The Ghost of John Morton

Share on Social Media

(This blog post is a draft of the opening chapter of a book that I am writing about the alleged New Year’s 2015 mass sexual assaults in Germany and the entire “Muslim Rape Epidemic” hoax narrative that this is part of. JR)

The Ghost of John Morton

"If the subject is seen to live frugally, tell him because he is
clearly a money saver of great ability, he can afford to give
generously to the King. If, however, the subject lives a life
of great extravagance, tell him he,too, can afford to give
largely, the proof of his opulence being evident in his 
    John Morton, Lord Chancellor of England, 1487-1500

Though John Morton’s original formulation refers specifically to taxation, it can be readily seen in all sorts of contexts, and the eponymous Morton’s fork (or Mofo for short) is now classified as a general logical fallacy. Blatant examples serve as grist for humor. Consider this story of an eccentric English aristocrat:

On a visit to London, a man sees a bum stumbling down the street, dressed in rags, looking completely disheveled. On closer inspection, he realizes that he knows this person.

The friend exclaims: “My God, Sir Harry! What has happened to you? How can you go about London looking like this? What will people say?”

The country gentleman, also on a visit to the capital, answers: “Oh, never mind, my good fellow. It doesn’t matter. Nobody here knows me.”

Some time later, the same person encounters Sir Harry walking down the high street in his home village, where he is the country squire. If anything, he looks even more unkempt than he did when they met in London.

“But how can you go about your home town looking like this? What will people say?”

“Oh, it doesn’t matter. Everybody knows me here.”

Of course, in deep structure, this is nothing but a variation of Morton’s Fork. In the classic version, the tax collector starts with his conclusion, that whoever it is should pay heavy taxes. And then, whatever he observes, whether the person is living opulently or frugally, is then used as an argument to support what he has already decided. In the above anecdote, the aristocrat obviously couldn’t be bothered about his personal appearance, and then uses whatever facts at hand to rationalize his slovenliness. “Nobody here knows me so it doesn’t matter.”…”Everybody here knows me, so…”

Once you become sensitized to Morton’s fork, you start seeing it everywhere. You notice how people decide what they want to believe and then start reasoning backwards to support their belief. Morton’s fork logic, or Mofo logic for short, is especially common when people are upholding whatever propaganda narrative for which there is no real evidence.

Mofo Logic to the Rescue!

In the days immediately following the alleged mass sexual assaults of New Year’s Eve 2015, the police in Cologne, Germany reported that the New Year’s celebrations had gone off without any major incident. But then, after the story of mass sexual assaults became big news nationally and internationally, the police changed their tune and now said that some unprecedented mass event had occurred.

Based on the above information, there are two logical possibilities:

  • The police were telling the truth at first and later they weren’t.
  • The police were covering up the sexual assaults at first and then came clean about them later.

All that legitimate logic can tell us is that one of the two statements above is correct. Either the cops were telling the truth the first time or the second time but determining which it was would require more information. However, all of the mainstream media assumed, without any further information, that the second explanation above was the correct one.

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose the timeline were in reverse and the police started off by saying that a huge number of sexual assaults had occurred and then a few days later changed their story and said: “Oh, never mind, nothing really happened.”

Again, we would be faced with the same Rumsfeldian known unknown. Either they were telling the truth the first time or the second time. Is there really any doubt that the events occurring in the opposite order would be taken as proof of the story just the same?

So, you see, when legitimate logic does not get you where want to go, you must resort to Mofo logic! If the police say that mass sexual assaults occurred, then they occurred because the police say so. If the police say that nothing happened, then: “You see! The police area always covering up these crimes!

Now, actually, it is not very hard for anybody who possesses basic critical thinking skills to realize which of the two explanations is correct. The police were telling the truth at first and then later went along with the story being put out in the media. This is really completely obvious. You see, in the last few years, when, to all intents and purposes, everybody has a reasonably good video camera in his or her pocket, any large public celebration produces quite a significant visual record. The common sense approach would be to examine the available visual evidence and see which version of events it supports. This approach resolves the case quite quickly.

The entire visual record of New Year’s Eve 2015 is consistent with what the police in Cologne initially said, that the New Year’s Eve celebrations went off normally. None of it is consistent with the narrative of mass sexual assaults.

It is not solely a question of smartphone video footage from bystanders. There is also the question of CCTV footage from security cameras. Between the two, if the official version on Wikipedia is to be believed, the authorities had 1,100 hours of video footage to examine.

Several years has passed and not even a few seconds of video has emerged of any female being sexually assaulted in or around the Cologne train station on that day.

However, if you have very sharp eyes, you can discern the wispy ghost of old John Morton floating over the scene…

laughing his ass off!!!

Start the discussion on the Heresy Central Forum