About Agitation: Web sites and veracity.

One thing I've been watching over the last few years is a number of web sites, which at one time I respected. They continue, however, to grow more shrill, the people there more polarized. This is their right. However, with larger information bases, and more money, comes new responsibilities to verify their data before publishing. This is no different from the information presented by CNBC, nor does the bias occur from any different source... that of their money. Context is required for statements, and that context must be derived from both the historic pattern, as well as from the present. Events can parallel and diverge, as much as parallel and converge. The question at this point becomes... where is it going?

When any web site has information placed upon it, including this one, the veracity of that information must be explored. A person, including me, can claim anything. The question becomes the nature of the source, ultimately. One can, with absolute belief in something, be brought to write about it, and find later that it is untrue.

Take, for instance, one Alex Jones's site, such as Infowars, or Prison planet. It is curious indeed, when comments quoting history supporting their viewpoint are removed. It is further curious that comments quite opposite of the nature and substance are allowed to remain. Additional curiousity must be indicated, and caution, when some of the comments allowed to remain are far more inflammatory, with less basis than historic quotes regarding the subject.

When history is not allowed to get in the way of the rhetoric, one must question the purpose of the rhetoric. When history is not allowed to assist the rhetoric, one must be doubly cautious. At this point, one must ask what the actual objective of the website truly is? If it is to engage and spread truth, and to expose lies, then certainly history must be part of that process. Establishing historic parallels allows one to illustrate parallels. If one, for instance, is discussing legislation regarding the second amendment, then the words and works of those founding fathers (both federalists and antifederalists) are part of that discussion.

Imagine my surprise, when quotes from both federalists, and antifederalists were removed from the site, with no explanation, no communication, simply vanished into thin air? These quotes, further, were in support of the idea that it is constitutionally unsound to either fine or tax something into nonexistence that is a natural right, by the words of those founding fathers.

If history, and reasoned discourse is not allowed on a site, then what is its purpose? If the comments remaining are designed to be inflammatory and not allowed to be answered with reasoned statements, then reason would dictate that it has a purpose other than reasonable discourse. When further research reveals information released upon that site, (for instance, the Minedoka County resettlement center, quoted as being a WWII Japanese Internment camp) is researched, should not their statements of its rebuilding be verifiable?

The WWII Japanese Relocation Center was actually not in Minedoka. it was in Jerome County, in a town called 'Hunt'. This location is easily accessible, and currently contains tumbleweeds and old rusty cans, the 'guard shack' present is nothing but a foundation and the old rock walls. Numerous other locations quoted in the same article are either as decrepit, or unsuitable for habitation according to area locals.

But, if the purpose of the site is not to reveal the truth, but to fight an information war, is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps the clientele that they are aimed toward are those with less reasonable and considering minds, and that the introduction of information, history, and facts and discourse might be counterproductive to those ends?

When a body is polarized, political or social, it tends to split along the divide of the polarity. If the information presented is inaccurate, is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps the purpose presented for the site is equally inaccurate? Perhaps, just perhaps, the site has a purpose beyond telling the truth, beyond even simple monies and accounts. Perhaps... just perhaps, it can equally be an identifier for those who would fight for logic and reason in the battle for liberty, and those who would fight for liberty for all, not just the chosen few?

One site never makes a difference. It is those people that visit the site, address it, consider the points, and present them in a reasoned and calm manner. In this, in many instances, I have failed.

It is, however, with careful consideration that I cannot equally dismiss all the claims upon said site. Other information, indeed, seems to present that there is something beyond what is seen, something odd, and interesting that affects the pattern which I perceive. It is an echo, a ripple, that indicates a shape of something hidden and waiting, something patient. Even the Rothschilds of the Revolutionary War, and those of today, the same banking institutions of the past as the present may well be being used by it.

Human nature is quick to see conspiracies in the shadows, but what does the shape of events say? Currently, the pattern of events shows that there is a hole beyond what we see, that the manipulations of currency is part of something else. The manipulations of the media, via that currency manipulation, may be something else as well.

What that something else is, will remain unseen for the nonce while I attempt to seek it out. I'm a blind man attempting to identify an elephant, and hoping said elephant is not truly a dragon.