Saturday, March 17, 2012

Les, I'm asking you directly


Hey Les,

Just lately I had a fellow in my comments section who wanted to tell me I ought not to trust Dave McGowan because he refuses to acknowledge the banking/zionist arm of the twin pillar death cult. Actually, to be honest he didn't use those terms - that's just me. In fact I suspect that he'd be of the opinion that the PTB are entirely Jewish and that there is no second pillar.

To a certain extent I can understand this what with it having been my position back when I took my cues from WRH and Smoking Mirrors, which is to say before I discovered McGowan. But I've broadened my horizon since then. Now I hold to the view that there are two sides to the death cult. Actually, now that I think about it, they're more like two snakes intertwined, with each declaring the other the villain and all the while ignoring their own serpentine nature.

And in amongst a reverie about the it's-the-zionists crowd who hush up all talk of an MKULTRA satanist pedophocracy, and the it's-the-MKULTRA-satanist-pedophocracy crowd who don't want to hear about Jews, banking, and zionism, I had a flashback to me wondering at you as the former. And I thought about how nothing came of that. Everyone ignored it and we all went on like nothing had happened.

I realised that this was probably because I'd written it in such a way that I'd effectively addressed my thoughts to the ether. And the ether sure enough felt no need to reply. So it occurred to me that what I should have done was to simply ask you directly. Okay, so here I am asking you directly:

- Given your near perfect resemblance to what I'll call the McGowan template ie: the military childhood; the violent abuse throughout it; your own time in the military, in jail, in psych wards; the pharmacopoeia of drugs; your proximity to other spooky Laurel Canyon characters; your resemblance to such musically; your assertions of supernatural abilities; and the fact that your blogs come as close as blogs possibly could to resembling the guru/follower vibe perpetually present in all those other MKULTRA end-of-the-world cults,

- Given your solid association with Mike Rivero who not only completely (and impossibly) ignores the concrete reality of the pedophocracy, but has actually stepped well into the territory of pedophocracy disinfo, so much so that under the rubric of 'if you got the game you may as well have the name', that I call him on it,

- Given your own complete and tireless focus on the Jewish half of the twin pillar death cult, to the near complete exclusion of the satanist / MKULTRA / pedophocracy wing, all the while without apparently having to take a break to earn a living,

-Given your devotion to, and promotion of, the occult and all that quasi-satanist, kabbalistic, Blavatsky-esqe gear that so perpetually features throughout Laurel Canyon, the pedophocracy, and numerous MKULTRA autobiographies like Brice Taylor's etc,

And finally - Given the fact that MKULTRA subjects don't know that they're MKULTRA subjects, here's the question -

How do you know you're not an MKULTRA subject?

Have you ever asked yourself that? I would if I was you. I'd have to - I couldn't not do it. This is not an attack. It's a fair question. And I ask it with a straight face and unblinking.

MKULTRA exists. MKULTRA subjects exist. And they resemble no one so much as you. How do you know you're not an MKULTRA subject?

16 comments:

Edo said...

Fair question...

nobody said...

Okay, I decided to blitz a long string of non-germane dialogue here that at a fundamental level pivoted on a misunderstanding of what comprises public and what comprises private.

Keyword: non-germane.

And I then deleted the conversation that ensued because it would have brought nothing but confusion to anyone else reading it.

brian morrison said...

mister crook, the 'doctor' snorting cocaine from the small of the back of prepubescents...

slozo said...

Well said Nobody.

I had no idea Les had some of the spooky attributes you mention . . . familial military background, eh? Interesting.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Nobody,...Well done that man: You forgot to (cared not to?) mention his 'attack dog' defence of all literal/khabbalistic things masonic - there's mind control rituals in them thar hills!

veritas

nobody said...

Thanks boys and girls, lovely to have you in.

And V, yeah, that did occur to me but I decided it wasn't inarguably connected to the immediate question. Kind of, sort of, not quite.

It's true that the denizens of Laurel Canyon who were ostensibly about peace, love, and understanding were actually no such thing ie. were a pack of right wing gun nuts who hated draft dodgers.

But I thought it was a bit tenuous to tie that to: Les's encouragement (or at least lack of censure) of fights and spats in his comments; his weird out-of-the-blue attacks against random punters there who, as far as I could tell, had done nothing much to deserve it; and his otherwise constant, jeering contempt for the clueless masses who more or less deserved their coming fate at the hands of the death cult.

