Filed Under : America, capitalism, conspiracy, corporatism, elite, evil, Federal Reserve, fraud, money, oligarchy, oppression, Shadow Government, videos by vemrion
Sep.25,2007If you’ve ever felt like you’re a slave to money, this video will explain quite simply how that is in fact true. It’s the best video on money creation I’ve ever seen.
Be sure to check out all five sections. Here’s part 2.
Filed Under : America, cocaine, conspiracy, corporatism, corruption, crime, death, drugs, elite, fascism, money, oligarchy, oppression, propaganda, protest, terror, videos by vemrion Sep.20,2007The recent spate of police brutality is no accident. It’s not a freak coincidence, it’s the way it’s always been. Would I sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist if I said that the increasing militarization of the police is a carefully shepherded phenomena designed to slowly ensnare us in a web of oppression and fear? Well, I don’t care, because them’s the facts, man!
Four Recent Outrages
You’ve probably heard about the recent tasering of a U of Florida student who tried to ask John Kerry a few questions (but didn’t seem interested in hearing an answer). The kid, Andrew Meyer, was being kind of a dick and he overreacted and basically caused that situation by freaking out (notice how the cops lept into action when he mentioned Skull and Bones). He is now famous for pleading “Don’t Taze me, Bro!” shortly before he had 50,000 volts applied to his nuts.
This kid’s annoying dorkiness doesn’t absolve the police/security folks of responsibility. The fact that they tasered a guy who was subdued and on the ground is reprehensible. If you have six cops surrounding a suspect (who should’ve been escourted out, not arrested) there is absolutely no need to taser him.
Then there’s an older video that just made it on Digg showing a police officer shooting an Air Force security officer at point blank range for no apparent reason. There was an investigation and a trial and — (surprise!) Officer Ivory Webb was cleared on all counts.
Next we have the case of the delinquent granny who was finally brought to justice. Her crime? Not watering her lawn:
Betty Perry is charged with resisting arrest and failing to maintain her landscaping, both misdemeanors.
She was arrested July 6 after failing to give her name to a police officer who visited her home.
During a struggle, Perry fell and injured her nose. She spent more than an hour in a holding cell before police released her.
I bet we all feel safer with Ms. Perry behind bars.
If you think the police can’t top that, think again. Next is the case of the wheelchair-bound schizophrenic:
Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.
Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.
Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield’s death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case. “One, she’s in a wheelchair. Two, she’s schizophrenic. Three, they’re using a Taser on a person that’s in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes,” Alexander said.
According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.
Now, I’m sure that was a difficult situation, but I fail to see why it was necessary to taser an old woman in a wheelchair. Surely a person who can’t walk can be restrained fairly easily. In fact, we know she was not a threat because the lady cop managed to shock her for a total of 160 seconds — almost 3 minutes. And now she’s dead.
A Fluke Spurt of Stupidity?
So where did I find all of these stories? Did I go to a site dedicated to monitoring police brutality like CopWatch?
No. I found them all on Digg. All on the same page!
Now, this is no doubt more than normal, but it points to a larger problem in our society: The police are out of control.
And that’s exactly the way certain people want it.
The Real Role of Cops
You see, there’s a common misconception about police. Some people (mostly white, middle class folks) think that the police are here to “protect and serve” everybody. But notice that their motto doesn’t say anything about protecting everybody, or even treating everybody equally. It’s conspicuous by its absence, in fact.
The truth is that the police are paid to protect and serve the ruling class and the ruling class mostly needs protection from the underclass.
America is a classist society, just like the U.K. or India. The rich and poor divide is sometimes as stark as the difference between slums and condos. Poor people naturally get angry and even violent when they realize that their situation is completely hopeless. No amount of hard work will get you rich when your only job skills are burger-flipping and bathroom-scrubbing. So sometimes the poor take matters into their own hands and try to steal something from the rich. That’s where the police come in. If you rob a house or steal a car you will be arrested; simple as that.
But what happens when the rich steal from the poor?
For the most part: Nothing. The elite can literally write our laws with a few well-placed campaign contributions. They can make their left illegal while they continually try to box the underclass in with obscene violations of the first amendment like free speech zones. The elite ghettoize our inner cities, offshore our jobs, make helpful drugs illegal, send our children to die in pointless wars, kill all those who stand in their way and terrorize the rest of us with servile propaganda and there’s not a goddamn thing anyone of us can do about it.
