My entire discovery process has worked through establishing lineage and chronology. Because documents released in 1968 cannot source documents from 1969. It's a very simple, yet powerful principle for that reason alone. It leads to unmistakable truth
"improvement of the interrelationship between man and nature". This is the key unvalidated assumption that all of this meddling relies upon. That it is never put to the people to decide (in a supposed democracy) is a clue that it is BS requiring the expert magicians and representatives to cast their spells.
instead, it'll be put in front of the 'participatory' and 'inclusive' stakeholder process, which - per chatgpt - is totally democratic, regardless of what you say - even if it admits that the soviet union also used a stakeholder approach, and even if it also is willing to admit that the stakeholder process is ripe for abuse.
Praise and criticisms, because honestly esc, I think you have so much potential.
Praise - yes, your research is extremely thorough. Detailed. Kind of the density you might see in a well researched book. I think you have huge potential to be an impact writer. Excellent use of visuals as evidence.
Now, criticisms. Don't take personally. I think you have the potential to outclass my writing.
1) Wikipedia is NEVER a reliable source. Not ever. Why?
a) Many of the popular statements in Wikipedia do not actually have attribution or citation. Red flag.
b) Many of the citations provided for statements don't actually contain the wording or statements used. Red flag.
c) Many of the citations will be of low or no quality. For example, citing propagandist mainstream media rag pieces or unverifiable books (A.K.A. paywalled information, the worst kind of reference). Red flag.
d) Wikipedia pages are subject to rapid change. The more attention they get from hostiles, the more likely they are to change. It is like building your research on sand. Red flag.
g) In an IPSO spat with myself, The Daily Mail lost to little ol' me because their citation was Wikipedia - and mine was a medical research paper. It is legally unsound, and will not save you in a legal spat. Red flag.
It should not even be used as a starting point or an overview. Wikipedia is bias - that bias will taint your own research, simply by reading it. It is bias by ideological groups of editors who have either too much free time for their ideological cause or too much money to care about integrity, who abusively edit, snippet and alter pages of works. It is rife with sock accounts. The line you quoted, I guarantee, will cease to exist the moment a government operative sniffs it (it also lacks a citation, making it even easier for removal).
Either hunt down original attribution or, if you can't find independent evidence of it, *don't use the Wikipedia reference*. If you're using Wikipedia as a punching bag (E.G. 'look how wrong they are'), only ever use screenshots. Never link, because like a sandcastle next to an ocean it will melt and dissolve. Obviously I cannot post a screenshot in this comment format so I'm forced to use a link, which will, no doubt also change in due time.
2) You need to answer the question of "So?"
I have raised this before. When writing an article, you need to answer the question of 'So?'. The audience will always be asking you 'So?'... 'So what?' 'So why would I care?' 'So why would that affect me?'.
Let us take the common ground, you wrote about Maurice Strong.
I recognise Maurice Strong, I wrote about him in the climate scam article. So what if he wrote the UNCED book? Why should I, an ignorant, brand new audience member, care? Either about him, the co-author or the book? 1972 is a long time ago, right? - Before you jump to 'answer' my comment, this is the reaction you should have when writing the article.
When the Daily Beagle mentioned Maurice Strong, the article quickly mentioned he was a 'Big Oil tycoon'. Why? Because it tells the person what the stakes are. It answers the 'So?'.
Maurice Strong is a Big Oil tycoon who advocates climate change. They then realise the stakes for them is he is a big, lying hypocrite and the entire thing is a sham. 'So climate change is a sham. A sham advocated for by a Big Oil tycoon'.
You haven't told anyone in your article who Maurice Strong is, and it doesn't matter if you told them before. You have to tell them again in new articles, because you will have new readers every time.
You've only told the audience what he has done. Maurice Strong could be a kindly saint and you're just 'Booo, UN bad' (without context, that's what it sounds like). If you immediately open by painting him as a Big Oil tycoon with a crap ton of money, you lay out the stakes, and you allow people to see it the same way you do.
