Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Become the media

Is the plan becoming unglued? Are the money masters becoming nervous, or has their greed finally gotten the better of them? I was always certain that things would trend in the direction of infighting, impatience, and bold-faced publicly visible idiocy. I just thought they would be able to hold out until much more of the plan would have been played out. But, I suppose greed has a way about it which is transformation into a gluttonous lust for power culminated into envy among the 'haves' over what the 'have mores' have gained at their expense. Maybe this is also written into the plan even if it does not appear to be so.

MSM lies are becoming more and more transparent as time passes. Kony is a good example of failure to grab public support and sympathy. I had not personally watched the video before a co-worker had told me of evil people in Africa recruiting child soldiers... My only response was "That sounds like really old news... Like 20 years old..." This not statement only dis-armed my co-workers emotions, but prompted them to further research the issue and realize that somebody might be trying to manipulate their emotions. I was rather surprised about how easily I was able to defuse a situation that had presumably been carefully calculated to overwhelm logic with an outpouring of emotions designed to lead to only a single conclusion 'Invade Africa and get this monster no matter the cost'.

Somebody is getting sloppy out there, and that is a good sign. Sloppy is a sign of desperation. Desperation leads to panic which only leads to even more sloppy. The years of careful planning are over, and a winner takes all blood-sport make-shift strategy seems to be emerging in it's place. I am not entirely certain what has caused but I would speculate that it can all be wrapped up in this statement: People are realizing in greater and greater numbers that they are being manipulated financially, emotionally, and even logically into a trap of falsely baited choices by uncaring politicians, greedy bankers, and non-investigative journalism.

Some simple reasoning to this is:
  1. The EU is collapsing faster than planned; Greece was not supposed to be declared in default and trigger CDS payouts (yet or ever).
  2. Voter fraud examples are being brought to light across the "free" world at an alarming rate.
  3. MSM tactics for covering only a single argument in a complex debate, spotlighting the wonders and benefits of their sponsors products, not covering issues that they do not want us to know about, and resorting to name-calling any time they can no longer find any compelling reason that supports their side of the debate are becoming obvious to all but the most deluded viewer.
  4. The appearance of choice that we've been (brainwashed) trained to call "freedom" now all points to the exact same choice with different window dressing, and it all appears to be the wrong choice. 
  5. Whistle-blowers are going public with escalating frequency.
  6. Bad budgetary decisions by central banks, echoed as sound fiscal policy by politicians are creating an ever increasing gap between wealth and poverty.
  7. Everything is now either criminalized or taxed unless you are a rich white-collar criminal who stole billions of dollars. 
  8. Lawmakers no longer write the law, they just pass laws written by corporations and lobbying groups into existence sometimes, apparently without reading them even a single time.
  9. The same "Experts" who have been proven wrong in the past are still paraded out in front of us to explain that this time they are not wrong... I find this one to be the most silly, since I am sure you could not swing a dead cat around skid-row in L.A. without hitting three out of work actors nobody would recognize.
  10. The internet is quickly becoming a primary source for news, editorials, and open debate. (even with the increasing number of shills out there attempting to invalidate these sources)
This is by no means an exhaustive list but needless to say, I think everybody is starting to realize they've been lied to for many years on almost every topic imaginable by media and politicians. Since the media is the most in our faces, and is seemingly working on the 'viral video' channel, I suppose I should focus on it today.

Avoid the mind-trap

Beware your emotions for they overwhelm logic. The media might even ask questions, but that does not mean that they ask the right ones. Do not allow your outrage to be redirected at the target of their choosing. This is how they manage their damage control, this is how they re-trap you. The media combined with the military-industrial-complex has decades of experience in framing the issues in the perfect light to make you believe their desired emotional response was genuinely yours.

Terms like 'protecting children', 'freedom', 'patriotic duty', 'environmental', 'humanitarian', and 'fiscally responsible' have all become double edge swords at this point in time, because they have all been so abused, and so misplaced outside of their literal meaning that they should almost bear no meaning at all anymore. Watch for them. If you pay close enough attention you can hear the violin quartet playing in E-minor as they are presented to you. If the news triggers an exaggerated emotional response from the person presenting it, chances are you are being steered down their desired path.

Avoid the distractions

When the biggest item in National (or international) NEWS is about some celebrity going to rehab, ask yourself what else has happened today? Chances are there's something we should know about that is of much greater importance than Lindsay Lohan, or the Cardassians...

