Monday, 15 December 2014

The Shill-Shaming of Danielle la Verite

There's a lot of bad feeling in the air at the moment. In the world of the Rendlesham Forest Incident Col. Charles Halt has told the world on live radio that Larry Warren is a "substance abuser", see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=6YxS56Aa-tI. This is false and Larry is understandably enraged with Halt about it. That very same day I discovered Trystan Swale's critique of my views on Prof. Brian Cox, against which I had to strike back, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/trystan-swale-on-ben-emlyn-jones.html. Then this came to my attention on the website of the Kent Freedom Movement: http://kentfreedommovement.com/profiles/blogs/omg. It concerns Danielle la Verite, a relative newcomer to the Truth movement who has nevertheless made a big impression with her popular YouTube vlog, see: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChUnNa1m57uu8v05wMPkcIw. Here's her website: http://www.daniellelaverite.com/. Her style is a simple talking-head narration, usually from a corner of her bedroom, but she is very intelligent, perceptive and witty, albeit in a rather X-rated way. Like Chris Spivy she is plain-speaking and doesn't hold back from swearing. I admire her creativity in that respect; she has popularized unusual profanities like "cuntwaffle", even if she didn't invent them herself. In her radio interviews she comes across as very dedicated and concerned about the New World Order, and that she takes what she does seriously, but she has a clever sense of humour too. In this world, having a laugh can be the only way for some people, including me, to maintain our sanity. For this reason the article on the Kent Freedom Movement made me sit up and read. The title itself sets the tone straight away; I've spoken before about the misuse of rhetoric, see here in the introduction: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/dr-jonathan-reed-at-rendlesham-forest.html. Of course the KFM blog's author is entitled personally to regard Danielle and what she does as "degenerate filth" if they like but the leading illustration is a still from Danielle's Dear Forum Haters video with the word "SHILL" embossed over the colander. Shill is conspiratorial jargon for a government agent who has been inserted into the conspiratorial movement by the intelligence services to do it damage. Accusing somebody of being a shill is a very serious matter.

