The Discrepancy Test, Part I - Intro

Compassion means everything

The conspiracy theory subculture (CTS), as I have come to call it, is a very sophisticated, coordinated and organised operation conducted by the usually suspect (western – i.e. US-affiliated) intelligence agencies.

There’s your headline number one.

Headline number two is about deconstructing this and learning how to detect the agents in the field responsible for keeping the operation running, and maintaining the integrity or uniformity of ideology of the CTS.

And that’s where the discrepancy test comes in.

You will have heard of the so-called conspiracy theory litmus test, most likely. The two examples which readily spring to mind are Chomsky’s nasty little quip about how the ‘unvaccinated’ should be ostracised. You probably remember that one. The second one is perhaps more familiar, which is the notorious statement by Julian Assange dismissing 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Taking the Assange one first, the reason why this fails the so-called litmus test is because there is a discrepancy between the ‘profile’ of Assange, as someone who allegedly deals with ‘conspiracies’ all the time and is totally au fait with the nasty operations conducted by the likes of the CIA, and the notion that a person with that profile genuinely believes the official narrative. Despite all the obvious anomalies in that narrative. In other words, put simply, it’s just not psychologically credible or believable.

It is an obvious indication of dishonesty.

That’s to say – he’s fucking lying. And if he’s lying, then he’s an agent.

Likewise Chomsky. He should also be familiar with the malignancies of the Establishment, and yet he seems quite happy to promote their fascism. So much for manufactured consent, eh.

---

Ah! You will be wanting something from the Yasenevo Dossier won’t you? Far be it from me to disappoint.

Here’s Julian Assange, suffering terribly in Belmarsh.

Julian Assange, contemplating Her Majesty’s Pleasure

---

Short note on 9/11. The obvious anomaly lies in the building collapses, which could not possibly have occurred naturally as a result of briefly burning fires very high up. That’s just science, and it’s indisputable. That anomaly is what you would call a discrepancy. So perhaps instead of ‘conspiracy theories’ we should have ‘discrepancy queries’? People can argue all they want about how the collapse was engineered (and argue they do!), but no one with anyone intelligence can dispute the fact that it was engineered.

So that’s that sorted.

However, it does reveal an intriguing point about the cognitive infiltration operation. Given the obviousness of the anomaly, and thus the inevitability of dissidence (i.e. ‘conspiracy theories’) it would’ve occurred to the perpetrators that they seriously need to start thinking about far greater control over that potential dissident movement, meaning the CTS.

Notice also how this coincides very nicely with the impending birth of Web 2.0. I would not be surprised in the slightest if the entire CTS operation was conceived around the time, as a corollary to 9/11 and the inevitable conspiracy theories.

Equally, one might be given to speculation that this was the very reason for creating such an obvious anomaly in the first place – to provide an initial grounding for the CTS. Worthy of speculation, that one.

Likewise ‘Wikileaks’. As both a ‘limited hangout’ (with the emphasis on ‘limited’ there) as well as an entrapment for potential whistleblowers. You might say ‘if Wikileaks hadn’t have existed, it would’ve been necessary for the CIA to have invented it’.

Rhetorical questions for you: has Wikileaks ever done any serious damage to the cabal? No. Has it exposed 9/11? No. Has it exposed the (child abuse) Network? No.

I rest my case.

---

These two examples are very simple versions of a principle of both critical thinking and counter-espionage analysis which actively looks for discrepancies. It goes much deeper than simple litmus tests, though. And predictably enough, it should not be surprising if the agents – that is to say, the influencers – embedded in the CTS really don’t want you to fully understand the discrepancy test. That would be to give themselves away, after all. And they can’t be having that.

Which is why they give you your little litmus test, but no more than that.

This paper, then, intends to drill down into the finer nuances of the discrepancy test so that, one hopes, you can then arm yourselves with its principles and apply it throughout your own little (mis)adventures in the CTS (or Conspiracyland, if you’re feeling frivolous). It’ll be intriguing for you, certainly revealing and, I hope, a fair bit of fun.

---

But let’s backtrack a bit first. No, don’t worry, this is not another one of my burbling ludicrous diversions. It’s relevant. So bear with me.

The simple ‘big picture’ of this world is that this planet is effectively controlled by a small, minority group of selfish bad guys (I call them the cabal – you can make up your own names if you want). That’s extremely easy and non-controversial for anyone with half a brain to accept. This is leaving aside any discussion about specifics right now. That would definitely be a digression. But the important consideration here is psychology, and most importantly the fact that they are effectively lording it over everyone else, and human nature being what it is, namely people don’t like being lorded over and abused, this puts that minority group in danger of blowback (or revolution, if you will). Thus, they have to spend an inordinate degree of time, energy, money and suchlike in order to preserve their privileged social position.