'Here is what a big evil Big Oil tycoon with a crap ton of money is doing' - now the audience have a frame of reference. They know where they stand in relation to him. They also want to know what he is up to - you've sold the stakes and now they're invested.
3) Boring Title
Yes, yes, everybody in the world of the internet has the moral integrity to avoid clickbait, but you also have a moral obligation to signpost and *warn* your reader, and to do that you need neon signs and attention grabbing headlines.
I can anticipate your rebuttal now: 'I wrote that title because that is what it is about', and I know this because I used to do this to myself. Stop it. You can write better titles and still be truthful.
How would I re-write the title? A number of ways:
'I discover the papertrail of a corrupt Big Oil tycoon'
'What did this Big Oil tycoon get up to?'
'Wranglings of the UN'
'Big Oil controls the UN'
'The UN are infiltrated by Big Oil'
All of these statements are true, and vastly more interesting. They tantalise, offer a morsel. What's the papertrail? Who is the Big Oil tycoon? Why are they infiltrating the UN? What does the infiltration consist of?
If you don't sell your article, others won't want to click to read. I will admit I almost skipped over this because the word 'Discovery' didn't tell me anything. Discovery of what? Everything is a discovery. I've got 20-40 emails all vying for my attention about new discoveries they've found. A bird that doesn't sing a beautiful song won't get the bird ladies.
4) Listing facts
I will confess. A horrible war crime I once committed. Facts are important! Facts are fun!
Lets paint it another way. Facts are like nutrition, right. More of it, the better.
So would you like to receive your nutrients in the form of highly condensed, nutrient rich, highly purified, super-condensed tablets... or as a meal?
I bet you chose a meal. Meals have flavour. They have substance. They have design, taste and texture. They have depth. But they're not very efficient for nutrients. And of course they aren't, because part of it is about *enjoyment*.
People like to read a compelling narrative. Shit, people will read books about completely made up fiction and pay money for it so long as the narrative is compelling - Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones - you get the idea. J.K Rowling didn't get to top spot by going 'Top Ten Compelling Facts About Harry Potter'; she wrote a story. A narrative.
You need to write a story, a narrative. Not one in fiction, though, but composed of facts and evidence. Maurice Strong *did* things, he went places. What compels him? What are his motivations? What do *you* think are his end goals? Or beliefs? Why did he write a book and not have a radio play or a TV show?
If you make reading enjoyable, you will make the onboarding of facts enjoyable. People do not enjoy facts condensed end-to-end. Most folks will read about 2 pages and then their concentration wanes (blame TikTok or YouTube or whatever).
If you write a compelling story, a series of events, they will read for longer. But by God you have to be an artisan with words (and I will confess, esc, I am no artisan, my words are no Lord of the Rings poetry).
i never use wiki for anything bur trivialities, the sorts, you could easily dig up elsewhere. its purpose is strictly to summarise, condense, to cut down on efforts not just on my side, but also that of the reader. none of the parts i draw in from wiki are up for questioning. now, had i instead dragged ie the moynihan memo in, that'd be a different matter - but those truly important docs, i always source those, because those are pivotal.
and i know what you say, and you're most certainly right in terms of making things more enjoyable - but there's a line somewhere in the middle in my book. doing research for this article isn't a simple matter; the two key bits - the moynihan memo, and the treaty - i'd never heard of just a week ago. in fact, afaik the moynihan memo was only made public a month ago, and even run on a wildly based interpretation in the MSM - and that for good reason.
the article further suffered from a rather long review process by my books, during which i keps adding supporting evidence (just couldnt help myself, as i just kept finding bits which sliiiped into the main story itself), with around 50 views before it was even released. that can especially be seen in the timeline, which i think i padded too much; i should have trimmed it to a minimum, and then done a separate article with the timeline instead - especially considers all the many other items i have for that, spanning public health, especially.
