And while having a bit of a moan… Aangirfan

I think “Aangirfan” and I share reasonable overlap when it comes to our world views, generally, that an elite group of people is fracking the planet, in a number of different ways. As someone who (appears to) oppose the dominion of a rather sinister elite, his efforts are to be generally appreciated. But he provides me with a good example of something that irks me.

E.g. On Saturday 26th August 2012, Syrian troops were reported (by who? – we don’t know) to have entered the town of Daraya, south-west of Damascus. A day later Syrian troops were reported (by who? – again we don’t know) to be accused (once more, we don’t really know the originator of these accusations)  of killing something like 200 civilians.

Just two days later, on Monday, August 27, 2012, Aangirfan puts up a post with the headline

“NATO FORCES MASSACRE CIVILIANS IN DARAYA” – source

Now, there may well have been some kind of force that has the backing of politicians and military men inside the NATO alliance, and that such a thing would be my default assumption, but something tells me Aangirfan isn’t in possession of evidence that would back up his claim…after probably less than 48 hours.

Aangirfan does this kind of thing quite a bit. Within a short space of time, it seems he knows exactly what happened and who did it. You will have to forgiive me for thinking that he is in fact NOT in possession of this kind of information. Aangirfan seems to jump the gun many times and lets his imagination run away with him, sometimes scraping around for connections that are pretty thin.

Even if what he says below is true:

“The civilians of the Daraya massacre were Pro-Assad.

They were ordered by the rebels to support them or die.

They refused to support the rebels.”

That still doesn’t mean NATO forces (as he puts it) can be proved to have indeed killed them., and which ‘rebels’ exactly are being mentioned here, Which civilians – all of them? If they were all killed how do we know this was said to them?

OK, that there are connections is something noteworthy and worth checking out, but Aangirfan doesn’t seem to check them out at all. It’s usually case closed for him. He could well be right, but I think his readers should treat his stuff with a reasonable amount of caution.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

The Vigilant Citizen, 2012 and I, Pet Goat II

I like VC a lot, still, I fancy a wee moan.

Some of the more recent reports VC has done are:

a) I, Pet Goat II” 486 comments to date and

b) “2012” (the movie) 508 comments to date

I don’t know why VC has reported on these. I watched 2012 at the cinema. It’s not really my kind of movie, but it was certainly breathtaking and well worth the price of the ticket. But the symbolism was so deliberate, like a rotting herring waved in front of the nose, that really there was nothing hidden or secretive about it. And I don’t think it’s because I’m ‘awake’ (at least so I have lead myself to believe).  For example: the cracking of the Adam/God depiction on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. So VC’s 2012 report is one of his worst.

Same for I, Pet Goat II.

Well, sort of…

The video’s visuals and fluidity are simply incredible, Artistically it is incredible – and it matters not a atom that it’s computer generated. Its probably got more symbols in it that there are Zionist thieves currently occupying Palestine.  If you go to http://www.heliofant.com/commentary.html (the producer of I, Pet Goat II, you will find this in the commentary…

“I would like to start off by saying that the film came to me in its visual form, much like a painter who sees colors and forms in his mind’s eye. And I tried to be faithful to what I saw visually without necessarily understanding what the symbols were alluding to. Some of the symbols were pretty obvious to decipher, whereas some scenes had me scratching my head and took me some time to understand.” – source

Note: Heliofant, (Loius Lefebvre?) the creator of the video, gives his commentary, somewhat ambiguously, on the apparent meaning of his video further down the page.

Frankly I have a very hard time accepting this to be a purely true and honest statement. It is so packed with ‘stuff’ and its duration is so long that to believe it’s free from “post-inspiration’ human add-ons, simply isn’t credible. What I mean is that some – if not most – of its symbolism is deliberately put in there. And I feel VC misses many of the more interesting things what are subtle. Instead, like 2012, VC analyses what doesn’t really need analysing.

This may seem a tad harsh on VC, but w.r.t. I, Pet Goat II, I wish he would have pointed out some of the less obvious things, because I feel it would have been closer to exposing what Heliofant was really trying to get across with the video (assuming he wasn’t 2012’ing it, spicing it up, adding many extras, just to try to grab the attention – hence publicity – of a conspiracy researcher.

Putting possible/deliberately-added-baiting-garnish aside for now, I wonder what was the source of I, Pet Goat II that came to Heliofant’s minds eye?  Indeed the name Heliofant itself is interesting but rather synthetic.

The video is sinister and as with ALL computer aided graphics, every single pixel is created, hence deliberate.  The video probably contains many many deeper layers of  possible meanings than VC pointed out, perhaps the obvious one being the age old attempted attack on monotheistic faith, but dressed up in the usual disguises of  Zionism. Illuminati, FreeMasonry etc.

It would be nice if VC gave a deeper analysis of the symbols (those from artistic inspiration as well as those deliberately concocted).

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–