The Kent Freedom Movement author deeply dislikes Danielle's style, her foul language and anomalous frolics. The video in which she appears in a rabbit costume supposedly makes us Truthers "appear like idiots!" I've watched that video myself and I disagree. To me it just looks like a rather avant-garde comedy piece; I don't see any harm in it myself. I don't think it makes people in the Truth movement look like idiots at all; it's simply Danielle's chosen expression of satire and fun. Naturally it doesn't appeal to everybody; it's even bound to offend some people, like the KFM author. I'm afraid that's life! The author then compiles a highly detailed dossier of all the expletives Danielle uses, complete with time-stamps, and claims that they are good at "spotting cointelpro" (government psychological operations agents). They state that if they'd feel awkward or embarrassed about showing this material to their mother then it's suspicious. No, it's just that it doesn't appeal to the author's taste, or their mother's; nothing more, nothing less. There are people I myself would not show Danielle's videos to because I know they'd be upset by them. This does not mean that Danielle is therefore automatically an undercover infiltrator from the Frankfurt School; it might just mean that different people like and dislike different things. There are those who are repelled by bad language and certain kinds of humour; again, that's just life. The author might feel that Danielle is driving people away from the Truth movement because of her style, but they are actually only putting themselves in the shoes of everybody coming into contact with the Truth movement for the first time; they cannot possibly speak for all those people. If the author prefers, there is plenty of promotional material out there which is far more family orientated; why not try HPANWO TV? I hardly ever swear in my own output. The author also objects to Danielle's posts on Facebook in which she gets into bitter and aggressive arguments with other people... well, hold the front page!... As somebody once perceptively said, logging into Facebook is like stepping into a nightclub; almost everybody is constantly battling with everybody else using a rudeness of tone they'd never stoop to in face-to-face conversation. I could show you some of the comments posted on my own wall, and more so the HPANWO Forum, which make Danielle's look like passages from a Ladybird book. The internet is a place where trolls and cyber-bullies trawl like sharks. If you get attacked by one there are several ways of defending yourself, but this has to involve biting back in some way if it's to be effective. The author suggests that Danielle herself initiated a series of publicized keyboard duels, but the small screen-captured comments boxes illustrating that passage don't contain enough information to prove this. In these arguments, both sides will invariably blame the other, and only they themselves will know who is lying and who is telling the truth. The KFM author then refers to a video in which Danielle and Thomas Sheridan pretend to channel the ghost of Jimmy Savile with a third individual, off camera, imitating Savile's voice. I don't particularly appreciate that video either. It is rather facetious and this time I can sympathize with the author's feelings; but does this mean that Danielle, and presumably Thomas Sheridan too, are shills because they've made a video we dislike?
Rhetoric like the kind in the KFM blog article makes it difficult to analyze the text rationally. As I said in my Dr Jonathan Reed video, excessive use of rhetoric is effectively threatening the reader; it's saying: "You have to agree with me, or else!..." This is an insult to our intellectual sovereignty and it's often used as a substitute for a reasonable argument where none exists. I really am not interested in knowing if the KFM member who wrote that article feels offended by a few four letter words or doesn't see the funny side of certain off-beat jokes. If they are going to make a specific accusation against another person then I want to see their reasoning. What evidence do they have that Danielle la Verite is a shill? Do they mean her name? La Verite is not Danielle's real surname; it simply means "truth" in French. I'm not sure how that is significant; I know several people who use more than one name, especially in cyberspace; and pseudonyms are perfectly acceptable. I have used them myself several times. No, you need to give us more than that. The author first encountered Danielle via a contact in a group called The Reset. This is an issue of legitimate concern; I've heard of The Reset a few times already and it appears to be similar to the cartel of organizations that were behind the controlled Occupy camp in London, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/whatever-happened-to-occupy.html. The author links to another KFM article about The Reset and quite rightly exposes what looks like connections to Agenda 21, the manipulated environmental tendency and New Age mind control, see: http://kentfreedommovement.com/profiles/blogs/the-reset-but-reset-what. However Danielle's alleged links to The Reset, according to the same author's report, are very tenuous indeed. Danielle knew somebody who was in The Reset, that's it. Is she involved more deeply in The Reset? If so there should be documentary data like text and video etc. Danielle became interested in the Truth movement during her study of serial killers and how they tended to have links to military mind control projects; this is a legitimate subject which many researchers have covered, yet the KFM pours scorn on Danielle doing it because apparently she has no written works currently available. Well maybe she was just reading and thinking; again, is this a case for the prosecution in a shillhood trial? The same goes for Danielle's own experience of the social services and her children's school; so what if she's reluctant to talk about it? I've been in a similar situation myself with my daughter and I don't bring it up in every radio interview. What's the author's point here? I put Danielle's comments about the discredited Hollie Greig case down to inexperience; she's only been involved in this business for four months after all. The author also believes that Danielle's "affiliation" to the UK Column is evidence for her being cointelpro because the author believes UK Column are such as well. However they don't explain exactly what form this "affiliation" takes; does Danielle work for the UK Column or what? This is something I've heard a lot about too. The UK Column is a newspaper and website featuring several people I respect including Brian Gerrish, Lou Collins, Ian R Crane and Bill Maloney, but in recent years they've been accused of being a government-run psychological operation to derail the Truth movement. However when I looked into this issue and began talking to people about it I came across a very similar mindset to that of the Kent Freedom Movement towards Danielle la Verite, and also the community in UFOlogy which is opposed to Darren Perks. They may well have a genuine gripe, but it's impossible to know because nobody wants to have a rational civilized discussion about it. What you have instead are a collection of warring tribes with whom you are either for or against. If you raise a single word of doubt or even inquiry you will be instantly and reflexively denounced as a shill yourself. Either that or you'll be patronized with emasculating platitudes like being called a dupe and a weakling. Here's a good example quote from the KFM article: "...whereby she has her Facebook and YouTube sycophants supporting her day and night to cuss and curse at anyone that might question their precious Danielle." That well and truly puts me in my place doesn't it? When it comes to these factions you're either with them or against them. You cannot disagree! It's not permitted! You'll be told that the evidence against the accused exists... but you won't be allowed to examine it because it will never be shown to you. Instead what will happen is you'll have a package that supposedly contains the evidence contemptuously hurled in your face, with a wrapping paper consisting of insults, threats, rhetoric and moral blackmail, see here for more details: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/miragemengate.html. I think one of the reasons I'm writing about this case is because I myself have been in the same position as Danielle and feel sorry for her as a result. The irony is that no real shill could ever hope to achieve the level of discord, mutual hostility and suspicion that currently exists in the Truth movement, thanks to the Shill Squad. I think real shills exist; there's no doubt about that. There are people I myself suspect of being shills, either knowing informants or "useful idiots"; but if these accusations are going to progress anywhere beyond my private doubts and wariness, then I will need to have proper evidence, it's as simple as that. There are a particular group of people within the conspiratorial community who have appointed themselves the armchair policemen of the Truth movement. Some of them literally do nothing else except constantly pontificate over the character of other personalities in our community. They will judge and condemn individuals and organizations without hesitation and regard any appeal from third parties as being inductions into the very same guilt they have so single-handedly dispensed. Sadly some members of the Kent Freedom Movement area a part of this tendency. This is a great pity because the KFM has also done such brilliant research and activism work; it was they who first joined forces with Nick Kollerstrom to expose the false flag sham that was the Woolwich incident, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGWkuyc3MpM. I have good friends who are members of the KFM and I've travelled with them to attend KFM meetings. I regret that after this article is published I'll probably never be invited back again. I'll miss that. I've seen very little reason to think Danielle la Verite is no more than a genuine person who wants to take action against the New World Order. She is eccentric in her delivery, but then so am I in my own way. We are individuals and proud of it! The last thing the Truth movement needs is its own brand of political correctness; on the contrary, a bit of Wilsonian Discordianism could do us a lot of good. Danielle's manner is uninhibited and blunt; she likes satire, adult humour and black comedy which many viewers will find personally distasteful. There are some vague suggestions that she's encountered some dubious individuals and organizations in the course of her brief career in the world of conspiracy; these matters are worth keeping an eye on, but there are no signs that she has decisively planted her flag on any of them. The Kent Freedom Movement have presented no case at all to suggest that Danielle la Verite is shill. They have expressed a profound personal dislike for her, and that's all. I know very well that I'm losing friends by writing this article, but so be it. I've learnt that this is a price we all have to pay for speaking our minds. If an issue is important enough to write about and people don't like it, tough! And as I've said many times before, especially over this past year, a friend to all is a friend to none.