Asside from high-profile cases like Enron, the elite are completely free to run wild and reshape society to their liking. And the way they seem to like it is: The rich can do whatever they want, the poor and middle class must be monitored constantly and arrested instantly if they step out line.
The police subconsciously know this. They know that becoming a cop grants them power over others, but they seem to know not to abuse this power when it comes to rich people.
You don’t see a bunch of people in Lexuses getting pulled over on Cops. That’s not because they’re not speeding and not doing anything illegal. I bet there’s a lot of cocaine in a lot of glove compartments in a lot of Lexuses (would that be “Lexi”?). But the cops know better than to fuck with the rich. The rich have lawyers, they have friends in the force, they have resources and most important, they know politicians who can put the squeeze on the captain and get you reassigned to guarding the Taco Bell.
Poor people have none of these connections or resources.
It’s fine with the rich if you want to oppress poor folk; in fact it’s pretty much encouraged. The rich know that by giving the cops special privileges they can secure the fealty of the police. So the police are permitted to act like they own the place as long as they don’t step on the toes of the elite — the only people who outrank the cops in our society.
So the real role of cops in society is to protect the elite from the underclass, which includes the middle class, but the middle class is mostly pacified by TV, material goods and beer. The police are free to get their jollies off by knocking a few heads together as long as they don’t beat up the son of somebody powerful. The elite like how the cops are hated and feared by the poor and respected and feared by the middle class. This gives the elite free reign since the cops fear and respect the upper class, the only group of people more powerful that themselves.
The Militarization of the Police
Gang members know the police as just another gang; a more powerful one, but a gang nonetheless. But the people who control the police (the elite, if you haven’t been paying attention) are increasingly arming the police as if they were a standing army. The militarization of the police has occurred mostly over the last 50 years and is spurred by two bullshit ideological wars: The War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
The police in most major now have enough armament to invade and occupy a small country. Hell, we could’ve sent our cops to Iraq and they probably would have done a better job at containing the populace since they’re more thoroughly trained for that sort of thing than the army. That’s no accident. The cops are an army; an army of the elite. Their enemy, let there be no doubt, is you.
The plan is to make America into a fascist state: Amerika. They started slowly and carefully, and as they’ve gained strength the police have gradually been let off their leash, but the end result is inevitable: a police state.
It’s not like this hasn’t happened before. In the late 1800s and early 1900s this country was consumed by labor strife. The Socialist Party was founded to look after worker’s right and communism was gaining strength because the Robber Barons’ form of capitalism was so completely corrupt that there was no difference between the Government and Big Business (sound familiar?).
Hand of the Oligarchy
The Rockefellers basically controlled this country like it was theirs. When they had labor troubles they simply called in the police. The police busted heads and smashed the ranks of the striking workers and forced them to return to work for pitiful wages. The idea that the police can act as an arm of the Oligarchy is unfortunately not a new one. Things got better for awhile, but now we seem to headed right back to where we were a hundred years ago.
If anything the propaganda is a hundred times better now; many people think the police are there to protect everyone, but that simply isn’t the case. In many poor neighborhoods, if you call the cops they might show up four hours later. The nicer your neighborhood, the quicker the response. Many poor folks don’t even bother calling the cops. This, again, is not a new phenomenon: in fact, that’s how the Mafia got its start. The Italian and Irish Mobs began because a person of Italian or Irish descent could not expect to be treated fairly under the law. They knew that they had to take care of each other or nobody would; certainly the cops were more likely to beat you over the head with a baton than listen to your tale of woe. Like our current gang troubles the Irish Mafia was made possible by Prohibition. When a popular product is made illegal it can be extremely lucrative for those on the wrong side of the law; so much so that they can buy influence on the other side of the law and corrupt the entire system in the process.
Now the blacks are the new Irish and they have no pull with the cops, even though many black people are on the force (just like with the Irish). The difference is that the cops look after each other first, regardless of ethnicity. Once you are a cop you belong to a special club which is virtually above the law. As long as you don’t violate the Blue Code of Silence you can expect to reap the rewards of being superior to the underclass.
Tale of the Tasers
The weapons a cop receives are a totem to his power over others. Normal people are not allowed to openly carry dangerous weapons around, especially as the second amendment has been eroded. An officer’s gun identifies him as a member of a powerful group and symbolizes his social superiority and separateness from the masses.