I always had a problem with the latter particularly, what with having been one of those clueless masses. Where was the compassion? And yeah, I admit to having piled in on that fight picking vibe myself. It lurks within all of us and all it takes is for another to say it's okay and then you can let it take over. But eventually I walked away. Still, if someone wanted to have a go at me on that (ahem) I'd probably have to say mea culpa.

But otherwise all of the above I would consider a weakish argument that comes under the heading 'Yeah, well that's your opinion" if you know what I mean. Regardless, I certainly get your point. And good to see you in mate.

Oh sorry Slozo, quick point - I should also confess to having a military upbringing too. But as for the rest of the rest of the checklist, nada.

Well... I've taken drugs, but that consisted of grass (and quite a lot of it), snorts of powder in the single figures, and opiates solely consisting of pethadine after a motorcycle crash (very golden - hole in my leg? who gives a bugger!) and a single rude help-myself to one of the old man's oxycontins (which did fuck all apart from make me vomit, albeit painlessly).

The things is, I did ask the question. Could it be me? In the end I decided 'Nah, I don't think so'.

Anonymous said...

Dude...I just don't get this post. I mean, we all are responsible for what we want to indulge in...we use our critical thinking to separate out the shit from the shine. And nobody has a direct line on the ultimate truth, not even our beloved Dave McGowan.

Why attack? Why ponder this in a very public challenge? What can be gained from this kind of witch hunt?

Maybe you need to step back a bit...go climb a tree and get a better perspective.

I like your blog, but, this negativity is bound for a return back to you...it's a feedback loop...and I think better of you...this isn't what you're about.

You're a good blogger/writer in your own right, but, I think you need to decide where you're going with all this.

(Too lazy to recover my google password, so I'm going Anon) This is a comment meant for you and there is no need to make public post.

Fight the Good Fight,

23

Peter said...

I kinda like what you are doing. It's risky/edgey.
The two pillars exist. I am unsure as to how you define the pedocracy. McGowan seems reluctant to pin point it. My take is, it is a homosexual/bisexual mafia.(Bohemian Grove and Kay Griggs experiences). However, whenever I venture THERE I get my head handed to me. I DO believe kay Griggs to have the real handle on things at the top. It is curious no one else embraces Kay Griggs the way I do.
Is this the same second pillar you are referencing? Gee, I hope soo cuz I am right there with ya if it is.
Les and his ilk maybe really are scared to point the finger at this gay mafia, rightfully so.The gay mafia is much more dangerous then even the Jewish mafia. But hey, that's just my take on this. And who am I? Nobody.

Anonymous said...

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=2202

Lost of data on Colby on Franklin, Decamp and Colby.

This one also went to high levels in the Denver elite.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=3887&page=2

I have rarely ever gone to WHR for any information whatsoever. I do peruse Rense as there are some good articles there from time to time and I like thetruthseeker for information especially. I don't view any particular site the final word on anything.

I think I mentioned the Dave McGowan site several times on the LV site when I used to comment over there quite a bit. McGowan definitely brought out some information that I was not remotely aware of before reading him.

The biggest joke out there has to be this Drockton guy though. He mentioned once the gnostics were satanists. That was back when you could comment on his site. That some of the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. In fact the lost gospel of Thomas indicates this to be the original direction of the bible, finding the inner light, not trying to read golden tablets that were supposedly dug out of the ground.

The Mormons and the catholics seem to be heavily involved in the pedo manifestation and there is no getting around it.

On the little British girl kidnapped, I did read one piece where investigators from Portugal in the U.K. were walking through a parade. There were people there in clown suits and they said one of them walked up to them (with face painted) and said if you know what is good for you, get back to Portugal.

Dublinmick

Anonymous said...

Peter
I think Kay Griggs is right on the money

Dublinmick

nobody said...

23

Yeah, that's an angle I guess. But let's pull it apart.

We are all responsible for our own whatever, we all have our critical abilities, and that nobody can know the complete truth, kind of thing.

