Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Crystal Rose

The New World Order

339 posts in this topic

The media isn't trying to distract us, they are giving us what we have told them we wanted which is "infotainment". All of the large news outlets have long used focus groups to find out what we want and they give it right to us. Ratings being how they are show they are correct. The salacious, the horrific, the gruesome all sell commercial time not facts, truth or real information.

As for the NWO as I have said before given if all of it is true, every facet of the NWO conspiracy, what can the average person do that would have any effect on it? You have Alex Jones with a large number of listeners, you have the internet with plenty of websites offering their "evidence" or insight into the NWO existence and nefarious plans. Given all that plenty of people seem to know about it but aren't moved beyond "knowing".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churche and the other families have dodged the elite for years. They are very resourceful.

And individuals may not be able to do much, but when individuals come together it makes a group correct? So maybe lots of people like AMERICANS who are supposed to be known for their bravery, honor, and never surrender can do something even quite a bit of somethings. (Honestly Im sick of all the killing and false wars)

and uhm I never said my freedom was bad- I only meant that we really wouldn't have freedom or human rights. (which is being taken away "to protect ourselves")

"What will happen to our freedom then hmm?" -me earlier

"And your freedom now is bad how? What kind of freedom do you long for?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churche and the other families have dodged the elite for years. They are very resourceful.

But I asked who they were. I have never heard of them.

And individuals may not be able to do much, but when individuals come together it makes a group correct?

You don't Think the NWO has a contingency plan for people coming together?

So maybe lots of people like AMERICANS who are supposed to be known for their bravery, honor, and never surrender can do something even quite a bit of somethings. (Honestly Im sick of all the killing and false wars)

Ah, now I see, the Americans have a genetic predisposition for bravery? Are we talking about John whose family have lived in America since the 1800's, or José who just received his citizenship?

and uhm I never said my freedom was bad- I only meant that we really wouldn't have freedom or human rights. (which is being taken away "to protect ourselves")

Why would the NWO go to the trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most media is in fact not controlled by the government. Else, Watergate would never have happened. Critical voices against the EU or new trade agreements or illegal immigration would never be published, let alone be made books. Yet they are. Why would they do this?

I disagree. I think the majority of major media works in cooperation with the government rather than try and give give a truly unbiased examination of the more important issues. There are numerous examples. I think one of the big lessons from the Viet Nam war ws that you can´t have "real" journalists operating without some level of control of what information they are privy to and what can be reported.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make two distinctions if you try to be serious about this.

One: most of us dont have the kind of proof to present which'd make it crystal-clear for the rest of us, obviously. To one way or another.

Two: it's entirely possible, very humanely possible and would not really be that hard to form such a world government. Look at the UN, all you needed to make that happen was to influence the public opinion. And suppress and the bad rep it's made for itself, prevent as much as you can from that dirt going mainstream news. Fringe sites can always be labeled as fringe, and you can always find a bias in everyone.

Public opinion is crucial on these things, take my country for example. Over 70 percent of us doesn't want us to be a member of NATO, though the winning political party right-wingers are more bent on that way. GMO isn't accepted widely because it's gotten bad rep. Alternative medical treatments of all kinds have gotten bad rep, quite a few earned it you can't deny that, but the rest suffered from that. If you can sell an idea and keep it's reputation from sinking and distribute it, you're all set. And if you got the money, you got the means to distribute it: movies, donate to researchers bent or willing to bend towards your view, buy politicians, encourage through promised economical benefits which may be there but that's because humans control economy system, not vice-versa.

And the biggest thing of all, sell the idea that "this is how it has to be, you can't help it, it's how we get things done" with more sophisticated words. Sell, sell, sell and numb the public.

Of course, this doesn't just apply to one world government, but any and every idea if used to promote them this way. And who's to say these ways were wrong, the world ain't a perfect place to begin with.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The only thing I'd advocate a united world front, not a world government but something less than that, is our and earth's survival and mutual development. It's functions would be following:

Military: stop genocides, kill hostile high-tech or otherwise dangerous space folk invading us, or other beings that can take us by the balls.