Tasers are the new nightsticks. Cops will use a taser at the drop of a hat because it makes compliance push-button easy. It should be noted that taser are not nonlethal; they are “less lethal” which is how I would describe a knife versus a gun. In no way are tasers harmless; they’ve been responsible for hundreds of deaths in the last few years.
Between tasers, pepper spray, nightsticks and ray guns the police have all sorts of “less lethal” devices to ensure submission. Add in handguns, shotguns and the heavy artillery used by SWAT teams and you have enough firepower to conquer a major rebellion… which seems to be the plan.
The Oligarchy seems to be expecting trouble from us, the unruly populace. I can only wonder why, but perhaps they know how foul and oppressive their policies are. If so, they can’t plead ignorance to our plight; they are in fact responsible for it. The Oligarchy has no love for democracy; they clearly prefer fascism; it’s so much more convenient. Sadly, many Americans agree.
But you know, “oligarchy”, “fascism”, “democracy” and “freedom” are just big, abstract concepts. At the end of the day it all comes down to what we experience in the world. This video is but a small example of the arrogance and violent entitlement that many cops feel:
Cops see their badge as a license to take the law into their own hands. Don’t like the customer service you’ve received? Pepper-spray’em and arrest’em. If any of us did the same thing we would be in jail for a long time, but this cop got off scot free. There’s justice for you; Amerikan-style.
Filed Under : Bush, Congress, conspiracy, evil, impeachment, neocons, oligarchy, partisanship, scam, Shadow Government, stupidity by vemrion Aug.22,2007The Oligarchy won’t allow impeachment.
However, if you want to remove the Oligarchy you have to remove Bush first. It’s a Catch-22 born in Hell and swaddled in conspiracy. Some people suggest that the Democratic Congress is simply incompetent and divided. I think it’s much more likely that they are servile and paid-for.
Check out this awesome article from Glenn Greenwald. He nails the Democratic-controlled Congress for being the sell-outs they are.
Impeachment is necessary, but the Democrats resist where there’s merit while the Republicans rushed forth without the People behind them. Both parties are a bunch of fuck-ups. They’re so incompetent that there’s no difference between that and evil. When that’s the case you have evil hiding itself behind a Cloak of Stupidity. Ironically, it’s a brilliant plan.
Whoever said “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,” was essentially writing evil a blank check. It seems the quote itself is stupid…or evil. Hanlon, however, created the quotation as more of a joke, not a axiom set in stone. Foolish are those who set store by it.
The Dark Ones will gladly use the Cloak of Stupidity to escape perceived culpability because the repercussions for negligence are much less severe than those for malice. It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis for the neocons: “We’re not evil, we’re stupid!” I predict you’ll be hearing that excuse a lot in the near future. Don’t fall for it. If you wear the Cloak of Stupidity you deserve to be stripped naked, warts laid bear.
The Oligarchy reacts to sunlight like a vampire does. Expose the Hidden Hand and you’ll be one step closer to impeachment and true liberty.
This post currently has
no screeches.
Filed Under : America, Christianity, conspiracy, elections, evil, fundamentalism, future, neocons, obedience, oligarchy, oppression, protest, religion, terror by vemrion Aug.16,2007A shocking KSLA news report has confirmed the story we first broke last year, that Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law. Economic Collapse? Another mass-casualty, false-flag attack? [/digg]
This is incredibly disturbing. Here’s the news clip for those who doubt:
Am I cynical to believe that something terrible will happen either right before or right after the elections (before inauguration)?
If it does, we’ve gotta stick together, organize and resist. This can’t happen to America. It’s like a nightmare you can’t wake up from.
A little something juicy to tide you over:
Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job.
Was Pat Tillman Murdered? Absolutely Yes, According to a Nam Vet
And something funny for all of the D&D geeks out there. Doesn’t quite make up for all the murder and death in the other links, does it? Man, I had hoped this blog would be a lotta laughs; more than a barrel full of monkeys, as it were. Life just doesn’t seem to work out that way.
This post currently has
no screeches.
Filed Under : America, Bush, Congress, conspiracy, crime, evil, lying, propaganda, scandal, war by vemrion Jul.27,2007Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
10 yards away? How do you fuck up so badly that you manage to put 3 bullets — in a tight grouping — in the head of a fellow Ranger? It doesn’t seem very likely, especially when there was zero evidence of enemy fire. That means that they were not in the fog of war and the confusion that follows from it.
