“Now that you have, hopefully, understood the general
guidelines of the concept of “truth” as well as how it can be manipulated to
suit agendas we can now speak about the grouping of the various Black Hat
cliques.”
“Are there that many?”
“Yes, and many, as you’ll see, are interlinked and
intertwined in such ways that they can be allies with each other in certain
matters whilst be the fiercest foes on others.
“But let’s start with that one group that couldn’t care
less about the truth.”
“Yes, I did, and maintain what I said. Ignoring the
existence of truth is another way of manipulating it. It’s not just cutting off a
tip of the "truth block" but cutting the whole block off!
In fact, not only not touching it but keeping it at a very
comfortable distance and preferably hidden away. If it’s not possible to hide
it, then it is to be ignored. That simple and, what is important, that
powerful.”
“What?”
“History as shown that in conflicts those who are able to remain
neutral aren’t those who desire that status but those who have enough power to determine
they will be such.
One doesn’t just say one wants to be neutral. One either has
enough power to say it, such as Switzerland
in WWII, or it is because it is in the interests of the belligerents, or the powerful,
for one to be so, as was the case of Portugal in the same conflict.
And one can only brazenly ignore truth if one has enough
power to do so.
In the Maddie Affair who is powerful enough to do just that?
”
“Who?”
“The Deciders, obviously.
The first and most important group of Black Hats. So
important that the fate of the case is in their hands.
But before we get to what they can do let’s first look how
it evolved since that fateful evening of May 2007.
The moment Maddie died the Decider Group was confined to the
T9. However, the only decision this particular Decider Group made was to
introduce the “bully-effect” into the equation.”
“The what?”
“The “bully-effect” or the calling on for external help.
You know, remember
back in high school when one had a problem and one called on a bully for
help? What one was effectively doing was transferring all the capability of making the crisis management
decisions on to him/her.
From then on all decisions on how to solve the problem
started to be made by the bully and not by the one with the problem. It
continued to be that person’s problem but its solution depended no longer on
him/her. S/he asked for a favour and in turn gave up control.
Basically it’s an escalation in importance of who is the
Decider.
Imagine now that this bully who had been asked to help, and
agreed to it, sees that s/he’s unable to provide the adequate solution and
decides to call on a bigger bully to help out. This decision, which didn’t
involve the initial person with the problem, is directly related with that
particular problem so it affects him/her but s/he has no say in it anymore.
And the moment the bigger bully agrees to help the bully that
is helping the person, three people are now involved and the importance of the
initial person in the decision process is not reduced but completely nullified.
And that is what happened in the Maddie case. The Decider
Group very quickly escalated to the second-highest threshold of importance that
it could rise up to.”
“Second-highest?”
“Yes, the one short of having officially the direct
involvement of the British PM.”
“What?”
“Well, once you had the UK Ambassador at the time being
directly involved, as he was, it meant that the UK Government was also directly
involved.
The only thing left to escalate would be to have had the Foreign
Secretary at the time, Margaret Beckett, involve herself directly in the affair and
if she had done so it would be an official position by the UK Government,
which would mean the direct involvement of the PM, Tony Blair.
So what happened, in practical terms, is that all that favour-calling
on the night of the 3rd caused that the participants in the Decider Group to
change successively
and incrementally in importance.
On
May 4th, 2007, you had basically the same Decider Group in place up
until the "12May2011 Armistice", when the last possible threshold was reached. When
David Cameron ordered the SY Review he got himself officially directly involved
in the issue and you can’t get more important direct involvement than that.”
“The
same Decider Group? You said it changed with time… all that conversation about
the monkeys in business…”
“Yes,
I did say that. But if you recall, what I said was that the people making the
decisions changed, not the Decider Group.”
“Huh?”
“You’re
confusing people who made decisions with Deciders.
The
Deciders have the capability of influencing, decisively, others into doing what is their will, while
people who make decisions are just enablers of what the Deciders have ordered.
The
power-shift to the “monkeys” was simple and pure delegation. The enablers were "trained" to decide always within the boundaries set by the "pleasure" of their "masters". The important strategic decisions remained with the stakeholders, the Deciders.
In the Maddie case we saw that with
time the Deciders delegated to these "monkeys" the necessary decisions to
achieve their desired outcome. If you remember I explained extensively why this
happened.”
“Yes,
you did.”
“And
after a certain point in time hardly any Decider decided! They had that “chore”
delegated to the “monkeys”!
It’s
very easy to mistake a deciding “monkey” for a Decider but all becomes clear once one understands that the difference between them is the
“bully-effect” I mentioned just now.”
“What?”
“Remember
me saying that with the involvement of the bigger bully that the decision
went higher in importance? I also said that once the bully got himself involved
the problem to solve became his/her problem too!