Survival: build big, deep vaults several kilometres under the earth's surface, and develop them to a fully self-sustaining level in case an object of great scale would hit us again. Make a mole-people race by having volunteers get used to living deep under earth's crust. Hardcore nerds who have used to a lack of sunlight would be perfect candidates.

That's it. What else do you need a world government for? If you disagree with another country you can always start a war if it's a big issue, it's not like one country should have sole rights for that just because they got more power to bully you with. There's also trade blocking and whatnot, you dont need to have an allmighty jury to deal with everything unless you're incapable to deal with things on a more personal level as a country.

Edited by Mikko-kun
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think the majority of major media works in cooperation with the government rather than try and give give a truly unbiased examination of the more important issues. There are numerous examples. I think one of the big lessons from the Viet Nam war ws that you can´t have "real" journalists operating without some level of control of what information they are privy to and what can be reported.

So the Murdock press (for example, to name but one) is really in cahoots with Obama, and anything they may print critical of him is just a camouflage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Murdock press (for example, to name but one) is really in cahoots with Obama, and anything they may print critical of him is just a camouflage?

I wouldn't know, but would they have to know if they both were directed by the same entity? If you were smart and wanted to make people think those two, Obama and Murdock press for example, were against each other, you wouldn't let one know what the other does, nor even that you had plans for the other. And we're humans, not robots, so you should expect internal power strifes even in the "best" of organisations. Political parties are prime examples of this.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Murdock press (for example, to name but one) is really in cahoots with Obama, and anything they may print critical of him is just a camouflage?

I wouldn´t use the word "cahoots" but being critical on some issues does not mean really examing issues in an independent and unbiased way. The left and right press play off each other giving the illusion of a real debate but in reality that is there job. A "Manufacturing Consent" kind of thing if you follow me.

On 8 May 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) Senate re-election campaign.[99] In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had "anything to do with theNew York Post's endorsement of Barack Obama in the democratic primaries." Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, "Yeah. He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don't think he will win Florida... but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk."[100][101] Murdoch is a strong supporter of Israel and its domestic policies

Are you suggesting that Murdoch publications offer unbiased and independent coverage of issues of major importance to most people?.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squidfish: Some people just want there to be a deep rooted evil conspiracy because its the only way they know to add some flare to their lives. They need to feel like they're "in the know". It's quite obvious.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squidfish: Some people just want there to be a deep rooted evil conspiracy because its the only way they know to add some flare to their lives. They need to feel like they're "in the know". It's quite obvious.

And I suppose you're the Mr. objective who's gonna save these poor souls with some LOGIC!!! Sorry bud, I'm beyond that. And not even sure if anything exists, but hypotheses, whatever you want to call them... you wouldn't be here if you didn't find them interesting, no?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I suppose you're the Mr. objective who's gonna save these poor souls with some LOGIC!!! Sorry bud, I'm beyond that. And not even sure if anything exists, but hypotheses, whatever you want to call them... you wouldn't be here if you didn't find them interesting, no?

I find the behavior of people interesting, and I make hypotheses on their thinking based on how they behave and how they speak about their beliefs. That's why I'm here. I never made any claim of being objective nor did I state that I was going to save anyone.

Quite frankly, this NWO conspiracy has been around for decades and, unfortunately, despite how many people would like to insist otherwise, there is no hard proof that such a conspiracy is playing out as it is claimed. What I find interesting is that someone comes to this forum and tells us nothing new, tells us the same NWO story everyone's heard before, the same story that Alex Jones has freely broadcast for years, and post-scripts the story by telling us that he's putting himself at risk by giving us this info. Clearly, he believes there's an element of danger in doing so. Is he? Considering the sheer amount of people that are already safely talking about this, the logical answer is no, he is not at danger. So why does he believe this? Right or wrong, I believe that there's a part of him that wants to believe it because he wants to feel like he's in danger, because if he's in danger, it means he is important--- that he knows something he shouldn't, and that, in a way, is exciting.