It’s also worth noting that the Tillman story has changed several times. First, he was killed by enemy fire. Then he was killed by friendly-fire. Now it seems the “friendly” might have been aiming right at him.
Who would want Tillman dead, and why? Prison Planet has some theories:
The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear – Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero.As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, “You know, this war is so fucking illegal,” and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Far from the gung-ho gruff stereotype attributed to him, Tillman was actually a fiercely intellectual man with the courage of his convictions firmly in place.
Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America before his death cut short any aspirations of becoming a focal point for anti-war sentiment.
This is the last thing the Bush/Cheney administration needed. Could they have possibly given the order to assassinate Tillman and then cover it up?
Former presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he thought the orders to whack Tillman must’ve come from the very top. Tillman could’ve become an anti-war voice much more resonant among men and conservatives than Cindy Sheehan. He represented a threat precisely because of his service, his life story and his fierce, questioning intelligence. The latest (and most pathetic) propaganda seems designed to paint Pat as an atheist to undermine America’s trust in him:
But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.
The chaplain said that O’Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman’s side, “crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God’s not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling …”
If there was no enemy fire, why were they on the ground? How do we know this account wasn’t completely fabricated? I think Congress needs to talk to the doctors and investigators who attempted to pursue the homicide angle, but were stymied.
How come all of these anti-war people tend to die mysteriously?
This post currently has
7 screeches.
RigInt has scared me shitless once again with the terrifying story of what happens when you cross the wrong (ultraconservative, rich, powerful) people.
Writer/filmmaker Theresa Duncan mysteriously “killed herself” earlier this month. I’ve rarely seen a person who looks less like a candidate for suicide. She was madly in love with her boyfriend, ran a successful blog and was dedicated to social justice and progressive causes. Nevertheless:
Later that day, Theresa’s boyfriend of 12 years, Jeremy Blake, discovered her body in their East Village apartment, an evident suicide. (“A bottle of pills and alcohol were found near Duncan’s body [and] she left a suicide note saying that she was at peace with her decision and loved Blake and her family deeply.”) A week later, a man was seen walking into the ocean at Rockaway Park, and not walking out. Blake’s wallet and clothing, and his suicide note, were found beneath the boardwalk.
Blake’s suicide, while suspicious, could be a response to Duncan’s. However, I find Theresa’s supposed suicide totally unconvincing. This was murder.
Am I paranoid? I suppose most people reading this will probably think I am. In turn, I think they’re fucking sheep. Paranoia is a natural defense mechanism and it’s kept us alive this long as a species.
I guess I’m just pissed after reading some of the comments here and here. Are people so numb and stupid that they don’t see something suspicious when two deeply paranoid people die mysteriously within a few days of each other, shortly after posting paranoid rants about MKULTRA like this one?
Paranoia is meant to keep you alive, people! If you’re suicidal, you’re not very paranoid, are you? The emotions are pretty much mutually exclusive.
Maybe this is hitting too close to home for me, so let me make this abso-fucking-lutely clear: I am a paranoid nut, but I am as far away from suicide as I could possibly get! I intend to live to be 120 years old, and nothing’s going to stop me. If you find me dead mysteriously one day, and there’s a suicide note and thirteen people saying I was depressed: It’s a lie! I was fucking murdered!
Just wanted to make that crystal clear.
Anyway, there are a lot signs pointing back to Jim Cownie, a powerful Des Moines businessman that Theresa recently attacked on her blog as the source of harassment she and Blake were receiving. Interestingly, a man named Frank Cownie is the mayor of Des Moines. What a coincidence.
This is not the first strange thing to happen in Des Moines. Kidnapped child Johnny Gosch hailed from there. That wouldn’t be so odd if Jim Cownie hadn’t spoken of molesting children to achieve total obedience, like is required for Project MKULTRA to work:
To add the final dessert topping to this apocalyptic art world sundae, Mr. Wit says that normally dour Cownie frequently made jokes about child molestation as a “training” tool.
And of course, the Church of Scientology is involved. Since cults are already masters of mind-control it only makes sense that the CIA would turn to them for clues.