47 comments:

hpanwoeful said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Angela Power-Disney said...

Well written article....

Angela Power-Disney said...

Well written article....

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

'Woman' is the singular, 'women' is the plural - just very basic English.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Angela.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

All commenters please note: I believe in free speech for anybody who wants a ratiomnal discussion, but I will delete all obscene, abusive, slanderous and threatening material from this comments box

Darren Perks said...

I like what she does Ben and this is a great article. Too many people are quick to shoot the messenger and bring you down with fabricated stories. It pushes people like myself behind closed doors, especially when you find out that those trolling you are actually not who they say they are...
There are people in ufology hiding behind websites and other people who have intentions to ruin the view of the masses. It only makes you more determined.
Well done Ben keep up the good work and ignore those who have nothing good to say.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Xylomet said...

Dear Ben. I must reply to what "Anonymous" said, viz;

"Spastic. Ben. its quite clear you too are a supporter of Joanne Mjadzelics (therefore you support peadophilia and incest) since you removed the comments..which were 100% truth! she said it all on VIDEO! How much clearer does it need to be?
Your no help whatsoever,you just make the whole "truth movement" even more laughable."

In reply to Anonymous i'd like to highlight the repeated use of the word 'spastic'. Accusing Ben of supporting Peadophilia is discusting, and far from the truth. Furthermore the repeated use of the word 'spastic' makes it quite clear that YOU are a supporter of the abuse and perverted slur of disabled people which in my book is equal to that of peadophilia and you have the audacity to attack others of the very things you are inflicting. Such comments should be removed as unlike you we have compassion for people as part of our innate personalities and not as a circumscribed, sectional means to apply bullying and defend reprehensible antagonistic positions under a transparent vale of 'concern'. Hypocrite!.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Xylomet said...

Dear Ben. "Anonymous" clearly has taken issue with connection to Danielle. I am not a watcher of her 'work' infact I do not garner my 'facts' by following blogs, vlogs or the sort that does not come from my own reading and personal insight and wisdom I have cultivated over the years. The problem here is that two issues have been conflated here in a rather abridged way, viz. 'Purpose' and 'Utilization'. Firstly as stated I am not aware of Danielle's 'work' but that aside the title of the article and 'purpose' is 'Shill?', viz. Accusing somebody of working for a Government/Agency to provide disinformation or sabotage of 'Truth' (in it's most intrinsic sense). The article as far as I am concernd explores in a fair and considerate way that there is presented no case at all to suggest that Danielle la Verite is shill in any definitive way. If it is the case that Danielle has connections to, views that correspond to impaired and personally misfigured alliances then that is outside of the articles premise in that what Ben seems to be doing here is defending the way and use of 'sectional means' people apply in a hypocritical and incomplete way to apply bullying and defend shallow/antagonistic positions that are equally (as the premise they use themselves) laden with Hate, perverseness and misfiguration. This is the reason I responded to the virulent word 'Spastic' that was repeatedly used as a means to justify equally virulent accusations such as paedophilia which itself is likewise the abuse of vulnerable people. This is the 'Utilization' of third-party personal feelings and third-party constituents to a specific topic written with a specific objective, viz. The culture of accusation of a specific answerability i.e being a 'Shill'. Infact Ben fulfills this more than the article intended as he clearly states at the end of the article that;

"There are some vague suggestions that she's encountered some dubious individuals and organizations in the course of her brief career in the world of conspiracy; these matters are worth keeping an eye on, but there are no signs that she has decisively planted her flag on any of them."

