, the Awake Not-a-Community, however, surely as Divide and Conquer is a technique used upon us by those in power to weaken us, division is something we want to minimise as much as possible, not cultivate.
2. While I may call out people as controlled opposition it's always where the evidence is abundantly clear or at least the person is remote from my stomping ground; if the evidence is not clear and the person is in my stomping ground or vicinity of it I see no good reason to call someone out - it really is just creating an unwanted divisive effect.
3. The fact of an agent being friendly with someone prominent in the Awake Not-a-Community certainly doesn't function as a flag-raiser with regard to the prominent person a priori. Agents befriending prominent people is only to be expected and is massively evident in my pet psyop, 9/11. So Ed the Techie - if he is/was an agent - being friendly with Bob in no way acts as "circumstantial" evidence of itself at all and the fact that Ed the Techie "vlandalised" Bob's cartoons could easily have been simply the act of an agent befriending prominent person.
4. I'm in agreement with Jake Fern that the so-called evidence presented by Francis simply isn't evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
Many in the 'truth movement', particularly the high profile voices, constantly preach the 'question everything' mantra but don't think it applies to them, which is a massive red flag.
Your articles and those by Francis and the discussions with Leo, have raised so many important points and questions. All three of you have also been happy to answer questions yourselves when asked. As you say, the truth does not fear investigation.
The rational questions about Bob Moran raised by Francis should not have caused fury and emotional responses from Bob's fans/friends. No one can doubt that he is a talented cartoonist and has hit 'the target' many times over the years (although not so much recently, which is puzzling), but it's very difficult to understand how his work commanded such high prices. Being an active member in the genuine dissident community yourself it must be hard enough to get people to part with a £5 subscription. Hopefully the cash rich truthers will find their way to you now that Bob is no longer producing art for tens of thousands of pounds.
Great thought provoking article as always Miri 🙏🏻
Thank you, Mick, excellent observations as always.
And let's hope so about the rich truthers - !
Miri yes, absolutely it's the evidence which we all need to weigh. Fair play to Francis, he's coming at the King and he'd best not miss. Bob is generally held in such esteem, Francis will have known the sort of shitstorm that would have been heading his way.
I decided to watch Bob's recent two hour chat with James D. it reminded me of that Spitting Image scene 'where Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud talk bollocks'. It was two hours of hot air. Complacent, reassuring, and did nothing to dispel the concerns raised (not that that was the intention). And in fact they both said how they weren't here to go on witch-hunts, but to just do their own thing, in amongst the mutual back slapping. It was all very cosy.
And yes, the evidence is all circumstantial. But a big tell for me is the links to the aristocracy. this was when I first hit a wall with Delingpole. Having listened to him outline the ancient bloodlines that had been dogging humanity's path for generations, I mistakenly assumed that such would include the English aristocracy. Whereupon I was unceremoniously flung from his telegram chat. No no, they're all fine you weirdo, I was told. What's wrong with you, are you 77th?
And so we have the same with Bob. Leading the resistance from Lord Monsoon's drawing room, or wherever that reception was held. Not proof, but odd.
The real kicker though for me, is that awful signature, and his explanation. 'There's only one way to write Bob, and it's in capitals'. But actually, it's not in capitals. He's got his Bs as capitals, but for some reason the O has gone lowercase. And the only reason for doing that is so that the number is 33, and 303. Theres no other reason.
“Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud talk bollocks”
That reminds me of those Newman and Baddiel sketches featuring two doddering old professors who can speak in a highbrow cultured tone …which inevitably gives way to a puerile slanging match (“That’s you, that is!”) I have found this to be an astute comment on self-styled feted “intellectuals”. Especially those with a media reputation to hold up. As one critic noted, there are the “Big Names” of academia: Foucault, Adorno, Derrida, Zizek etc. and each of those is like a brand name signifying a certain style of rhetoric and a personalised nomenclature. And each comes up with a certain “buzz word” or “catch phrase” that functions like a pop hit.
The bottom line is that they give the impression of being subversive and radical. But they’re basically just “academic rock stars”.
You ever seen this?
https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/james-delingpole-mi5-and-his-thinly
Sad to hear that Francis has been taking some flack for raising some questions. He wrote a quality article after uncovering some important information that needed to see the light of day.
Probably not much more than a year or so ago I would have been affronted by the idea that Bob was a wrongun but I’ve reached the point now with my understanding of the enormous infiltration of the truther space that it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he is
JD still passes the sniff test for me at the moment I but if he also falls then that’s fine because I have no sacred cows
Totally agree with you. Francis ' article was honest and transparent as I commented on his Substack.
Spot on 👏👏👏
I've had a few run ins at live truther events. If you ask awkward questions the crowd turns on you ( happened at least 3 times with high profile speakers eg Ivor -really -good spreadsheet which- will- topple- the -cabal Cummings, Bridgen and De Buisseret were the main ones) . If you have beliefs such as sodomy is a sin they turn on you: I quote '' you cant be in the awake movement with those sorts of beliefs''. Here's my tuppensworth- I don't think there much in Bob's signature - the main thing for me is whether the allure of selling paintings for 70k has given the devil a foothold to corrupt Bob further.
But what about the Ed the techie stuff? Don’t you find that odd?
A truly excellent article.
It really is about integrity in critique.
I would like to forward this to the Popular front For The Liberation of The Isle Of Wight but as I am a member of The Isle Of Wight Popular Front For Freedom it would not be accepted lol
Not so high on the alliteration scale this time, Miri, but then, this topic called for an academic-prose quality, like textual ballistic armor, to deter any trollish smear-merchants from responding with their customary arrow slinging.
