Following the stoush in the previous comments I thought it might be enlightening to see what led to it and what it all means. I expect that there are people out there who will view the whole thing as the paranoid ravings of a madman, not to mention a flagrant disregard for all rules of common decency. But that's alright - I really don't care. I'm nobody and you can kill if him you like. One day I'll no longer be here and what will it matter?
Furthermore I should also add that whilst the following is intended primarily for those of us who are anti-death cult, it will also effectively function as a debrief for spooks keen to avoid the missteps that would otherwise give them away as cointelpro. But there's nowt to be done for that and we'll just have to carry on regardless.
First up: Statcounter. For those who don't know, statcounter is a website, one of many, that one can plug one's blog into and be given details of who hits what and when. Only I can access my statcounter of course - all you get is a single number at the bottom of this page's right hand column (which at time of writing stands at 241,579).
I can understand certain people might view this with a degree of alarm. All I can say is, better you know about it than not, what with every site you go to recording details much like the ones I shall lay out here. The only difference between them and me is that I tell you about it.
Confession time: I'm a statcounter junkie. I find it beyond fascinating. But by the same token it's also a lot like trawling through shit looking for pearls. Here are some pearls I've saved with an eye to one day putting them up here:
Ah, yes. Heartwarming and good clean fun. And the DHS! The US taxpayer's dollars at work. But as if any of us are surprised. And whilst I doubt that that fellow was looking for an image of a cum-spattered Australian Prime Minister, that's what he got, ha ha.
Along those lines, I find myself fascinated by google drop-ins. God knows this blog is perversely desultory (or is that desultorily perverse? Perhaps the latter. I shan't say 'eclectic' since that would be putting on airs), so inevitably most arrivals from google, searching say for ten plagues of passover, will find themselves in amongst waaay more information than they wanted.
But for those of you who've read this far and are wondering what I make of you, would you be disappointed if I said, nothing at all? Approximately half of all hits to this blog look like this:
They read what's on the front page and don't bother with the comments and nor do they click any images or links. They just want the text and they're off. And fair enough. I invariably do the same myself as I wander around the net. And who is that person in London? Hell if I know. Not only do I have no idea, I really don't care. Even if I did, I have no means of finding out anything beyond what you see there. WYSIWYG.
The other half of my hits are best exemplified by the following two grabs:
I like these people, whoever they are. They check out a couple of images and links and otherwise spend a bit of time. Hats off. I invariably do the same myself as I wander around the net. The only thing I know about them (that I don't know about the preceding individual) is how long they spent here. A single hit gives me no idea whether someone stayed for a second or an hour. Two hits or more and I can take a guess. It has to be a guess on account of the possibility of whoever it was having left their computer to make a coffee or somesuch. And if anyone can recognise themselves in any of the preceding three, consider me impressed. The service provider I'm currently availing myself of seems to shift its virtual location so often I can't even recognise myself. Ha!
But then again, I'm not looking neither. All of the three preceding are of no interest to me at all. I grabbed them because they are to statcounter hits what John is to men's names. They're merely more of the same that I have to plough through in my search for attention grabbers like the DHS, Fort Huachuca, The House of Commons, the Whitehouse, and The Office of the President of the United States. I've had hits from all of those by the way, with the last one involving someone googling the McMartin scandal curiously enough. And sure, it could be an intern taking a break from blowjob duty but either way a hit is a hit and bragging rights ensue.
After several years of this one becomes inured to the humdrum. But one also becomes attuned to oddities, things that not only stick out like the proverbial but have you wondering at the curious logic that drives them. Like the individual in Seattle, Washington who hits the same page dating from January 2010 up to five times a day, day in, day out. What the hell is that? What's the point of hitting a page that's never going to update? A complete stumper.
And then there's John Friend of San Diego who, if he was to tell you one single thing about himself it's that there were no planes at 911. Did he mention that there were no planes? Because there were no planes at 911. It's interesting that, how there were no planes. Everyone talks about 911 but there were no planes there. Oh! Just remembered! There were no planes at 911! Ha ha ha, what a laugh, no planes at 911, he says.
Does anyone play that silly game Who would you invite to your ideal dinner party? I do. I'd have my faves from QI, Bill Bailey, Alan Davies, and Rich Hall, Aangirfan's schoolgirls, David Bowie, P2P, Hugo Chavez, English John, and um... Vincent Cassel! Like I'd fail to invite myself to my own party? No doubt this party might be a bit stilted at first but once the Stoly started to flow we'd hit full gear. Stories! Jokes! Smutty double entendres! Laugh! What a swell party we'd have! Right up until fucking John Friend walks in to tell us there were no planes at 911. Shit! And we were having such a good time!
John sure enough, has charted his own weird course through statcounter. Truth be known, on its own it would have been unremarkable. However, when you lay it side by side with what he's saying and doing in the blog, all sorts of things become clear.