the pivotal investigation here really is 'why'. but before you can answer that in the context of these wildly subversive public releases, you need to understand motivations, and that's the hard part, really. in my book, you can't just say 'maurice strong was a very naughty boy', you first have to establish which motivations could be behind his actions, because no-one will tell you. but yes, i agree, simply going out and pointing fingers and stating 'bad man maurice' does tend to attract more viewers, i see that all the time on twitter - to the extent that, frankly, click-baity descriptions of press releases drawing outrageous conclusions receive far more attention, which is frustrating to me, because they're so easily parried. what i prefer is to build the case from a strictly defensive point of view, making things so obvious that you'll have one hell of a difficult time convinving me otherwise, because the trail of evidence establishing intent and motivation is almost impossible to deny - which doesn't necessarily make them fun to read, granted. but i guess spending years debating politics on facebook made me realise that those you debate typically will take ANY technicality and attempt to shoot you down in that way, rather than do honest debate. of course, forming the argument which makes this impossible also tends to be somewhat more boring as you correctly point out, but i'm really not a natural writer, and thus don't know how to bridge that gap.
i think, introspectively, there's also a level of almost frustration about this process, as i now think i can see the goal, the outline of the full plan on the horizon, and i simply want to get there ASAP, because i can see the crooks accelerating their plans. once you know the full scope of the monster, it becomes one hell easier to take apart - which, incidentally, is also why i've stayed out of pointing fingers and calling name, calling out obvious high-visibility 'limited hangouts' on twitter, and engaging in narratives obviously intended to serve as distractions. but - again - perhaps my approach is wrong.
You have clearly demonstrated the importance of the origin, the seminal study.
I got this from harvoa - Jim West's site
1) What seminal study describes the discovery of said virus? The first, original study which describes discovery. (The earlier the study, the less complicated the BS. Later studies are often based on the original study, so nip it all at the root, the original study.)
a) What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus? (This is to ensure that they have read more than just the title, and to save yourself reading time.)
b) What text in this study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors? (See Lanka above on this.)
"improvement of the interrelationship between man and nature". This is the key unvalidated assumption that all of this meddling relies upon. That it is never put to the people to decide (in a supposed democracy) is a clue that it is BS requiring the expert magicians and representatives to cast their spells.
of course not. they might say 'no'.
instead, it'll be put in front of the 'participatory' and 'inclusive' stakeholder process, which - per chatgpt - is totally democratic, regardless of what you say - even if it admits that the soviet union also used a stakeholder approach, and even if it also is willing to admit that the stakeholder process is ripe for abuse.
Praise and criticisms, because honestly esc, I think you have so much potential.
Praise - yes, your research is extremely thorough. Detailed. Kind of the density you might see in a well researched book. I think you have huge potential to be an impact writer. Excellent use of visuals as evidence.
Now, criticisms. Don't take personally. I think you have the potential to outclass my writing.
1) Wikipedia is NEVER a reliable source. Not ever. Why?
a) Many of the popular statements in Wikipedia do not actually have attribution or citation. Red flag.
b) Many of the citations provided for statements don't actually contain the wording or statements used. Red flag.
c) Many of the citations will be of low or no quality. For example, citing propagandist mainstream media rag pieces or unverifiable books (A.K.A. paywalled information, the worst kind of reference). Red flag.
d) Wikipedia pages are subject to rapid change. The more attention they get from hostiles, the more likely they are to change. It is like building your research on sand. Red flag.
e) Wikipedia itself used to admit it wasn't a reliable source (even now Wikipedia keeps shifting the sands of time and the page is gone, it now redirects where they shill about themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source&redirect=no)
f) A legal precedent was set in Capcom Co. v. MKR Grp., Inc. where it was legally ruled that Wikipedia 'may not be a reliable source of information' (https://www.iadclaw.org/defensecounseljournal/judicial-notice-an-underappreciated-and-misapplied-tool-of-efficiency/). Red flag.
g) In an IPSO spat with myself, The Daily Mail lost to little ol' me because their citation was Wikipedia - and mine was a medical research paper. It is legally unsound, and will not save you in a legal spat. Red flag.