Everyone wants to add meaning to their lives in some way. I believe that without a doubt. I believe that believing in the NWO conspiracy is a way for some people to do this.

You sound like you feel that I was directing the comments at you... I, infact, wasn't. Nothing from your posts really stood out to me. Whether you believe the conspiracy for this reason or another, or don't believe it at all, I don't know, and I have seen no "hints" one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the behavior of people interesting, and I make hypotheses on their thinking based on how they behave and how they speak about their beliefs. That's why I'm here. I never made any claim of being objective nor did I state that I was going to save anyone.

Quite frankly, this NWO conspiracy has been around for decades and, unfortunately, despite how many people would like to insist otherwise, there is no hard proof that such a conspiracy is playing out as it is claimed. What I find interesting is that someone comes to this forum and tells us nothing new, tells us the same NWO story everyone's heard before, the same story that Alex Jones has freely broadcast for years, and post-scripts the story by telling us that he's putting himself at risk by giving us this info. Clearly, he believes there's an element of danger in doing so. Is he? Considering the sheer amount of people that are already safely talking about this, the logical answer is no, he is not at danger. So why does he believe this? Right or wrong, I believe that there's a part of him that wants to believe it because he wants to feel like he's in danger, because if he's in danger, it means he is important--- that he knows something he shouldn't, and that, in a way, is exciting.

Everyone wants to add meaning to their lives in some way. I believe that without a doubt. I believe that believing in the NWO conspiracy is a way for some people to do this.

You sound like you feel that I was directing the comments at you... I, infact, wasn't. Nothing from your posts really stood out to me. Whether you believe the conspiracy for this reason or another, or don't believe it at all, I don't know, and I have seen no "hints" one way or another.

That's the thing, I don't know when this idea first sprang up, but certainly people (the same Alex jones) were saying that 9/11 was staged to give the Bush govt. an excuse to impose Martial Law and to begin to round the people up into FEMA Camps; two terms later, and Bush having conspicuously failed to do so, Obama was going to .... etc. Now he's into his second term, and he still doesn't appear to have begun to do so. Maybe that's why the fear and paranoia directed towards Mr. O is quite as strident as it is; people are getting angry and disappointed at him because the Martial Law that they've been predicting for so long still hasn't materialised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have good eyes.

Alex Jones... who really knows if he's a cointelpro or not, they guy seems to make a living through information business, in his way. Money factor always adds some bias, even if you wanted to be sincere. But I dont buy it he hasn't been offed or anything just because of that logic, because if you'd make him go away, wouldn't it speak volumes to his listeners? Think about it, even if he experienced natural but premature death, wouldn't there be people, especially his listeners, telling maybe it was conspiracy too? If they disposed of him too openly, that'd be the smoking gun for them. So in my eyes, he has a life-insurance which doesn't expire, because his credibility has already been compromised. Compromising credibility is far cheaper and more effective and secure in terms of precautions, because while you can't control what people think, you can encourage them to question whistlerblowers by eroding their credibility. It should be questioned if there's doubt, by all means, but it can also be a very effective tactic if you succeed in giving them a bad rep, or if they help you do it with the way they act. It's like mental judo or aikido, you use your opponent's moves against them.

Those FEMA camps, I dont buy that theory, it's not often I say that about anything but them... especially now, but if you think of it a bit deeper, why would they do that? How does that profit them? Would they really think it'd be the way to go about things to make their lives more comfortable? How on earth would it profit them? Would those FEMA camps be turned into some 3rd-world sweatshop apartments for workers and factories be built around them? It all just doesn't make sense to me, you dont capture people "just because", you do it because there's something in for you, whether you're a sadistic a-hole or want some money out of it or if seeing a big line of trailers in what looks just like a high-security prison yard ticks off some inner control freak of yours, but who'd really go to that extent for personal perversions? Who'd bother? I could understand if they did it to discipline people, but it doesn't work that way, because that'd take their spiritedness away or just increase resistance, and there's nothing to be gained from either.