The
difference between a Decider and a “monkey” is that the first is a stakeholder
while the latter is but a parrot that is told to say “Polly wants a cracker!!”
and will say it to perfection.
When
the parrot starts to come up with adequate phrases of his own to express that
it is but a cracker that it wants, those around tend to overlook the feathers
and start to give the enabler more “decision space”.
But
the mistake of mistaking the “monkeys” for Deciders was one crucial mistake
that happened within the Decider Group.
That’s
what happens when you get sloppy in delegating.”
“How
did that even happen?”
“Well,
I’m referring to the Tabloids of course. Their initial mission was to parrot
away what they were told. With time, they became more and more freelance on
the subject.
As
you know, the Great Maddie War, or GMW, took place on all communications platforms but
mainly on two: Tabloids and internet.
So
you can easily understand the importance that the tabloids started to gain in
the affair. So much so that when the Decider Group “convened” in 2010 to decide
the launching of the 2011 version of “The McCann Hunting Party” it was, we think, made up
mainly of Tabloid “monkeys”.
Note
that they were part of the Decider Group meeting but it was completely
overlooked that weren’t Deciders at all but only people who had been just making decisions, and so many of them, up until then!
These
people were not stakeholders.
They
not only didn’t practically have anything to lose as they weren’t in possession
of all the relevant information.
There
was one commonality between the Decider Group of 07 and 10 and that was the
“master-bully”, which was the British Government.
In
07, the British Government adequately staffed by those in the know took the
right decision, for them mind you, to not to prosecute the McCanns while in 10, the same British
Government but now staffed with those who weren’t effectively in all the know,
took the disastrous decision of ordering a the SY Review, a should-be “piece of
cake” that has now grown mould for two years...
For their own sake. the
Decider Group of 07 would have never allowed the SY Review to go forward. They
would have staffed David Cameron correctly and he wouldn’t have made such a
disastrous decision for himself and all Black Hats.
And
that’s why they’re where they are now, isolated and blocked.”
“Isolated,
how?”
“Well,
as I’ve said, the Guests at PdL weren’t your common Joe. I’m sure that with the
SY Review decision David Cameron lost some “friends”. He clearly promoted the
Tabloids to a “teacher’s pet” status that most likely didn’t go down well with many.
Then,
having realized that he had driven into a sort of narrow “cul-de-sac” in a car
without a reverse gear, mind you with no ill-intent from anyone as I’ve
explained, he turned on to those he felt had “betrayed” him, those who had
convinced him to make decision: the Tabloids
So
no more “we’re friends” with them too. Thus the Leveson Inquiry.
So
now we have this completely surreal situation which unfortunately is too real
for everyone. Without the former “friends” and without the new “friends” the UK
Government is “isolated” on this issue.
And
as the British Government has since then become as much a stakeholder as
anyone else involved, it can’t make a move without implicating itself so is
blocked.
Isolated
and blocked.
It’s
rather pitiful to see the Government of a Nation “subdued” by a situation that
it thought would be easy to control but fate and time proved to be the exact opposite.”
“So
you’re saying the British Government is powerless?”
“What?
How could I say that the powerful were powerless? That would be a contradiction
in terms!
No,
just because they can’t have it their way, because of self-interest, doesn’t mean
that they can’t act. They have done so and will continue to do so.
Let’s
first see what they have done.”
“What
have they done then?”
“They
have done the one thing that only Deciders can.”
“And
what is that?”
“They’ve
created truth.”
“What?!?
Have you lost your wits, woman?!?”
“The
Deciders are the ones who say what the Official Truth is and what it's not. Irrelevant and independently of what Factual Truth is.
Official Truth and Factual Truth may even be coincident but when that happens it's because it's in the Deciders interests for that to be so and not because truth is... truth.
They are
sufficiently powerful to just look at the real truth block, the Factual Truth, and
simply ignore it.”
“Ignore
it?!?”
“Yes,
and not only pretend it doesn’t exist but replace it, not in part but on the
whole, with something that has nothing to do with Factual Truth.
In
the Maddie case the only similarity between the Factual Truth and the Official
Truth is that this child, Madeleine Beth McCann, disappeared.
Absolutely nothing
else is common between the two.”
“That’s
impossible.”
“I’ll
show you. Let’s take the Archiving Dispatch as example.”
“Ok.”
“I’ll even use Black Hat wording so that there’s no possible misunderstandings about
it or be accused of being gibberish:
”bb1 on Fri Feb
22, 2013 2:34 pm
Isn't it amazing the difference a PROPER, PROFESSIONAL,
translation makes?
Amateur version of a key section of the Archiving Dispatch
as translated for the Morais site:
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in
any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of
them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal
behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be
amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications
analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the Reports from the
FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the
indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or
consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert
of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked
by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from
the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being
revealed as innocuous.