Okay, but isn't that the death of criticism? Which is to say: no one may analyse anything unless it's to say something nice about it. Or perhaps we may offer criticism provided we all agree it/they deserved it. It seems that anything is fine as long as no one finds it objectionable.

Lovely, but what are the criteria? If I tear apart, I don't know... Benjamin Netanyahu, is that okay? Would we all agree on that? Or is it anti-semitic? Okay, how about Bill Weiss, the Jewish leader of the American Nazi Party? Is that okay? What about George Clooney and all those other celebs who've signed up for Kony 2012? What about Jim Morrison, the son of the guy who started the Vietnam war? And Frank Zappa, the son of the head of biological warfare at Edgewood Arsenal? Is that okay?

Or am I starting to tread on some toes now? Frank Zappa is fantastic. There's no way... blah, blah, blah. What exactly would be driving the rightness or wrongness of each given piece of analysis/criticism apart from personal preferences ie. having something invested in that particular person?

Let's flip it. If I called out Netanyahu (whom we could all agree is an arch motherfucker) would you pop into the comments and cluck your tongue at my negativity? I doubt it, and if you did you'd be on the receiving end of an avalanche of shit from all and sundry. In his case we would declare the criticism is deserved because he has done and said the following things. Yes? So where's the discussion of karma-esque 'negativity' now? Nowhere.

Now, we're merely in a discussion of 'he did this', 'he said that', 'this is a lie', and 'isn't it a fact that'.

Yeah? Okay, welcome to this piece.

Oh, and you mention Dave McGowan. You're telling the wrong guy. I pulled him apart already. Everyone gets pulled apart. Everyone who wants to tell us their version of the-world-is-thus, that is. They all get the same treatement.

-snip-

nobody said...

-snip-

In that regard there are no sacred cows. Not even me. You want to pull me apart, tear me down, analyse, criticise, call 'em how you see 'em - knock yourself out. I stuck my head above the parapet and you should feel free to shoot at it. Go through everything I wrote - Where are my allegiances? Who do I treat lightly? What subjects do I ignore? Where are my biases? Where is my head at? And why?

It's all fair game.

As for the poorness of doing it in public. What's the point of doing it in private? Should I convey my thoughts about Netanyahu to him privately to spare him, I don't know... whatever? What an idiot exercise. Now I'm not saying Les is on a par with Netanyahu, merely that there is no dividing line and that what's good for one is good for the other. And if what I'm criticising is public, then why shouldn't the criticism be likewise?

As for where I'm going with it all: Fucked if I know! If anyone can figure out a clear purpose as to what I'm doing here they should put it on their blog. I'd love to read it. Mind you, if there was some clear purpose, you'd be right in wondering what my motive was. But if you can figure it out, tell me because I've got no idea.

In the meantime if you want to treat this analysis/criticism/pull-down like you'd treat every other one in which you have nothing invested (ie. was unobjectionable to anybody), and call bullshit on the facts or offer counter-propositions, I'd love to see it. I'm here waiting for someone to say it ain't so.

But there was nothing last time and somehow I suspect that there'll be nothing this time.

And I really wonder at that. Where are Les's fans? Not so long ago there was a load of bullshit anonymous sniping at someone I believe in, that being Aangirfan, and I fucking piled in. If I think someone is right, I don't stand back watching. Fists, words, whatever. By the same token, if a friend of mine is bullshit and deserves to cop what they cop, and then kept up at it, I'd probably think twice about being their friend. Can you dig it? And what are Les's fans doing? Neither? That's not what I'd call a vote of confidence.

Oh, as for your request for no publishing, too late. You needed to read the bit at the top - Moderation is turned on for any article more than ten days old. Thus it posted here the minute you hit 'publish'. Besides which, why wouldn't you want that public? 'Please see preceding paragraph'.

Jesus Christ, it's three o'clock and I haven't had lunch yet. Off I go now.

Cap'n Spadgett said...

Nobody, are you short?

Visible has laid his name, his real name, his life story up to and including now, his whereabouts, he is up for any question that I have seen and as long as it isn't stupid, is willing to change what he has said. He is an open book. There is a bit of idol ship/Guru worship going on and I have been guilty of that in the past, but I have never got an ounce of that dynamic back from Visible. Nor have I but for the very rare occasion, seen him even acknowledge any praise.