Statistics lie

Ten out of Six people were not actually surveyed, and the other Eight were asked a different question, therefore 'most Americans believe that we have presented them with some random numbers'... To be honest, this is exactly what I hear any time statistics are presented to me by the media, but it has gotten worse from my point of view. Over the past several years it feels like the actual numbers and statistical figures have been completely dropped in favour of terms like 'many feel', or 'most consider'.

Remember that 'most' people agreeing would have to mean that all people were asked, or that more than half were asked and all answered in the same way which sounds unlikely just about all of the time. Since the actual numbers are being summarily dropped from such 'polls' I can only assume that means the poll itself was also dropped in favour of just making it out to be what they what you to hear.

My original epiphany of statistics was over toothpaste commercials: "4 out of 5 dentists recommend brushing your teeth with X brand toothpaste". It was always the same number regardless of the product brand which could only mean different dentists were surveyed until they found the proper 5, or 1 in 5 dentists doesn't recommend brushing your teeth (or thinks toothpaste of any kind is evil which might be more precise). I was quite young so I was not watching NEWS at the time, but, it was enough to brand statistical ratios as suspect for my entire future. Still, the fact that statistical ratios are not even so much as referenced 'most' of the time 'in recent years' is strange.

The unwarranted opinion

Newscasters and reporters alike have been giving their opinion since the dawn of journalism in editorials, or opinion pieces. This is perfectly acceptable when it is labelled as such, but the biased opinion is no longer clearly labelled. Sometimes they actually do state an opinion using 'in this reporters opinion' prior to a statement where they will insert their bias into the story, which is still somewhat acceptable. The problem is that the previously quoted catchphrase is not being used as often as opinion is being insert into journalism.

True it is difficult to separate perception or perspective from fact when each person perceives reality from their own viewpoint. If the central point of anyone's version of reality is themselves, presenting a version of reality with the self omitted completely might even be impossible. Since Journalism is taught in schools, I can only guess that 'extracting the self from the story' would take at least a few lessons worth. I have not had such lessons but I feel it likely that they do exist leaving no excuse for a trained and experienced journalist unless they are simply reading what they have been asked to read.

Weak, weakened, or indecisive language

Watch for the use of language in the NEWS because they know exactly how to be tricky with words. Some words chosen may be indecisive like 'could' or 'might', which are not the same as 'IS' or 'WILL'. Sometimes these in-definitive terms which suggest a prerequisite event are used without actually telling us what that event 'might' be. Take this example: "Iran could soon have the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons. They might use this ability in the future." what is actually known and factual in those two sentences? Need a hint? NOTHING! It is a complete speculation that something "might' happen if something else ever becomes possible (which it currently is not, or is at least unknown by the person making the statement).

Other manipulative language that is purposefully weak include:
  • Collateral damage == 1 or 10000000000000 innocent civilians were killed by our troops either accidentally or on purpose. This can include women and children, the old and infirm, and young healthy males. But 2 words can dehumanize the whole situation and disarm your empathy for the victims, so that is what we call them.
  • Friendly fire == Our troops are so well informed that we shot or bombed either ourselves or our allies. Whether an equipment malfunction, mis-identification, mis-communication, lone soldier who went postal, or some kind of hazing ritual gone awry are to blame are not usually stated even though this might be important in determining the morale and situation at hand.
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder == Shellshock! Yes in an earlier time (WW1), when we valued our soldiers we chose a horrible sounding name for the tremendous psychological damage that stemmed from active involvement in warfare. Now, they have a disorder. 
  • Humanitarian == Nothing... The word has been devalued and deprecated by it's constant use which implies bombing a populated area into the stone age somehow aids in freeing the very same population from supposed repressive or abusive governments. This is especially ironic when looking at the countries that are starting these humanitarian missions to begin with and how they are rapidly criminalizing freedom and transforming the meaning of the word 'patriot' into 'home-grown-terrorist'. The word 'humanitarian' should be removed from the dictionary altogether. 
This is just a small sample of how language can be censored, de-toothed, and manipulated to dehumanize violence and human casualties. The support for war would no exist if every single person killed (deliberately or accidentally, friend or foe) was announced along with age and occupation... The news would also take longer than an hour @ 6:00 on most days. But the dead, wounded, and demoralized are consistently marginalized into sound-bytes for easy consumption and digestion. Nobody wants to tell the American public that they are hated by 'the enemy' not for their freedom, but for their horrendous treatment of said enemy both before and since the 'humanitarian mission' began. In fact, in most cases, were the CIA not involved in something behind the scenes in the first place, there would likely not be a problem now.