The construction of the CTS – that’s to say ‘cognitive infiltration’ of the potential resistance – is obviously an absolute, logical necessity here.

Yes, it may be the case that ‘most’ human beings don’t have it in them to form a resistance, for whatever reason, or have been hoodwinked into disbelieving this big picture or dismissing it as a conspiracy theory – as they have been instructed to do by the mainstream media, or various other epistemic authorities throughout modern history – but there still remains, there will always remain – a significant minority of people who cannot be conditioned in this way and do have the moral compulsion to help their fellow human beings overcome this feudalism.

Especially given it’s a patriarchal feudalism. So feminine principles, and females per se, with all their human qualities, will inevitably need to be suppressed. Maybe we’ll discuss that sometime. It’s about the spirit, ultimately.

There will always be those for whom moral principles entail a very strong emotional content. This is because of empathy, of course. They simply cannot stand back apathetically and allow these monsters to continue their abuse. They cannot pass by on the other side.

This is the mark of a superior person. Or shall we say an Alpha. Part of the definition of superiority or intelligence is compassion. It is spiritual, psychological, social and emotional maturity. Yes – that’s the opposite of the cabal. The cabal are the most immature in that sense. I’m not going to dwell too much on their psychology right now, you’ll be pleased to hear (if you’re interested, my Social Psychology & the Cabal series starts there). But it is important to note at this point because it also applies to the field agents in the CTS who are effectively doing their bidding and knowingly working for monsters.

They are at best sociopaths, at worst, psychopaths. They knowingly lie. They knowingly deceive. Maybe they get off on it. You’d have to ask them. And it takes a special kind of profile to do that. And that profile is logically inconsistent, or incongruous, with a genuine dissident.

Likewise, it is important to contrast their psychological profile with that profile of a good person – or the ‘superior’ person. Read some Nietzsche if you want to know more in this regard – this article is excellent on the subject, in particular because it highlights what I said about true superiority entailing moral responsibility and empathy. A distinctive reaction to the world as it is today.

Naturally, it can be the case that one ceases caring. Especially when confronted by the apathy and ignorance of most people, but that’s a sort of test. ‘Pity in a man of knowledge seems almost ludicrous,’ wrote Nietzsche, ‘like sensitive hands on a Cyclops’. There is some veracity in that, for sure, but there’s a difference between pity and compassion. I myself often find myself fluctuating between the two – the part of me that says don’t waste your energy, and the other part that cannot escape moral principle. Like, even if I don’t necessarily care about stupid, ignorant, and apathetic people who don’t care themselves much for others or their planet or their own species, and so are arguably not worthy of compassion, let alone respect, I still find myself deeply offended by the sight of a bunch of evil, small-minded, mendacious monsters getting away with what they do. Primarily because they don’t deserve to be in charge! The inferior being in charge is against nature. It’s certainly against the spirit, that’s for sure.

It fundamentally offends me.

---

I say this because the kind of person I am describing here should be the archetypal ‘conspiracy theorist’. They can’t ignore the big picture. They cannot ignore the injustice of it. So they are compelled – pathologically – to liberate everyone.

Thus, we have to be stopped, don’t we? If we are allowed to roam free then – organically – we will instigate a resistance movement which may start out at grass roots level but which will build up a momentum, draw ever more awakened and educated people into its movement and then eventually achieve a tipping point, a threshold beyond which the ultimate revolution cannot be prevented.

In times past, at least before the invention of the printing press, it wasn’t too logistically difficult for the ruling caste to contain this threat. Usually with violence. When that printing press came along, it was equally inevitable they would want to control it and enforce that control violently – like Thomas More (patron saint of politicians no less) burning people at the stake for possessing a bible in their own language (and thus being able to see through its monstrous lies and start inevitably disbelieving).

The same principles apply today, just that it’s become far more urgent and requires this concerted, coordinated CTS operation. I’m talking about so-called Web 2.0, of course. It simply couldn’t be permitted to function organically.

But they can’t shut it down, the Internet that is, because that would trigger the revolution. Not to mention the breakdown of developed society, which has become entirely logistically dependent on it. So the only real option is to create the CTS. And that requires a serious operation.