It should not even be used as a starting point or an overview. Wikipedia is bias - that bias will taint your own research, simply by reading it. It is bias by ideological groups of editors who have either too much free time for their ideological cause or too much money to care about integrity, who abusively edit, snippet and alter pages of works. It is rife with sock accounts. The line you quoted, I guarantee, will cease to exist the moment a government operative sniffs it (it also lacks a citation, making it even easier for removal).
Either hunt down original attribution or, if you can't find independent evidence of it, *don't use the Wikipedia reference*. If you're using Wikipedia as a punching bag (E.G. 'look how wrong they are'), only ever use screenshots. Never link, because like a sandcastle next to an ocean it will melt and dissolve. Obviously I cannot post a screenshot in this comment format so I'm forced to use a link, which will, no doubt also change in due time.
2) You need to answer the question of "So?"
I have raised this before. When writing an article, you need to answer the question of 'So?'. The audience will always be asking you 'So?'... 'So what?' 'So why would I care?' 'So why would that affect me?'.
Let us take the common ground, you wrote about Maurice Strong.
I recognise Maurice Strong, I wrote about him in the climate scam article. So what if he wrote the UNCED book? Why should I, an ignorant, brand new audience member, care? Either about him, the co-author or the book? 1972 is a long time ago, right? - Before you jump to 'answer' my comment, this is the reaction you should have when writing the article.
When the Daily Beagle mentioned Maurice Strong, the article quickly mentioned he was a 'Big Oil tycoon'. Why? Because it tells the person what the stakes are. It answers the 'So?'.
Maurice Strong is a Big Oil tycoon who advocates climate change. They then realise the stakes for them is he is a big, lying hypocrite and the entire thing is a sham. 'So climate change is a sham. A sham advocated for by a Big Oil tycoon'.
You haven't told anyone in your article who Maurice Strong is, and it doesn't matter if you told them before. You have to tell them again in new articles, because you will have new readers every time.
You've only told the audience what he has done. Maurice Strong could be a kindly saint and you're just 'Booo, UN bad' (without context, that's what it sounds like). If you immediately open by painting him as a Big Oil tycoon with a crap ton of money, you lay out the stakes, and you allow people to see it the same way you do.
'Here is what a big evil Big Oil tycoon with a crap ton of money is doing' - now the audience have a frame of reference. They know where they stand in relation to him. They also want to know what he is up to - you've sold the stakes and now they're invested.
3) Boring Title
Yes, yes, everybody in the world of the internet has the moral integrity to avoid clickbait, but you also have a moral obligation to signpost and *warn* your reader, and to do that you need neon signs and attention grabbing headlines.
I can anticipate your rebuttal now: 'I wrote that title because that is what it is about', and I know this because I used to do this to myself. Stop it. You can write better titles and still be truthful.
How would I re-write the title? A number of ways:
'I discover the papertrail of a corrupt Big Oil tycoon'
'What did this Big Oil tycoon get up to?'
'Wranglings of the UN'
'Big Oil controls the UN'
'The UN are infiltrated by Big Oil'
All of these statements are true, and vastly more interesting. They tantalise, offer a morsel. What's the papertrail? Who is the Big Oil tycoon? Why are they infiltrating the UN? What does the infiltration consist of?
If you don't sell your article, others won't want to click to read. I will admit I almost skipped over this because the word 'Discovery' didn't tell me anything. Discovery of what? Everything is a discovery. I've got 20-40 emails all vying for my attention about new discoveries they've found. A bird that doesn't sing a beautiful song won't get the bird ladies.
4) Listing facts
I will confess. A horrible war crime I once committed. Facts are important! Facts are fun!
Lets paint it another way. Facts are like nutrition, right. More of it, the better.
So would you like to receive your nutrients in the form of highly condensed, nutrient rich, highly purified, super-condensed tablets... or as a meal?
I bet you chose a meal. Meals have flavour. They have substance. They have design, taste and texture. They have depth. But they're not very efficient for nutrients. And of course they aren't, because part of it is about *enjoyment*.