Forcing the issue

As media has become more consolidated into fewer and fewer companies they are often seen as supporting the exact same side of an argument. There are only six major sources for global media and NEWS at this point in time: Time/Warner, Viacom, CBS, Disney, GE, and NEWS Corp. There are some players operating only in certain countries, like in Canada we have: Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Quebecor, Astral, and CBC... And Bell is about to buy Astral which would bring the number down to 5 plus the American stations. Granted, The Canadian NEWS still seems to report on some actual things but much of the international NEWS still seems to be towing the party-line, but so is our government, so I suppose that can't be helped.

Feigning both sides

This happens often when there are guest 'experts' brought in to debate the issues, there will be one who supports the side they want you to support who has either a strong personality or a large mouth, and the other who is a week personality or if available, someone on a day pass from a psychiatric hospital. It gets worse if the side that is supposed to loose is revealed to be the incorrect choice (like they don't sound crazy, and can raise points that cannot be easily countered), because then they begin to defame that person with name-calling. The nerve of thinking we'd let you win this debate, you must have been breast-fed until you were in high-school...

I won't deny that sometimes they really did find a crazy person to debate the issues, but that seems to be a much rarer occurrence in recent years. Maybe that is simply due to the fact that there are so many information sources out there now to back up the facts that there are very real conspiracies all around us, that the arguments are nearing impossible to loose. Or maybe some of the most crazy sounding conspiracies have a solid base of evidence to prove that the there is or was indeed a conspiracy which makes other things sound less crazy by comparison.

They re-write history

On 9-11 the media was covering events as they occurred for days, but much of what was covered live has never been heard since. Dancing Israelis, white 'urban moving' vans filled with explosives and Israelis, witnesses describing bombs in the basements and/or lower floors, WTC7 collapsing (even before it did) without being struck by a plane... Heck, just about anything reported from New York during the 9-11 events has never been re-played in MSM News. I am just surprised that they were so slow to get the official script given the many indicators that the event was carefully planned.

Granted some of this coverage could be construed as incomplete and may not all be evidence of a pre-planned event, but the fact that no effort was made to correct these anomalies between what was reported on and made it's way into live streams by presenting new evidence is strange in it's own right. They simply never played these bits again so as to hope the memory of the viewing public lapsed and never thought on it again. That is a blatant attempt to re-write history so that it matches the official story... They don't actually mention WTC7 at all anymore because it is not even mentioned in the official 9-11 Commission report. I know many people who do not remember this event, they do not believe me when I suggest that a 3rd WTC building came down that day. If that isn't re-writing history, I don't know what is.

Pay attention, and even take notes. It's true that stories can evolve with new evidence, but some of these sins-of-omission are huge.

Change the system

There are plenty of ways to push back and show our disbelief. We can point out when these tactics are used in video-blogs. We can make a focused effort not to buy the products they're selling. We can change the channel or better still turn the T.V. off. We can find the truth they are so eager to hide or defame and publish it for all to see. We can explain to those around us why we don't believe the latest sound-byte to be relevant.

I feel that the hyp(e)notic state that they've so carefully planned is wearing thin on most people, or at least the people I encounter in my day to day life. I seem to be able to snap people out of their coma with less and less effort now than ever before, and am no longer summarily written off as insane by anyone. People are beginning to feel that something is off, they sense that all this talk of economic recovery is simply talk based on zero indicators. They are becoming aware that the numbers on jobs and job-less don't make sense, and that criminals of the highest order have been granted immunity and the freedom to continue doing what they did in 2008.

The only argument I don't win is that of religion, but I have found that there are much larger problems and arguments that need to be won so my only religious argument is now predicated on a single thought: "No religion has ever claimed killing is good, so why is war so easily endorsed by religious leaders?". Nobody has yet cited a single example compelling enough for me to stop asking that question, especially when you look at how much killing occurs during a war.

I know there are too many valid reasons to be outraged than can be counted or properly tracked by any one person. Investigate and expose the targets that you can best understand and let those targets which feel outside of your realm be taken by someone else. There are many out there who are just as outraged so, presumably, every target will be exposed by somebody. I do believe, however that targeting a single person is too narrow a scope which fails to reveal the interconnects, and that nobody is acting alone.

The more unique voices are added to the choir of our disbelief and malcontent, the more panicked the globalists, neo-cons, bankers, and zionists seem to become. Maybe that old rhetoric about the pen being mightier than the sword is true after all.


No comments:

Post a Comment