And the off-chance they actually planned something like that... where would they find enough military personnel willing to enforce the whole thing? The risk for rebellion among military ranks would rise exponentially, and Russia, China and other big players would know this. They'd launch a full-scale invasion if they could disable the nukes and such first, but if they couldn't, they'd just go invade USA under the pretense of freeing the public from the oppressive military regime which is worse than North Kodea. Or if they were too scared of a nuclear war, they'd just sit it out but force all kinds of trade and diplomatic restrictions on the USA, as a way to pressure to end the FEMA camps. That would devastate USA financially, and leave it on the brink of a civil war once the situation was otherwise normalized.

If you think of all the potential and likely consequences that'd fall on doing something like FEMA camps, it just doesn't make sense if you wouldn't do it world-scale instead of in just one country.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think the majority of major media works in cooperation with the government rather than try and give give a truly unbiased examination of the more important issues. There are numerous examples. I think one of the big lessons from the Viet Nam war ws that you can´t have "real" journalists operating without some level of control of what information they are privy to and what can be reported.

Well of course the media isn't free as in they can go everywhere and do everything. Of course they have their sources and even their own political leaning.

The problem is - where are they controlled? The journalists? The editors? There are hundreds of thousands of people in just one newspaper. Then think about all the numerous countries in the whole world. How is the conspiracy supposed to control them? Especially those people, since they have chosen a profession in where asking questions is their profession. You can't kill them all. You can't even buy them all of. Then, you'd have to stop their blogs, Facebook-pages, Twitters and whatnot.

I think the NWO believers have gotten of easy on this. We always hear that the media is controlled, but not how. Or even why - if there were a conspiracy - the conspirators would have to do anything to catch the eye of the media.

Adding to these points, the conspiracy videos that are so popular on YouTube take their own material from the mainstream media itself to make the point that the media can't be trusted. How does this work? The conspiracy theorists can trust the media but we the sheeple are decepted by it?

One: most of us dont have the kind of proof to present which'd make it crystal-clear for the rest of us, obviously. To one way or another.

And, as said above, all of which can be found on YouTube and have been talked about by people like Alex Jones for decades. People are getting tired of having listen to a story repeat itself again and again. If there is proof, then present it. If you want to speculate about the NWO or global government, then that can be done as well.

Two: it's entirely possible, very humanely possible and would not really be that hard to form such a world government.

Perhaps. If the world agrees on one kind of political system (i.e., not being divided like during the cold war) and economic system (regulated capitalism, if you will), then perhaps it could work.

Look at the UN, all you needed to make that happen was to influence the public opinion.

All you needed for a UN was a world war. That's not exactly influencing public opinions. And what did they form? A meeting place. What has the UN really done by itself? Absolutely nothing. It is absolutely dependent on other nations, mainly superpowers like Russia, China and the US, to function.

And suppress and the bad rep it's made for itself, prevent as much as you can from that dirt going mainstream news.

Which, as I said above, would require a massive conspiracy involving millions of people worldwide.

If you can sell an idea and keep it's reputation from sinking and distribute it, you're all set.

If it were that easy, why haven't they already done so? It would certainly be easier to unite the world by this method 50 years ago - as well as controlling the media - than it is today.

And if you got the money, you got the means to distribute it: movies, donate to researchers bent or willing to bend towards your view, buy politicians, encourage through promised economical benefits which may be there but that's because humans control economy system, not vice-versa.

Sure, if you can pay off millions of people without them leaking anything.

The only thing I'd advocate a united world front, not a world government but something less than that, is our and earth's survival and mutual development.

The system we have today? :)

Make a mole-people race by having volunteers get used to living deep under earth's crust. Hardcore nerds who have used to a lack of sunlight would be perfect candidates.

What if these people do not want to live deep underground?

That's it. What else do you need a world government for?

I don't know. Peace? Prosperity? The uniting of the human race and the elimination of borders?

If you disagree with another country you can always start a war if it's a big issue, it's not like one country should have sole rights for that just because they got more power to bully you with.

What if that country has nuclear missiles and yours not?

