Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
Disaster Terrorism, Part 2: Patches and Updates
The Wars of Wars Part 10
Let me begin with a mea culpa or two. This is important because I believe that the article I rushed out yesterday is itself an extremely important concept that is almost certainly part of the Global Civil World War E that I believe we find ourselves in. After that, I will add a couple of particularly interesting tidbits I found since writing that article.
(Surprise, surprise, Substack isn’t opening a preview window to my article.)
Facts and Details
Of course details are important. Their importance is variable to the circumstances, and the concept of Disaster Terrorism stands out whether or not I botched a fact or two in the article. In order to even have time to write such articles, I step over some of the fact checking that I deem less consequential to the bigger picture—and I warned readers up front that I had not done the deep dives to have all facts in order. I am not dismissing the importance of these facts in their own context, however. I will take the time now to review them in a way that I think is fair, then move on. I may still have some information wrong, but this is why it's up to you to do your own research (or document it—blogging, journaling, and article writing should be broad and wide so that we build the strongest information networks).
First, the opening quote may be one of a million examples of false attribution carried through history.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste." -Winston Churchill
After a quick internet search, there are second party claims of attribution that will never be settled.
But I will say that the International Churchill Society would not be a neutral source of information in my mind. They may have…a few issues to sweep under the rug, and may be promoting a substantially propagandized narrative of Churchill.
I'm not sure that Winston Churchill was any less a stooge actor than Adolf Hitler—I suspect both working for those profiting from war and global population reorganization. Perhaps I'm wrong about that—please write your own well-sourced article to make your case. But ultimately, it has nothing to do with framing Disaster Terrorism for the RTE audience.
Second, RTE reader Bonnie Nelson feels that some important details about the Maui story need to be corrected. While I feel these details are outside the scope of the Big Picture conversation, I agree that they are important for people to understand with respect to the specific story on Maui.
Understand again that I wasn't myself making statements about the water usage authoritatively, but if there is propaganda infusing incorrect details into the ecosystem. I do not have the time to examine these details on a fine level because it's outside the scope of a busy schedule. There are reporters (including Bonnie) who can and are doing that better than I can. I listed somebody else's bullet points, and most are likely correct, but we are all taking in information as best as possible. We can and should be constructive about helping correct the bullet points, but also documenting as many good sources as we can (or the portion of "we" doing that level of detail work). On that note, if you have a favorite reporter doing Maui fire detail work, please advertise them in the comments!
The Fictional FLAME Terrorists
This is the big one. Originally, I did not plan to copy-pasta many paragraphs from the paper I cited. At the outset of the article, I was going to write it up as evidence that the concept was being studied academically—and in a public health paper, no less.
Understand first that there is no real notice in the first page that the narrative presented is fictitious.
The author does ask the audience to drift into a state that allows for imagination to grapple with the potential imaginations of terrorists, but that's nothing like a clear disclaimer. I've asked students to enter that meditative mind frame to talk about any number of new concepts. A relaxed, playful state without bias is usually a better learning state.
I sometimes tell people plainly that when I read academic papers, the following attention economics unfold (more or less):
I read the abstract only (60%)
I read important details in the paper (25%)
I read nearly the whole paper (10%)
I read every word and the supplement, too (5%)
Most academics likely display similar behavior…because we're economic animals. Time is precious. Also, I'm dyslexic, so my reading time is even more precious. I certainly wasn't expecting the disclaimer that the story was fictitious to fall at the very end of the paper. Then again, nearly all the fictitious papers that I suspect make up fully half of published academia never admit that they're fake (ahem!).
I did take the step to enter a chat room and a personal discussion group to see if any of the Australians would talk to me about the incident before I published. Unfortunately, I got no responses prior to writing.
All this said, the realization that I'd written up a fabricated story as if it were the actual interplay between the government, false flag terrorists, and a distressed population is a blessing. Really, the story was just plain absurd. Truly unbelievable, and I thought it was being documented by an academic taking it at face value.
Well, after 42ish months of watching academics, professionals, and government authoritarians push absurdities with a straight face, I have almost zero signal to distinguish the two events. Quarantines? Social distancing? Masks? Suppression of antibiotics for pneumonia? (You can thank me for not printing the embarrassing stream of profanity coming to the top of my brain at the moment.)
Remember the coding theory lesson behind the information firehose:
Dirty signals increase the economic cost of cleaning the information channel! That's true of information outside of the computing world as well.
So, we have a second lesson on terrorism that we should all absorb:
Absurdity is signal obfuscation is economic terrorism.
Less than 16 hours after publishing my article, I click on the link for a YouTube video, and am fed an ad for a military-designed flashlight powerful enough to start fires.
This is (1) a sort of base-level evidence for Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), whether or not the truly exist, that the average person can hold in their hands, (2) very possibly more practical than a satellite-operated DEW, (3) certainly less expensive than high tech weaponry, (4) potentially used by anyone to set fires, and (5) in my shopping cart.
What does it mean that the military now produces WMDs for the general population? I don't know, but I'm committing to climate change as the root cause…
Finally, I'm pondering whether this is the insurance industry getting out of the way of flashlights and force multipliers.
After taking some time off RTE to recuperate health, I'm pushing hard to complete a lot of stories I've been working on—and working to arrange truthful information to the extent that its curation is economic and important to the work—much of which focuses on big picture, metaphysical, and epistemological lessons. I am grateful and appreciative for the support of RTE readers. If this work is important or educational to you, please consider subscribing to support the work.