But that brings us up to date. We can go into more detail, but that’ll be for another time.

It’s not a digression, though, by the way. Because you will notice, I hope, that our first deeper example of the discrepancy test is specifically about this superior type of person – namely, one who has compassion. How many ‘influencers’ in the CTS, after all, have you encountered who display no compassion whatsoever? Quite a few, I’d wager.

In fact it’s worse than that. If they do display ‘emotion’, it’s always negative and aggressive emotion, often verging on bigotry. Being ‘angry’ about the state of the world is one thing, but being hateful, that’s another. As I say, truly intelligent people are not hateful. The more one learns about the evil machinations of the bad guys, the more compassion one should have, not less.

And the last thing any of this evil is, is some abstract intellectual problem.

So there’s a discrepancy there – between the profile and the expression. The profile attempts to present an image of being concerned about the machinations and the totalitarian future and the effect it will have on people, but the expression is devoid of compassion.

In other words – it’s dishonest. It’s a lie. It’s therefore an agent.

---

I am minded to leave that one hanging there. But you will have noticed, I hope, how so many of these ‘influencers’ are peddling negative emotions. To the extent of even exhorting people into outright bigotry. That’s called ‘subversion’. It’s called ‘corrupting’.

Then there’s the so-called black pill. They’re extremely adept at feeding people that one – by incessant repetition, usually.

Notice also how they are constantly attacking ‘socialism’. Notice they don’t bother trying to educate people about what socialism actually means and how it should be inseparable from liberal values (i.e. it’s liberating). No – they are peddling the Establishment’s very own definition of socialism as something replete with negative connotations, like Marxism, or ‘the Soviet Union’, or ‘communism’, or ‘state control’ – and all the other typical propaganda.

Where is the compassion in that?

An irony is that it’s especially socialists who should be conspiracy theorists. Katrina understands this.

They do indeed like to avoid actually providing any solutions to the problem, after all.

They are consciously avoiding education.

All of these are discrepancies.

---

Further discrepancies are more towards the intellectual side of things. The headline principle here is a logical contradiction, or incongruence, or incompatibility, between the professed level of intelligence and the stupidity of the belief or opinion they are expressing.

Here’s an obvious straw man example – ‘flat earth’. The point is simply that ‘no intelligent person could believe in such a blatantly false theory’.

From there, you can indeed build up the complexity of an idea in question, on a sort of hierarchy of credibility. As theories become less and less absurd, or are more able to be presented as reasonable, it becomes far harder to employ the discrepancy test.

This is especially the case when the agents present these ‘theories’ to make them seem ‘scientifically plausible’, by employing a whole load of jargon, or citing allegedly scientific papers, or finding some experimental flaw in a bit of science. Of course they avoid counterarguments, or overriding bits of evidence, but they have become very adept at presenting ludicrous theories in a reasonable way. And they do rely on the majority of their audience not having the time, or the education, or the vocabulary, or whatever, to check the working, so to speak, to do their own research, or to ask the relevant counter-questions.

So yes, it does get difficult.

But one clear discrepancy arises when someone like me comes along and points out the obvious flaws in their presentations but they don’t acknowledge that. Some, even, actively prevent discussion (e.g. paid subscribers only may comment). Others resort to the highly effective dogpile (with the aid of bots and fellow agents).

There is a discrepancy again here between being ‘open-minded’ and ‘compassionate’ and ‘truth-seeking’ and suchlike, but actively dismissing good research or well-argued points. I do include ‘compassionate’ there because the ultimate objective of a true, organic conspiracy theory subculture should indeed be to help everyone get to the truth, to be unified behind that, then to go out and spread the word of that, and then to lead a resistance. But no, we can’t be having that, can we?

So there’s the discrepancy between ‘intention’ and ‘practice’.

Between, ultimately, ‘profile’ and ‘behaviour’.

---

Perhaps there’s enough to be going on with for now. Of course there’s more, but that can wait. Maybe there’ll be a part two, I don’t know. Let’s call this the intro.

But we shall certainly be keeping this discrepancy principle in mind, and frivolously applying it as we go.

Maybe next time, then, we’ll do a specific case study…

---

In the meantime, oh, someone seems to have slipped in a lovely fairytale spy scene into my Yasenevo Dossier! Now who could that be, I wonder? Definitely not Julian Assange, that’s for sure.

Merry Christmas from Yasenevo, Moskva (in a better world)

---

Did you want to buy me a coffee, by any chance? If so, click ye there.

And here’s a button if you haven’t subscribed yet.