Using a structural inversion of Proust's Madeleine (crunchy exterior encapsulating a creamy filling), you did well to surround the rugged, no-nonsense heart of the essay with front and back Pythonic humor. (American here, no extraneous vowels used, usually, but feel free to add a U if it suits U).
Not sure about the 'obvious fookin' plant' paragraph, but I would probably be able to quote it here in polite, though probably not 'progressive' society, as long as I slowly and carefully documented the gender and geographic location of the original author. First amendment, sure...try it, pal.
Not sure if this family is as popular there as they are here, but if you ever need a quick funny clip to show how asking the obviously unasked unexpected question can either break the ice or shut down the whole symposium, here's Odin's funniest little girl with an exemplar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCO4j4MrxE
Ever since I started to use the internet (roughly around the arrival of the new millennium), I have noticed a depressing pattern. It seems to happen in a cycle. You find a group that is lively and mostly respectful of each other. Though even the friction can be creative. I’ve seen exchanges which were enormously entertaining and ultimately even quite revealing. Because there is an art to invective i.e. those who are good at it can bring out fallacies in the arguments of their opponents and sometimes even reveal who is and who isn’t a troll.
But then comes a Big Issue that divides everyone. 9/11 and covid are excellent examples. And sometimes there’s an internal scandal of a sexual nature. There was one group that was shot down by some such sexual scandal whose details were impossible to assess since they were surrounded in mystery.
And then you have what may be the most infuriating split caused through some self-appointed judge who sets himself up (and it’s usually a he) as the one to figure out the “proper approach”. I recall one small group in which the “guru” figure insisted that everyone take a Freudian view. Psychoanalysis – that was where it was at! And this guru had a Jekyll and Hyde personality. He could sound reasonable most of the time. But “cross him” and he turned into the Joe Pesci character from Goodfellas. Quite ironic considering that he was clearly in need of serious psychotherapy himself!
Baddiel ( urggh) and Newman’s History Today was more inspired by AJP Taylor I think. Taylor was probably a good egg and I think he did call out zionism back in the day.
Oh Baddiel is …well, I’d say he’s worse then urggh. More yeuch! If ever a guy happened to be in the right place at the right time …
I love the title of his book “Jews Don’t Count” I reckon it’s downright antisemitic to suggest that Jews don’t have arithmetical skills!
Jews shouldn't be trusted to count either. You'd think they'd be happy when shown the huge accounting error in their holohoax sums which would mean less of them died but they seem to get furious if LESS of them died ( or pretended to die)
TROLOL
I just posted the following on The Big Picture 16 Leo Biddle:-
Another great chat. You two have become quite addictive. Moran and Delingpole high profile suddenly sacked made them instant ‘good guy’ heroes. A Tavistock dream team. Their assignment to muddy the waters in the truth movement. Delingpole more obvious with many of his guests being somewhat flakey plus his constant push on religion. The danger is they are making our team talk about their team in a sidestream and keeping everyone away from what is really going on.
I’d never thought of them as an actual duo before 🤔
You’re spot on. What makes it all so wearingly annoying is some people’s staggering inability to put personal rancour aside & join forces resisting what we all now know to be a common enemy of the very things we all need.
Small example. Many years ago - I met someone I was on a course with for a coffee in London.
It wasn’t especially memorable - but (as is often the way with some people who have thin, prickly skins - they get easily bent out of shape). I found this out soon afterwards when one of my social media posts was torn into by this person.
I’d forgotten all about them - but they clearly hadn’t forgotten about me.
Cue a particularly spectacular ranting diatribe in the last few hours about how I was a Zionist & a sociopath.
Hmm, my response was a cup of soothing herbal tea might be in order, but on closer investigation - my new ‘free follower’ was none other than this person from the cafe many years earlier.
And that’s what every single one of us who want to improve things faces.
Sad, pathetic twisted little people who cannot put the lid on their crock of smouldering petty spite.
All you can do is block & move on with relentless optimism that someone, somewhere in the eight plus billion soup of humanity has aspirations beyond being a hollowed out, trolling Reg from the PFJ.
It does feel like a long haul mind doesn’t it?
Freedom has millions faces; tyranny has one. There are no surprises the latter is always complied as a dirty flat swamp and the former are always clashed as a crystal mountain river.
You really would make a good lawyer, Miri, but I'm afraid on this occasion I am not buying your argument.
1. Yes, we all have different opinions, we do not all speak as one voice as wittily indicated in James Delingpole's coining, the Awake Not-a-Community, however, surely as Divide and Conquer is a technique used upon us by those in power to weaken us, division is something we want to minimise as much as possible, not cultivate.
2. While I may call out people as controlled opposition it's always where the evidence is abundantly clear or at least the person is remote from my stomping ground; if the evidence is not clear and the person is in my stomping ground or vicinity of it I see no good reason to call someone out - it really is just creating an unwanted divisive effect.
3. The fact of an agent being friendly with someone prominent in the Awake Not-a-Community certainly doesn't function as a flag-raiser with regard to the prominent person a priori. Agents befriending prominent people is only to be expected and is massively evident in my pet psyop, 9/11. So Ed the Techie - if he is/was an agent - being friendly with Bob in no way acts as "circumstantial" evidence of itself at all and the fact that Ed the Techie "vlandalised" Bob's cartoons could easily have been simply the act of an agent befriending prominent person.
4. I'm in agreement with Jake Fern that the so-called evidence presented by Francis simply isn't evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
https://athousandwordspodcast.substack.com/p/joining-dots-for-dummies