I first noticed him by way of an arrival via direct link from a Mr. Friend's Blog. Hmm... curious. And sure it sounded like some creepy paedophile thing, but whatever, I go check it out. As a chap not often linked to (astounding given that I'm easily the best writer since William McGonagall) I always check such things out and then keep an eye on it to see how much traffic it generates. At time of writing: nada - just that single solitary hit. Would anyone blame me if I was to declare that that was merely John checking to see if his link worked?
So I visit his site and instantly notice he's also linked to my haiku blog. Double curious. Not a single arrival from there which means he didn't even bother checking the link. Doubtless he didn't actually care, what with never having written a haiku (that being the whole point of the place). And this after a single visit - one hit, no haiku, but he likes it enough to link to it. Sure. But let's not jump the gun and start using the word 'glad-handing' yet. We'll save it for later.
Like the haiku blog, John loved the church after his very first visit. He liked it so much he didn't need to look around, hang out in the comments, click any links, nothing. A blink was all it took and he was sold! Love at first sight - "Let's not fool around baby, let's just go to Vegas and get married!" - and he promptly pledged his troth with a link. Wow. Talk about swept off my feet! Or not. Probably not actually, now that I think about it.
On the same day, he pops into the comments for Pedophocracy Disinfo 102 which I loosely paraphrase thus -
1) Dropped Aangirfan's name, said he loved my blog.John's penultimate misstep came when he arrived at the last piece wherein I discussed his favourite topic in the world. Unlike the curious people at Kenny's who checked out his no-plane links, and unlike the average 'interested' punters above, John was filled with an insatiable incuriosity and completely failed to click on a single link, pic, or movie. His utter lack of desire to check out my blog, which he professed to like so much, was here perfectly replicated by his complete uninterest in checking out an article pretty much written for him. It's all he can talk about but really, he just ain't interested. Go figure.
2) Made a single para almost-on-topic comment about the twenty year old Franklin Scandal and condemns paedophiles to hell. *For those who don't know the Franklin scandal is the only scandal to have made the front page of any major US daily, albeit not in connection to any other scandal. It's also the only scandal that Mike Rivero is prepared to mention on his blog without condemnation (as he does with the McMartin scandal). And it's also the scandal which I have previously declared to be the limited hang-out fall-back position for pedophocracy disinfo spooks. Not that I'm accusing John of that, or anything. Oh, nearly forgot: John was a kid in Nebraska at the precise time Franklin was going down and associated with many of the same people and organisations that were involved. Not that he had any idea at the time of course.
3) Writes nine paras detailing how there were no planes on 911.
4) Once more tells me I am great.
5) Reappears with a second comment asking for my insight into whether Paul McCartney really is dead. No seriously, he did. Also writes 'LOL' for the third time, not that that makes me grit my teeth or anything.
Did somebody says 'figures'? What with yours truly being a complete maths wizard, why don't we mathematically compare John Friend's curiosity in his professed field of interest with that of a standard punter. As we can see, as the standard punter's interest in a given topic increases, his curiosity charts a concordant rise. John Friend on the other hand follows a curve of inverse proportion. Thus as his interest in a given topic hits maximum his curiosity scrapes zero. Like that makes any sense at all. Otherwise, Descartes, eat your heart out!
As I said in the comments there, the only time I've encountered such extraordinary incuriosity in the face of professed interest is with blank-eyed zionists and pedophocracy disinfo scum. It ain't great company to be in, is it? And John's response? He did click some links! What's that John, fingers crossed and a quickly muttered, 'he durst not give me the lie direct.' Ha ha ha ha - durst I not? Bullshit. I fucking durst.
Dear oh dear. So much for that. But John wasn't done yet. He still had one last nail to hammer into his own coffin. Never mind me having called him bullshit and telling him to fuck off, nor him saying he'd knock my teeth out (yeah, yeah, you and stevieb, the apple onion, and zionists too numerous to mention) the next day he... wait for it... came back pushing his piss-weak no-planes barrow and acting like nothing had ever happened.
Huh? I shake my head. Who the fuck does that? I can imagine all sorts of responses but that's just too weird for itself. Mate, do you even know how a normal person behaves?
Cointelpro exists. Cointelpro is not passive. It is aggressive. They do not sit at their computers playing the ghost surfer. They go out and they pile in. That's what cointelpro is. And not in any half-arsed way. Remember they are not passive. They will do their level best to become big wheels. They will clock up hours. They will dominate the discussion. They will be tireless and busy and full of enthusiasm. They will network and make links. They will be charming and complimentary and have their gladhanding down pat. Will they want to be your friend? Abso-fucking-lutely. Hell, they've studied the art of making people trust them. They have sincerity down pat. And they depend upon your credulity and unwillingness to think ill of people.
And if you think you're safe because you only get a thousand hits a day, go read up on all those peace activist groups who warranted a full-time infiltrator who would live and work amongst them for a year, and the group only had an effective membership of a couple dozen people. The internet and blogs are not going to get a free ride. If you frequent these circles you will encounter cointelpro. It's a dead certainty. The good news is they will give themselves away. And he did!
NB. Edited 22 September as noted in the comments