Much of the harassment of me and Mr. Wit was also conducted by the Church Of Scientology in L. A., who Cownie also no doubt also “does business with.” U.S. Intelligence “black ops” and “psy ops” have long relied on (or just outright invented) religious cults (including the Manson Family–Charles Manson received 150 hours of in-prison Scientology “auditing”), biker gangs, and the like in Federal Counterintelligence prorgrams in order to disrupt the counterculture since the 1960s. Read more about the CIA and cults here and couch jumping, Katie kidnapping mind controlled [sic] movie star Tom Crusie’s meeting with Scooter Libby and State Department head Richard Armitage here.
Here I am quoting a dead woman’s blog to prove my point that paranoia is not a mental illness. Paranoia keeps you alive, it lets you see the awful truth that the sheep can’t see. The price is heavy, but it’s not a curse. Instead, “Paranoia seems to us an absolute patriotic duty at the moment.”
Damn right, Theresa. May you and Jeremy rest in peace.
This post currently has
18 screeches.
http://www.youtube.com/v/6VdNcCcweL0
Seriously. Watch the clip. Is this a SNL sketch or something? Maybe it’s because I don’t watch TV, but this is like bizarro world to me. I honestly believe the anchors were encouraged/instructed to say complimentary things about Paris. And there’s no other reason besides “distracting the public” that I can think of that would explain why the producer of a supposedly serious news program would want to lead with Paris Hilton.
And did Joe Scarborough actually say Paris Hilton was thinking (in the clip they showed) “How do I further the Kingdom of God”?
What the fuck is going on in this country?!! Dick Cheney says he’s above the law, outside of the executive branch and all the media wants to talk about is Paris fucking Hilton?!!!!
…and people call me paranoid.
This post currently has
3 screeches.
Filed Under : America, censorship, conspiracy, corporatism, corruption, drugs, elections, elite, MSM, oligarchy, Shadow Government, technology, TV by vemrion May.10,2007Taking part in a televised debate can be a make-it-or-break-it moment for any presidential candidate. But what if you’re not allowed to debate at all?
A diabolical Catch-22
As many of you are aware, not all candidates are allowed to debate in a given broadcast debate. This has been a problem for years. During the last presidential election both the Libertarian and Green party candidates were actually arrested trying to get into a debate they had been explicitly banned from!
Most candidates are excluded from the debate simply because the Media (big M) deems them minor/unknown/unpopular candidates. Well, of course they’re unknown; they’re not allowed to debate on national TV!! Bit of a Catch-22, wouldn’t you say?
A most insidious and foul Catch-22, I would say. Here’s why: We supposedly live in a democracy. It’s not really a democracy, it’s a republic (that’s a story for another day), but we like to pretend that the people really have a say. The hidden reality is that the bosses of the major television stations are making decisions that define the course of our nation, and they’re doing it from private boardrooms sequestered on the 100th floor of a skyscraper, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it because they aren’t elected or accountable to anybody but the company’s shareholders — ya know… other rich people.
Why should the CEO of CNN have such power? Why should he (and it’s almost certainly a he) determine who will and won’t be the next president of the United States before the people ever get a chance to vote in a primary?
Isn’t that censorship? Isn’t that more like an oligarchy than a democracy? Why do we let them get away with it?
Well, until recently most people didn’t even know about the problem. And we didn’t have the power to make a difference anyway. But things are changing.
Social Media saves the day
Social Media has finally offered regular people like you and me a voice. Sites like Digg, while not perfect, have enabled users to vote (you know, like a democracy) on what stories they think are worthy.
Two candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, owe most of their young supporters to the users of two social media sites: Digg and Reddit. Without those two sites neither candidate had a hope in hell of cracking the oligarchy and getting significant, objective coverage by the mainstream media (MSM).
Why does the media censor and ostracize certain candidates?
The candidates that find themselves locked out of televised debates tend to have a few things in common: They tend to be unpopular or unknown (but that is not always the case). Their campaigns are usually poorly funded (maybe because it’s hard to raise funds if you get no coverage) and sometimes they have views that are contrary to the political mainstream.
But sometimes the political mainstream is very much at odds with the desires of the voting public. A perfect example is the continued prohibition of cannabis (you know: “marijuana”), an issue on which the politicians are most definitely out of step with most of America, which favors medicinal pot by an astonishing 78% margin. Net candidate Mike Gravel recently came out in support of legalizing cannabis, which he says should be for sale in liquor stores. For a mainstream, “media-approved” candidate, such a position would be political suicide. Why?
Perhaps the media has been shaping our political landscape for such a long time nobody can even remember a time when they weren’t. Perhaps there are certain forces at work behind the scenes that determine what is considered politically acceptable and what is considered “extremist.”
