This week I banned one of the long term commenters on this site. He had commented on my France vs ANZACs article and this was the comment that he left:
“In the same week, alarmed at the rising risk of conflict on the Russian/Ukrainian border, a conflict that has been brokered and provoked by the United States, Paris and Berlin scrambled to head off the threat with strong diplomatic efforts to appease the Russians.”
This statement is simply a Putinist lie. Ukraine started nothing, and not tried to keep anything going. Neither did the US broker or provoke the conflict. The planning for the invasion of Crimea was going on back in 2010 and earlier. The statement is simply clownish in it’s stupidity and flies entirely in the face of all the evidence of what has been going on under the KGB mafia thug in Moscow.
If Russia was not responsible, then there is no reason why anyone should be trying appease Putin. Anyone paying attention notes the strong similarities between Putin’s actions and those of Hitler at Munich. Putin is everything he accuses the “Ukronazis” of being.
When I read his comment the penny finally dropped. He was a deliberate agitator, and he had been agitating for some years on my corner of the internet. The reason that I hadn’t sussed him out before was because he was not usually this obtuse and obvious. But it was also the weight of the many subtle distortions that he had previously written that enabled me to finally see the picture clearly.
One of my own red pill journeys has been the gradual understanding that every message board and comments section on the internet has been or is in the process of being infiltrated by the other side. Because the form of our enemies is inherently nebulous, this makes general identification rather difficult. But once you understand that every comments section is being actively infiltrated and sabotaged, then the identification process becomes much less complex.
Take for example, this piece that went up on Sigma Frame this week. On the topic in discussion in itself, it is the usual grab-fest of protestants attempting to reinvent God’s word to fit their own personal world view. That these arguments were comprehensively dealt with almost 1000 years’ ago by luminaries such as St Thomas Aquinas is not the point. What is interesting to me in that thread is the obvious infiltration and attempted subversion. Take the time to read through it and see if you can spot Captain Obvious.
If you weren’t able to work it out, this is one of the infiltrators. But he isn’t the main one. There is someone else there who takes the stance of not understanding the point being made and goes nitpicky on the fine details, of the rules of the court, so to speak. It is diversion, subversion and corruption all rolled into one.
Or take this short sermon that I watched this morning:
Scroll down to the comments and you will find plenty of infiltrators. Someone made this comment:
A “nun” in a pant suit and Justin Bieber haircut is bad news. Never fails.
And then an infiltrator jumps right in:
Not all who wore/wear the habit were/are perfect.
and the same guy …
There were cases of nuns giving birth to children, nuns setting convents on fire, and the Bon Secours scandal. These are just a few of the unholy types of behavior that have occurred among habit-wearing nuns. It is not the uniform which makes a person holy.
In this case the method used to discredit is the strawman argument. The first comment stated that nuns wearing pants and short hair are typically not religious. The response is that there were many nuns that sinned. This has nothing to do with the original point, but it is designed to discredit and sow doubt.
One more example that popped up on my radar this week. A thread on Catallaxy Files on American political history. The commenters at Catallaxy are in general more astute than your average internet crowd, (although there are a fair number of mental cripples that inhabit the place). To this end they spotted the infiltrator very quickly, a guy with the handle of Luke73. When there was nowhere left to hide he left this comment:
I must get back to Antifa/Soros pay department in regards to those cheques not going in, thanks for reminding me.
This attempt at deflection via sarcasm merely confirms who is paying him. There is a lot of money in this currency devalued world to throw around at university hacks who can’t land a job. Up until a short time ago I didn’t give this idea much credibility because I was making the mistake of projecting my own reality onto that of our opponents. The reality is that there are thousands of them out there, and when one handle is exposed then they simply come back with a new identity. To that end, I suppose that outing one of the infiltrators on my site is unwise; better the devil you know and all that. But in the interests of my broader readership, I thought that using him for educational purposes was more beneficial.
That and he finally just pissed me off.