That statement proves your 'Utilization' against Ben is grounded in your blind wish fulfillment on your obvious inner disfavor and if I may indulge retiring 'Skeptical' doubt which is the antagonistic type of doubt that leaves people wooley minded and pernicious in their activity, the opposite to the inquiring doubt which would clearly see that Ben's article is not defending the reprehensible accusations you direct at him which on examination should be directed at you for your repulsive use of the word 'spastic' in a clearly attacking and derogatory fashion. YOU are answerable to that accusation which is grounded in fact and is plain to see. Ben constantly fights for Child Abuse to be stopped and discussed so it can be, indeed, I believe it's something he has had experience with personally in some capacity. As somebody who has a disabled brother and have experienced the abuse in care homes I revile the likes of your deluded subjectiveness and malapropism and blatant hypocritical behavior using abusive devices and language to attack divisive and abusive behavior targeted at the vulnerable. You say;

"It seems Ms La Verite is not the only drama loving, victim playing, manipulator of the WHOLE truth! Cherry picking what to leave and what to edit out of existence, in order to portray what suits your own agenda, is a fools game and shows you for the clown you obviously are."......CONTINUED

Xylomet said...

CONTINUED........

Note 'Cherry picking' and 'suit your own agenda', I suggest you contemplate your own words if indeed you have the self-compassion to do so . Finally to accuse Ben of racism! Ha, how far from the truth could you possibly be. In in any event as a person of mixed parentage I have encountered racists and to be honest I respect people more who stand by their views and have prejudices that at least are targeted at those who can fight back, and believe me we can, a rather more (and I use the word in the most possible loosest terms) 'honorable' than attacking those (IN YOUR WORDS) 'spastics' who cannot fight back and whom for most do not have a voice. 'The truth' in it's deepest sense does not rely on the 'orthodox' because it does not get involved with antinomies which can be used to deviate from the truth and provide section reflections of theory to present 'Truth' in it's shallowest sense, for instance slap on somebody's face is wrong unless there is a deadly insect on it. But when it is clearly coming from an Ill-willed, mental torpor, anxiety and skeptical doubt it is tangibly reprehensible and is the way you have used the topic of 'Abuse of vulnerable people' to perpetrate the Abuse of vulnerable people cowardly behind the shield of 'concern'. I am not attacking you because this type of deluded behavior is not in our self-nature which but the product of inverted thinking which we all suffer from in extremely varying degrees, I am merely highlighting this clear manifestation of it in your poor application of your posts. Please save this type of your unwitting bullying for others of the same ilk. I very much like Ben's observation here;

"claims that they are good at "spotting cointelpro" (government psychological operations agents). They state that if they'd feel awkward or embarrassed about showing this material to their mother then it's suspicious. No, it's just that it doesn't appeal to the author's taste, or their mother's; nothing more, nothing less."

This is a clear example of people who do not understand the intrinsic nature of reason and so never get to truth. A Ch'an/Zen master was once asked;

"What is Buddha?" he replied "A dried shit stick"

In other words the 'words' used to free us are intrinsically neither here nor there as it is consciousness that is ambivalant and depending on our subjective awareness these words can be either 'heretical' or 'freeing' because truth is our innate nature not a string of words, the shit stick is used to wipe away but then must be discarded as a temporary interdependant thing. When they are abused like they have been by 'Anonymous' then 'shit sticks' and it definitely stinks. Sorry for the long post but what needs to be said needs to be said, especially somebody who does not deserve to be attacked in this manner.

Xylomet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Xylomet said...

Oh and by the way. Anonymous said;

"I left 2 very valid and carefully written comments, one concerning the ex girlfriend of that Ian Watkins degenerate and one concerning your article. I posted no insults nor threats. You clearly do not believe in free speech nor debate."