People like to read a compelling narrative. Shit, people will read books about completely made up fiction and pay money for it so long as the narrative is compelling - Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones - you get the idea. J.K Rowling didn't get to top spot by going 'Top Ten Compelling Facts About Harry Potter'; she wrote a story. A narrative.
You need to write a story, a narrative. Not one in fiction, though, but composed of facts and evidence. Maurice Strong *did* things, he went places. What compels him? What are his motivations? What do *you* think are his end goals? Or beliefs? Why did he write a book and not have a radio play or a TV show?
If you make reading enjoyable, you will make the onboarding of facts enjoyable. People do not enjoy facts condensed end-to-end. Most folks will read about 2 pages and then their concentration wanes (blame TikTok or YouTube or whatever).
If you write a compelling story, a series of events, they will read for longer. But by God you have to be an artisan with words (and I will confess, esc, I am no artisan, my words are no Lord of the Rings poetry).
i never use wiki for anything bur trivialities, the sorts, you could easily dig up elsewhere. its purpose is strictly to summarise, condense, to cut down on efforts not just on my side, but also that of the reader. none of the parts i draw in from wiki are up for questioning. now, had i instead dragged ie the moynihan memo in, that'd be a different matter - but those truly important docs, i always source those, because those are pivotal.
and i know what you say, and you're most certainly right in terms of making things more enjoyable - but there's a line somewhere in the middle in my book. doing research for this article isn't a simple matter; the two key bits - the moynihan memo, and the treaty - i'd never heard of just a week ago. in fact, afaik the moynihan memo was only made public a month ago, and even run on a wildly based interpretation in the MSM - and that for good reason.
the article further suffered from a rather long review process by my books, during which i keps adding supporting evidence (just couldnt help myself, as i just kept finding bits which sliiiped into the main story itself), with around 50 views before it was even released. that can especially be seen in the timeline, which i think i padded too much; i should have trimmed it to a minimum, and then done a separate article with the timeline instead - especially considers all the many other items i have for that, spanning public health, especially.
the pivotal investigation here really is 'why'. but before you can answer that in the context of these wildly subversive public releases, you need to understand motivations, and that's the hard part, really. in my book, you can't just say 'maurice strong was a very naughty boy', you first have to establish which motivations could be behind his actions, because no-one will tell you. but yes, i agree, simply going out and pointing fingers and stating 'bad man maurice' does tend to attract more viewers, i see that all the time on twitter - to the extent that, frankly, click-baity descriptions of press releases drawing outrageous conclusions receive far more attention, which is frustrating to me, because they're so easily parried. what i prefer is to build the case from a strictly defensive point of view, making things so obvious that you'll have one hell of a difficult time convinving me otherwise, because the trail of evidence establishing intent and motivation is almost impossible to deny - which doesn't necessarily make them fun to read, granted. but i guess spending years debating politics on facebook made me realise that those you debate typically will take ANY technicality and attempt to shoot you down in that way, rather than do honest debate. of course, forming the argument which makes this impossible also tends to be somewhat more boring as you correctly point out, but i'm really not a natural writer, and thus don't know how to bridge that gap.
i think, introspectively, there's also a level of almost frustration about this process, as i now think i can see the goal, the outline of the full plan on the horizon, and i simply want to get there ASAP, because i can see the crooks accelerating their plans. once you know the full scope of the monster, it becomes one hell easier to take apart - which, incidentally, is also why i've stayed out of pointing fingers and calling name, calling out obvious high-visibility 'limited hangouts' on twitter, and engaging in narratives obviously intended to serve as distractions. but - again - perhaps my approach is wrong.
Invaluable research; thank you so much. This really points directly to the bigger picture.
You have clearly demonstrated the importance of the origin, the seminal study.
I got this from harvoa - Jim West's site
1) What seminal study describes the discovery of said virus? The first, original study which describes discovery. (The earlier the study, the less complicated the BS. Later studies are often based on the original study, so nip it all at the root, the original study.)
a) What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus? (This is to ensure that they have read more than just the title, and to save yourself reading time.)
b) What text in this study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors? (See Lanka above on this.)