If Les was a part of any MK work, he has gone rouge as is amply clear from his volumes of writing. But, if you have no sense of the Divine then Visible wont mean much to you. Maybe you fall in that category.

What's your name Nob? Whats your past? Who's your daddy Nob? Who are you? Can you be you, or is it to much fun poking fun at everyone else?

If you and Vis were in a Western movie, he would be in the street with a six shooter, you would be hiding behind a barrel yelling out who was right and who was wrong.

nobody said...

196cm = 6'5"

'Gone rouge'? I have no idea what that means. But never mind, 'if' is the bit that counts. Is he or isn't he? It's a straightforward question, the beginning of a conversation to follow. Or not follow, as the case may be.

As for me, the name is irrelevant, and the past is all here on this blog for anyone who wants to read it. As I said before, not that you could know this but this blog is one long autobiography.

Personal details is one thing and where a bloke's head is at is another - have you read any McGowan? Laurel Canyon? The pedophocracy? The serial killer analysis? Or is your world a one pillar world with the zionists to blame for everything? Just curious.

And if you haven't read any of the above, there's links on the front page. Don't worry, they don't say anything bad about Les. There are lots of guys like Les in there, I mean really, really like Les, but he himself isn't actually in there so you ought not to take any offence at any of it.

The thing is, if you haven't read that stuff there's not much of a conversation to be had really.

And the divine? If you believe that Les is divine, or semi-divine, or touched by the gods, or whatever it is he's said is so, don't let me stop you taking him at his word. It sounds like you've followed a few bullshit artists and I'm sure that that's put you in good stead at being able to discern someone who's different to the others. I'm pleased for you.

As for that cowboy movie I'd have thought Les would have been in some variety of pulpit surely. Do priests in cowboy movies participate in street shootouts? I don't recall ever having seen that.

P2P said...

nobody wrote,

"In that regard there are no sacred cows. Not even me. You want to pull me apart, tear me down, analyse, criticise, call 'em how you see 'em - knock yourself out. I stuck my head above the parapet and you should feel free to shoot at it. Go through everything I wrote - Where are my allegiances? Who do I treat lightly? What subjects do I ignore? Where are my biases? Where is my head at? And why?

It's all fair game.

As for the poorness of doing it in public. What's the point of doing it in private? Should I convey my thoughts about Netanyahu to him privately to spare him, I don't know... whatever? What an idiot exercise. Now I'm not saying Les is on a par with Netanyahu, merely that there is no dividing line and that what's good for one is good for the other. And if what I'm criticising is public, then why shouldn't the criticism be likewise?

As for where I'm going with it all: Fucked if I know! If anyone can figure out a clear purpose as to what I'm doing here they should put it on their blog. I'd love to read it. Mind you, if there was some clear purpose, you'd be right in wondering what my motive was. But if you can figure it out, tell me because I've got no idea."

wait. wait. wait - wait. I did that all that. I criticized you, told where I think your head is at, gave a clear purpose for your motives for this post, all that... and you deleted that and said the keyword is "non-germane"? and the reason you gave for that was that I was using knowledge of you acquired privately, which I still stand against because all the same things you have said publicly on your blog. the only real reason for your reaction for my comments seems to be that I actually have some credibility in criticizing you for having met you in real life.

don't worry, I still stand by my promise to not to re-post my comments. but I still can't just stay silent when you seem to be completely oblivious to your own doings! whose will are you manifesting here, really? those comments from you that I copied for this one are such a red flag of hypochrisy that it's not even funny!

nobody said...

Sorry P, what was your point? That Les is or isn't MK? Or that one ought not to criticise anyone? Or that one may criticise people provided it's approved by you, or a committee, or whomever?

Or did you just want to point out the flaws of my character as you understand them from everything I told you about myself in chats, emails, and us meeting? And yes, the articles I pointed you at in those aforementioned chats, emails, and meeting.

Just so that you get it, let me put it another way. Is there another blog, or blogger, or artist, or anyone at all out there at whom you inflict such direct and focused criticism pointing out the sundry flaws in their character? Or is it just me, the only blogger with whom you are personally familiar through chats, and emails, and having met? And what does that say in terms of you and your subjectivity / objectivity?

Look P, I did my best but clearly I've made I've made a terrible error. Tomorrow I shall correct it.