I wouldn't know, but would they have to know if they both were directed by the same entity? If you were smart and wanted to make people think those two, Obama and Murdock press for example, were against each other, you wouldn't let one know what the other does, nor even that you had plans for the other. And we're humans, not robots, so you should expect internal power strifes even in the "best" of organisations. Political parties are prime examples of this.

Someone has to know, right? If you haven't received a plan or direction (which would be questioned immediately), then you might cause problems to the overall conspiracy.

Alex Jones... who really knows if he's a cointelpro or not, they guy seems to make a living through information business, in his way.

This practically defeats any attempt to even talk about conspiracy. If we can't trust Alex, then who? What if YOU're the agent? What if you're all agents?! Aaahhh!

And a good example as to why people don't take this whole debacle serious. Everybody wants the spotlight, and if Alex can give it to me, then I'll be on his show. If not - he's the agent. Quite funny for a community (if you can call it that) who on the contrary don't want spotlights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

With media control, I think you're missing one major point.You very much can buy them off, as long as you control most of or even the whole media job market. Through having influence in the banks, you can enforce clients of companies and the companies themselves to go by your whims by not admitting them loans for new investments. I dont know if you know the business world, sounds like you dont no offense, but it works like that. If banks dont give you any money and you ain't got from your own, then it's a no-go. And while newspapers might not be directly dependent on this, I think they are very much indirectly. Advertisers, they're dependent on this bank's loaning-system to get money to get started buying raw materials, laborforce and parts for whatever they manufacture. And if you cut the advertisers from media, where do they get their income from? Paid news? Maybe in the past, but these days it's not that much you get from there.

Of course, media moguls like Rupert Murdock and whatyougot, might not need a loan from a bank, but then again those are the big guys on top. If big shots like Murdock tell one of their companies to shut down, what do you think happens next? They just start another one free from mr. Murdock and dont get bankrupted or anything? And even if they dont, does it matter? As long as you keep the public staring one channel most of the time, it doesn't matter what the rest of the channels show. And even if they'd show something controversial, you just need to show them something on your channel that psychologically coerces (subtly persuades) them that you are on the right on whatever your case is, and that you're the friend of justice and so on.

And of course there's the illegal channels. Certain criminal organisations or ones seen as such (but havent gotten the official label due to semantics) can be hired to extort rival company CEOs. And they do that. Extortion can be a very profitable business if you keep yourself under the radar.

Regarding which medias you'd trust... why would you think it's about which media is the most trustworthy? So that you could get easy answers from an unquestionable source? Here's a fact of life: all sources can be questioned, and if you dont know or pretend you dont know, all things can also be questioned. There might be one slightly misleading thing or something put there to shift our sense of what's important regarding what they talk about on the news, like what's important for the national security when we talk about terrorism. Is it to catch this one guy who's deep underground, to check all the flight passengers for any possible item with which they might cause harm, or is it that we ought to just focus more on how we can get along despite of different views and incompatible chemistries, both as a country or group of people and in individual level.

It's more important how you digest what you get from any source at all, than what the source is. Source credibility, that's important to check of course, but you also have a thing called common sense. Use it. People have this thing called a bs-meter, ask some sceptics here and they know what I'm talking about. It can be a biased thing, but also an accurate one. And everyone dont have an entirely similiar one, as we ain't robots but come from nature where things are, diverse.

If you assume that mainstream media is and has been uncontrolled, find out a bit about the document "Conspiracy of Silence", it's an officially-validated conspiracy, by court jury, though I dont know if that's the label they gave to the crimes. They were pretty atrocious though in what they did, big-time politicians from who many got away they say. That document was pulled off the air at the last minute, and it had gotten one big politician by the balls.

And UN... you're saying world war didn't influence public opinions about global security and what should be done to it? "oh, we just had nazis almost invading the europe but lucky enough they made a big strategic mistake, but no big deal, we dont need to be more unified in case that happened again". You think that's what happened and they just snapped their fingers and UN came to be? Wars are great for influencing public opinions.

And the mole people. I said volunteers, not forcefully drafted ones. Mercury is still retrogade so it's no wonder even that can be misread.