Proper, professional translation as used in court:
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally
significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the
apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that
moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the
analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts
reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made
suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified
the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by
the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out
to be harmless
Which led to:
b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald
Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they
committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure".
Subtly different, aren't they - and they are far from the
worst examples. Does Bennett really feel like taking his chances on the Dodgy
Translations With Bits Left Out?”
As
far as I can see both say basically the same and stating otherwise is just
childish distracting wordplay.
But
what is relevant is that both versions show how the Deciders were able to make official Judicial institutions blatantly lie about their own conclusions.
“Lie?!?”
“Yes.
Lie. Don’t you see it?”
“Must
confess I’m not…”
“In
both versions, and I’ll tell you that the original Portuguese one confirms it, it
is said that one of the main reasons for not prosecuting the parents is because “they
were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance”.
Well,
that, according to the abduction theory is false and so to state it is to tell
an absolute lie in terms of the Official Truth.”
“It’s
false?!? They created a version that doesn’t exempt the parents?!?”
“No,
at least not when it says that the parents weren’t at the apartment at the time
of events. Let’s for a moment assume that the whole abduction baloney is true,
as that is the Official Truth.
So
to what “events” is it referring to?”
“The…
abduction?”
“Exactly,
the action of kidnapping. In a murder it’s quite easy to identify the beginning
and the end of such an act but in kidnapping those limits aren’t as clear.
Help
me out here. When do you think the act of "abduction" started and when did it
end?”
“It
would have started when the abductor went inside the apartment and would have
ended when he, or she, got out of it with the child.”
“Right.
So you agree with me that according to the Official Truth, the Tanner sighting
is after the events, right?”
“Right”
“Tanner
sees the man as she’s passing by Gerry and Jez although neither of them
realize it, right?”
“Right”
“And
according to the Official Truth, Gerry had just walked out of the apartment and
had just started a short conversation with Jez right after he walked out of the
gate.
That
means that in order for Tanner to see what she says she does, Gerry had to have
been inside the apartment with the abductor!
It’s
impossible for Gerry to have left the apartment, engage in a short talk, and
only then the abductor enter the apartment, pick up Maddie, fly out the window,
walk around the parking lot and be seen by Tanner when she states she sees him.
In
fact, it’s a quite accepted fact, in the Official Truth, that there was a 5
minute window of opportunity for the abductor.
That time window when the abductor was supposedly
surprised by Gerry’s entrance and hid behind the bedroom door, wait for Gerry to finish
his business in the toilet and leave the apartment and only then, supposedly
again, pick up Maddie and be seen by Tanner in accordance with her statement.
So
there’s no doubt that one of the parents, the father, was, according to the
Official Truth, inside the apartment at the time of the events.
There’s
absolutely no question about that, in the Official Truth, that is.
Do
read the dispatch again.”
“Oh…
I see what you mean… it wasn't either "the objective circumstances of
them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared" or "the fact that they were not in the
apartment at the time of her disappearance" was it?”
“And what "analysis" of what "telephone communications"? I guess they "forgot" to add that the analysis of the credit card reports also confirmed the absence of any foul play...
That
dispatch is the result of the Deciders brazenly telling an official Judicial institution
to act like a parrot and to obediently just say “Polly wants a cracker!!” and that official Judicial
institution obeying by acting to perfection like the parrot it was told to be and dutifully just
saying “Polly wants a cracker!!” independently of what was written in the process.
Is
that brazen or what?
It's the Deciders not calling us all stupid but telling us all that when it comes to their personal interests your interests just don't matter and like the bullies they are things "were" the way they, the Deciders, said they were simply because they said they were, irrelevant of logic or reason, so it's not open for debate. They know we're not stupid so they resort to shameless and arrogant brazenness.
And if that crucial fact is a lie in the Archiving Dispatch then one can only assume the rest of the following blabber "there was no proof of them having notified
the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by
the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out
to be harmless" was written with the same seriousness.
Now
you have to have power to be able to do this, don’t you?”
“You
sure have…”
“It wasn't written with seriousness but it was serious. That's how powerful and brazen the powerful can be. A simple ideal such as Justice should never be an obstacle to their interests.
And
you know what power then they also have?”
“What?”
“To
do this:
To
let the SY Review to disappear into thin air…”
“What?
How? What and how?”
“By
simply by not letting the Review come to any sort of conclusion. Make it be a
permanently “cold case” review waiting for “new evidence”… much like the
Portuguese did, just without the brazen dispatch.
Make
“time return” to the Summer of 2010 and our “surprise attack” with our LastCall post, you know, when they had the GMW practically won and almost threw that all away.