In answer to that, so what! Yes, you may have left 2 very valid and 'carefully written comments" but that is also just half of the story as you have written close to 30 instances of careless disgusting and pernicious comments. Free speech is all well and good and as an ideal should always be strove to protect but we must routinely realize and recognize it in in it's naturally relative nature as language and words, as I mentioned before, is consistently and vigilantly perused by the ambivalent nature of consciousness, this misappropriation of the banner of 'free-speech' is as old as the ego is and it's coarse prejudices. Secondly you say;

"I note that the only comments you have chosen to keep, are the ones in which you are personally insulted. This isn't an accurate representation of the cooments that were evident yesterday"

Firstly two comments were deleted, that is true, but, they were apparently so compassionate and intelligent that they excuse the multiple comments that are clearly abominable. Lastly and most importantly the word 'Spastic' even taken out of it's own antediluvian, historically (again I use this in the most loosest terms)'acceptable' narrative we are in 2014 and that aside, it is not a personal insult to Ben alone, you attack ALL venerable disabled people in your repugnant language not just one. The audacity to miss this point clearly reflects blind wish fulfillment at it's most dishonest and misguided

Xylomet said...

In order to be impartial I waited to see if you 'Anonymous' would at least apologize or hint to being apologetic in using such language as 'spastic' (let alone a totally conflated and misdirected accusation of Ben) as in the heat of emotion people say things they do not wish to mean, although I see no excuse other than hypocrisy. You clearly did not apologize and instead continued to excuse your perverse and abusive manner you defend your tainted standpoint by highlighting the supposed few and tenuously constructive elements in your posts of which the information about Danielle's alleged support of a paedophile would be a valid criticism, but not the criticism that aimed at Ben's article or him personally and is so far from the truth it is truly perverse.

Xylomet said...

Dear Ben. I have to apologise for this last post as I said all I felt needed to be said but upon reading their are a couple of comments by myself I should clarify in-case they may be misread :) ;

" it is not a personal insult to Ben alone, you attack ALL venerable disabled people in your repugnant language not just one."

I want to clarify Ben that I do not mean that you are a disabled person I meant it in the context that he said he said to call you a 'spastic' was a 'personal' insult which it is not as it is an insult to all those who genuinely have disability.

Secondly I said;

"what Ben seems to be doing here is defending the way and use of 'sectional means' people apply in a hypocritical and incomplete way to apply bullying and defend shallow/antagonistic positions that are equally (as the premise they use themselves) laden with Hate, perverseness and misfiguration."

That should read as defending 'against' the way people apply' not just 'defending'. Hope that's cleared any miss-reading. Hope all is well buddy....

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lee Streamer said...

You are wasting your time Muppet boy no one is listening to you. Idiot.

Lee Streamer said...

This anonymous idiot sounds like a certain person from Liverpool who's friends with 'Jimmy' .....another idiot.

Lee Streamer said...

Danielle is the most honest women onthe internet. Everything she says is THE TRUTH! You lot are just scared of it.

Danielle's Eyebrows said...

I am not drawn on at all! Anyone saying so will be sued for libel and defamation by my team of lawers and solicitors! I have over 5000 facebook friends so watch it!!

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Xylomert, I don't know how to thank you. I'll never forget you standing up to "Anonymous" about me :-) The problem is, it's pointless trying to engage in any kind of discussion with somebody who expresses themselves like that. It's a fighting with a chimney sweep situation.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Darren. Good to talk to you again. Thanks very much. You also know how it feels. So begins the fightback against the Shill Squad! :-)

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Lee. Yes indeed, the troll is wasting his precious time!

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Good luck, Danielle. Down with the Shill Squad! :-)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Xylomet said...

Hey Ben. It's a pleasure, that's what friends do. Yes, I know what you mean that it's a losing battle against people who express themselves like 'that' but as you know we do what we so for those who want to be able to express themselves like 'this'. As always, truth prevails in the end and it's important to have these little interjections just to show that we can give as good as, if not for us but for others new to the world of the ANTI-NWO. Cheers buddy

Darren Perks said...

No worries Ben I'm still here taking note and working away. The 'Shill Squad' will always be there to bring us down with their rubbish to try and ridicule and harm. It doesn't work I can tell you. Speak soon Ben :-)

Cwis Spwivey said...

Danielle ith a fackin twooper!
I lav ya huney!
The copth nicked me computah and put fackin porno on it the wankathz!!

Gazza said...

Seems The Police have arrested Miss Deller earlier today. Something to do with her online accusations.

Not before time I say!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hpanwoeful said...

Once you start deleting comments, methinks serious questions should be asked about you Ben?

A truther that cannot stand freedom of speech?

C'mon Ben - am starting to sense something going on here...

Put the comments back and show some balls.

You haven't taken the 'SHILLing' have you?

Anonymous said...

this woman has down syndrome.
no wonder her boyfriend shagged that doncaster slut recently.
lol.

Anonymous said...

Danielle is David Ickes Daughter...

I'm surprised nobody clicked...