Edited by Mikko-kun
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone has to know, right? If you haven't received a plan or direction (which would be questioned immediately), then you might cause problems to the overall conspiracy.

Yeah, if there's still conspiracies and I believe there are (why else would they hide all the files they do under the name of national security? Please...), just a matter of what conspiracies or hidden things. And there must be people, outsiders, who are on the know. And they might've not been silenced. And they might've been spreading their tales as much as they can. You know what to do? Disinformation and discredit them, also make them have as little visibility on the internet as possible. Do you know all the means with which these counterattacks can be performed? Not all of the below are used only by cointelpro of course, but those are nonetheless effective tactics if you want to meet those ends.

Shotgun-method: plant out false, seemingly real enough but still false, or sometimes even real (but maybe too outrageous) conspiracy theories among the most popular sites at least. This'll divert their attention. People are a force. When you divide a force, it becomes weaker. Divide their focus.

Poison-method: Plant forum posters who try make everyone who'd even think it would be possible for the conspiracies to exist, look bad, or at least question them. Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions and questioning, but a lot of times, I feel it goes beyond just asking because you dont know. You want to derail me, you want to waste my time on simple questions and make me look bad if I dont answer them but also you manage to waste both my time and focus if I do answer. What would be an especially effective tactic for these kind of posters, is to have your opponent go in meaningless circles through making them make a point here and there, and then making up something impossible to verify either way to make them look insecure. Psychological aikido, like a toreador taunting a bull and letting it run in circles. Except that you only need to know a few basic things to know what to ask to make an endless loop of "anything's possible" ready.

Direct bombard method: call them names, make them look stupid, taunt them, let them know they're stupid or what they say is stupid one way or another. Even if you also play yourself out in a very stupid and thoughtless way, you still often manage to give your opponent a bad mood, maybe insecurity, maybe you manage to make your opponent question themselves. You can combine this with poison-method for extra efficiency and the more subtle you are, the less likely you'll be touched by anyone.

Drowning-method: can be similiar to shotgun-method in that there you also divert the attention of the people. There though, you especially try to do your best to make the right information drown under everything else. Someone makes a post that they shouldn't make, make new topics in the same forum. Someone does a document they shouldn't do, make a big movie and release it right after or when that document hits the air. Someone posts bad news that you can't prevent from hitting the mainstream, arrange something that's worth just as much or even more attention, or make it look like something temporary that was fixed and everything's all right again. Drown the information you dont like. Derailing is also a method like this, but it fits pretty much the shotgun-category too. Another effective way to use drowning-method is to deny the advertisers from supporting the news or the document or whatever it is you dont like. No matter what you think, all the information doesn't spread by itself, it's people who spread it and they dont like to spread depressing things which make them look weird, even if those things were true. Lots of people are vain like that, and the rest dont bother because that's not the most effective way to deal with those things, or because they noticed that people dont care so much even if those things would be true. "Yeah, how is that gonna affect my life that a politician had his way with minor children and tried to silence the witnesses? It's sad and all but what am I supposed to do about it, really?", is what you get if they're honest. If they're not, they just nod and say "aha, okay", and then you're done.

I just gave them silly names, call them whatever you like, but those are what you can find here and there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know why I think you want to just beat my point rather than be enlightened although you no doubt want that too? Because the questions you ask, you could of thought them out yourself too, and it's not too hard to find out about them by yourself either. But you ask me. That tells me it's like you think I dont know, or that you dont know where to look. Google and patience are your friends. You want some pointers, you could just ask.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course the media isn't free as in they can go everywhere and do everything. Of course they have their sources and even their own political leaning.

The problem is - where are they controlled? The journalists? The editors? There are hundreds of thousands of people in just one newspaper. Then think about all the numerous countries in the whole world. How is the conspiracy supposed to control them? Especially those people, since they have chosen a profession in where asking questions.