Now
they will have to retrace their steps, which will basically be to stop talking
about the issue. Once the last obstacles are overcome they only have victory
ahead of them, or almost that is…”
“What
last obstacles?”
“The
legal issues. Both with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Amaral.
About
Mr. Bennett we won’t voice our opinion as we aren’t aware of the final
decisions made by both parties involved as we most definitely don’t want to
influence in any way whatever is being decided.
With Mr. Amaral we know that the BHs can’t
afford for things to go to Court.
In
our opinion, they either buy out Mr. Amaral or drop the case and I’m not seeing
Mr. Amaral being for sale.
Yes,
it will be embarrassing but with enough image management and shameless
brazenness the Official Truth about the McCanns dropping the case will
certainly be due to their magnanimous mercifulness, which as we know, has nothing
to do with the Factual Truth.
But
once Mr. Amaral is “out of the way” then all that has to be done is what I’ve
already stated. Shut down gradually the information tap about the subject. Let
it dwindle away.
Note that when I say that Mr. Amaral is put "out of the way" I'm speaking purely from a Black Hat perspective. It was their doing in putting him "in the way" in the first place so I'm speaking as to how they will try to undo what they've done.
What Mr. Amaral does, or doesn't, do on own initiative afterwards is a decision that belongs to the man alone and there's absolutely nothing the Deciders can do about it. For example, if the case is to be dropped, albeit the message of McCann magnanimous kindness that the BH will most certainly make an effort to push, there's nothing that may stop Mr Amaral from speaking publicly about the case if he so desires.
Bloggers
will start to “lose interest” or feel “tired” or deem their efforts “pointless”
while meanwhile an extra effort is made, as is being made by the way, to
intensify clutter spreading in forums so that current readers are driven away
tired of reading the most lunatic theories about simple facts and that the most
resistant ones faced with such persistent ridiculousness will start also to
abandon both blog readership and forum participation by accepting fate as inconclusive.
How many good posters have we lost already? People who just got fed-up of trying to express with reason their reasonable ideas against relentless brick walls one after the other. With each good, caring and interested poster gone the "brick walls" get to get a huge pat on the back as it indeed is a victory that they can, and should, rightfully claim for themselves.
However it
all boils down to what extent the “Savile-effect” will affect the issue.”
“Savile-effect?
What is that? A cover-up scandal that will shock the world? But that then means
that truth will be known and then that will mean they will have lost!”
“No
dear. You’re reading the Savile scandal the way the majority does, which I’m
afraid, is the absolutely wrong way of reading it.”
“Huh?”
“Tell
me dear just one name, one name only, of someone being accused of helping
cover-up Mr Savile’s evil deeds.”
“The
BBC?”
“I
said a name, not a non-personalized entity. We hear that it was 40 years of
cover-up and we’ve heard what organizations were involved in that cover-up. 40
years means a lot of people certainly looked the other way when it came to
Savile.
Where
are they? Where are the names of the people who indeed covered-up for Mr.
Savile? Are they being made accountable for what they did?”
“Err…
no…”
“Exactly!
And that is the Savile-effect: it compensated to cover-up for Savile, didn't it?
How many people turned their face and got away with it? Many and none made accountable.
The question now is to know when one day the
McCann scandal is to break, those who helped in the cover-up will remain as
anonymous as the Savile-helpers or on the contrary, their names and faces will be
known to the world and they will be accountable for their actions.
It
all depends on that one factor that differentiates both cover-ups.”
“And
that is?”
“The
internet. Unlike with Mr Savile, with the Maddie case all is documented on the
internet. Both all the clutter and all the facts.
And if we were able to sift
through the clutter, others certainly will be able to do the same.
The
question is what, once they “discover” what Factual Truth indeed is, they will be able to
do with it. Will they be able to overcome the power of the Deciders?
History
has shown that righteousness is a luxury exclusive to the powerful but maybe,
just maybe, the internet will change all that.
That’s why from the first moment
I set eyes on the Maddie Affair I quickly understood it to be historic.”
Post Scriptum:
The news originated in
Murdoch’s The Sun about the
“cleaning team” is apparently so obviously
made up in content that it can only mean one thing:
it isn’t fake.
Between the Deciders things aren’t pretty. In fact they’re very, very ugly. This article reflects exactly that.
We imagine that many a VIBH (Very Important Black Hat) wasn’t at all happy with this Murdoch’s indiscretion when showing Cameron his teeth to pressure him on what the PM intends to do with the conclusions from his Leveson Inquiry.
At least we now have, in our opinion, seen answered one of the
biggest mysteries of the Maddie Affair:
who cleaned so well Apartment 5A.
We always knew that it was too professional a job to be done by some doctors.
Pity to see SY used like a common harlot again.