Yes, you are correct. There are thousands of people who work for newspapers but who decides what actually makes the paper, where it is placed, and the particular slant the story has. That would have to be the editor. And as these are privately-owned publications, the owner(s) definitely come into play. They decide what news is most important for you. The left and right wing media define the parameters within which the discussion takes place and does not move outside of that box.

Major Media is just one big propaganda machine IMO. I remember when I was a kid that when discussing an issue, there were always two points of view being discussed and usually one of the voices came from Academic Institutions. Now, you just have one person offering there "expert" analysis of the situation and then realize they are a part of some privately-funded organization that has an agenda and subtlety (or some times not so) subtlety pushes it on you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And UN... you're saying world war didn't influence public opinions about global security and what should be done to it? "oh, we just had nazis almost invading the europe but lucky enough they made a big strategic mistake, but no big deal, we dont need to be more unified in case that happened again". You think that's what happened and they just snapped their fingers and UN came to be? Wars are great for influencing public opinions.

the UN, though, isn't a great example of a precedent for a One World Government, is it. It's utterly powerless, it couldn't even prevent a U.S. President from going to war on a lie, since that President just ignored it and openly laughed at it. And any of the Permanent members can veto anything they like, and that's an end to it. And they have no military or law enforcement power of their own, they have to rely on tropps provided by member countries.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Murdock press (for example, to name but one) is really in cahoots with Obama, and anything they may print critical of him is just a camouflage?

Basicaly yes. They are critical of 0bama, but there are lines that are never crossed. Cause they seem to be in oposition, they actualy make great gate keepers. Take this latest episode with Snowden. No one in main stream is even talking about getting the government in trouble for destroying the 4th amendment. The only question any of them can come up with is whether or not Snowden is a criminal for exposing it. Even the folks in main stream who seem to back Snowden, only answer the question of whether or not he's a criminal. No one is calling for the arrest of anyone in government. There are lots of examples where you can clearly see the same type of thing.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Basicaly yes. They are critical of 0bama, but there are lines that are never crossed. Cause they seem to be in oposition, they actualy make great gate keepers. Take this latest episode with Snowden. No one in main stream is even talking about getting the government in trouble for destroying the 4th amendment. The only question any of them can come up with is whether or not Snowden is a criminal for exposing it. Even the folks in main stream who seem to back Snowden, only answer the question of whether or not he's a criminal. No one is calling for the arrest of anyone in government. There are lots of examples where you can clearly see the same type of thing.

Excellent example Preacherman!! :tu:

Edited by jugoso
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have good eyes.

Alex Jones... who really knows if he's a cointelpro or not, they guy seems to make a living through information business, in his way. Money factor always adds some bias, even if you wanted to be sincere. But I dont buy it he hasn't been offed or anything just because of that logic, because if you'd make him go away, wouldn't it speak volumes to his listeners? Think about it, even if he experienced natural but premature death, wouldn't there be people, especially his listeners, telling maybe it was conspiracy too? If they disposed of him too openly, that'd be the smoking gun for them. So in my eyes, he has a life-insurance which doesn't expire, because his credibility has already been compromised. Compromising credibility is far cheaper and more effective and secure in terms of precautions, because while you can't control what people think, you can encourage them to question whistlerblowers by eroding their credibility. It should be questioned if there's doubt, by all means, but it can also be a very effective tactic if you succeed in giving them a bad rep, or if they help you do it with the way they act. It's like mental judo or aikido, you use your opponent's moves against them.

I think they regret not offing him many years ago. Just 15 years ago his following was small, and most people considered him crazy. But now that all this time has gone by, and alot of what he was saying back then has now become public information, his following has gone through the roof. And like you said, if they offed him now, it would not only prove to his listeners that what he's been preaching is true, but it would convince alot of others who dont believe him, that what he's saying is true.

Those FEMA camps, I dont buy that theory, it's not often I say that about anything but them... especially now, but if you think of it a bit deeper, why would they do that? How does that profit them? Would they really think it'd be the way to go about things to make their lives more comfortable? How on earth would it profit them? Would those FEMA camps be turned into some 3rd-world sweatshop apartments for workers and factories be built around them? It all just doesn't make sense to me, you dont capture people "just because", you do it because there's something in for you, whether you're a sadistic a-hole or want some money out of it or if seeing a big line of trailers in what looks just like a high-security prison yard ticks off some inner control freak of yours, but who'd really go to that extent for personal perversions? Who'd bother? I could understand if they did it to discipline people, but it doesn't work that way, because that'd take their spiritedness away or just increase resistance, and there's nothing to be gained from either.

A army manual that was leaked and confirmed a few months ago talk about re-education camps run by Fema and the military. Bush spent billions to bring up to date old WW2 camps they put Japanese Americans in. There are also several confirmed prisons, fully functional and supplied, that are empty. But the army re-education manual alone is very concerning.

And the off-chance they actually planned something like that... where would they find enough military personnel willing to enforce the whole thing? The risk for rebellion among military ranks would rise exponentially, and Russia, China and other big players would know this. They'd launch a full-scale invasion if they could disable the nukes and such first, but if they couldn't, they'd just go invade USA under the pretense of freeing the public from the oppressive military regime which is worse than North Kodea. Or if they were too scared of a nuclear war, they'd just sit it out but force all kinds of trade and diplomatic restrictions on the USA, as a way to pressure to end the FEMA camps. That would devastate USA financially, and leave it on the brink of a civil war once the situation was otherwise normalized.

If you think of all the potential and likely consequences that'd fall on doing something like FEMA camps, it just doesn't make sense if you wouldn't do it world-scale instead of in just one country.

If the day ever came where people were actualy put into fema camps, I think the majority of military personel that would run them would be foreigner's. We have already abbouced how Russia is going to help us with security at sporting events and such. I dont think other countries would have as big a need for such camps. I think the majority of the people who would end up in one would be folks who just werent going to let go of idea's such as freedom, and the founding documents. You made a really good point about the finacial ruin, and civil unrest that would be a direct conseqence. I personaly think thats exactly what they want. Anyone who would take a honest look at what they have done to 'save the economy', can clearly see that they are creating a controled economic demolition. Ben Bernanky has now made several indirect comments saying the economy will eventualy crash. Also, if they can start a civil war, then they will have main stream tell everyone night and day for months how the folks who are fighting the government are 'terrorist'. Then the patriot act and the new revision of NDAA would go into full swing, and they would (according to them) be in good legal standing to indefinitly detain, and or just kill anyone on the wrong team.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

About FEMA camps, one way to get them to realistically work for the powers that be, would be that you put there only those who go against you and your views. That'd lessen the population in those camps quite a bit. And it can be done under the pretense of national peace too. We all love peace, so lets do something pre-emptive to make things more peaceful. A great excuse no?

If the day ever came where people were actualy put into fema camps, I think the majority of military personel that would run them would be foreigner's. We have already abbouced how Russia is going to help us with security at sporting events and such. I dont think other countries would have as big a need for such camps. I think the majority of the people who would end up in one would be folks who just werent going to let go of idea's such as freedom, and the founding documents. You made a really good point about the finacial ruin, and civil unrest that would be a direct conseqence. I personaly think thats exactly what they want. Anyone who would take a honest look at what they have done to 'save the economy', can clearly see that they are creating a controled economic demolition. Ben Bernanky has now made several indirect comments saying the economy will eventualy crash. Also, if they can start a civil war, then they will have main stream tell everyone night and day for months how the folks who are fighting the government are 'terrorist'. Then the patriot act and the new revision of NDAA would go into full swing, and they would (according to them) be in good legal standing to indefinitly detain, and or just kill anyone on the wrong team.

I've read about what you wrote I think a year or years ago, it's not new to me but I had forgotten. Thanks for reminding. You're very much right there I think, dont underestimate their craftiness. And they have every reason to collapse the economy, because a reset button allows you to change things more drastically, and also because of the debt that people keep worrying about. There will be a big feeling of relief felt by the masses when or after this collapse comes, and they'll take every advantage of it.

If they're smart, that is.

Edited by Mikko-kun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But when you hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by." (Luke 21:9)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.