It’s hard not to see the media as a controlling, suppressing force when they blatantly censor certain candidates. Ron Paul’s performance in the recent Republican debate at the Reagan Library was hailed by many observers, but when it came time to review the field and do some analysis ABC News made a curious omission: Ron Paul.
He wasn’t even available as an option for viewers to vote for. He wasn’t mentioned anywhere in David Chalain’s analysis. If not for a web uprising (involving Digg and Reddit) Ron Paul would probably still be excluded. When ABC finally backed down (after deleting a storm of comments asking, “Where’s Ron?”) Ron Paul ran away with a landslide victory in the online poll. The numbers are incredible (and no doubt skewed by a reaction to the censorship). Paul clearly has a massive groundswell of public support…. but in the corporate realm he has apparently earned only hand-waving dismissal and contempt.
What are we supposed to think of this? When there are 10 candidates at a debate and viewers are only allowed to vote for 9 of them is that not censorship? Is that not electioneering by a major corporation?
And when they back down and include the suppressed candidate and he wins the poll, how do they respond? They write an article in which they find people to scratch their heads and say, “who knows how this Ron Paul got popular. Must be sumthin’ to do with them internets.” Then they conclude he has no chance of winning and that this is just an exercise in teenage rebellion (or something) and wave their hands, content that they will never have to talk about him again.
Democratic candidate Mike Gravel has experienced the exact same treatment, but on the other side of the aisle. Gravel and Paul are both painted as “extremists” within their respective parties, so we’d can conclude that Paul is a right-wing extremist and Gravel is a left-wing extremist, right?
Not quite. Both candidates are populists, espousing “common sense” positions that many average Americans hold, but which are not endorsed by many mainstream politicians. Both are opposed to the Iraq War (and always were), both question Prohibition, both are wary of a pre-emptive strike against Iran and both are suspicious of the corporate media that excludes them from debates. In short, they have a lot in common with the public they are trying to represent.
Meanwhile, the Media’s favorite Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, goes around saying fascist shit like this:
We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]
You have free speech so I can be heard.
Is that what most Americans believe? Wasn’t America founded by overthrowing the “lawful authority” of the British? And this “Freedom is about authority” stuff sounds like a parody of George Orwell’s 1984… but Rudy was being serious! “You have free speech so I can be heard”?!! Saturday Night Live couldn’t parody Rudy any better than he does himself.
Which candidate is really an “extremist”? Which candidate is fundamentally out-of-line with the thinking of mainstream America? Well, maybe America really does want fascism instead of freedom, but the noise on the internet would seem to indicate otherwise.
Media Control and Manipulation
It seems like ancient history now, but it was actually the recent past when the mainstream media controlled every avenue of information and expression in this country. Nowadays we can talk about these things and send our message out to a wide audience, but as recently as 12 years ago it simply was not possible for a middle class person to route around the MSM. Suddenly most people can afford machines that are more powerful than a printing press, and allow common people to talk to each other without the Media’s filter. That’s why the Media is so upset about blogging and social media — they’re so used to having an absolute stranglehold over the conversation in this country.
The Media is used to controlling:
Social Media smashes that control grid and puts power in the hands of the many, rather than the few. This is a recent development so the full ramifications are not yet clear, but one thing we are finding out is that the Media has been using their incredible power to highlight certain candidates and suppress others.
The media has a paternalist streak that is really out of place in this day and age. The Washington Post thinks they know best and they aren’t afraid to tell you that they already know Gravel & Paul are not going to be elected, so why don’t we just eject them from the debates already?
The Democratic debate in South Carolina featured eight candidates, while 10 crammed into the GOP debate in California last Thursday. Voters trying to sort out their presidential choices aren’t helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel (hint: he’s a former senator from Alaska) on the Democratic side and Ron Paul (hint: he’s a libertarian House member from Texas) among the Republicans.
Thank goodness for our dear corporate masters. If they didn’t come in any set things straight we’d have to learn somebody’s name and what they stand for. MY GOD! The very idea exhausts me.
Sarcasm aside, this sort of thing has been going on for generations. That’s why an editorial like the one above doesn’t seem odd to them; this is standard operating procedure! The Media has identified the candidates they don’t like (the ones that aren’t easily bought/co-opted) and now they’ve decided to tell you, Dear Voter, than you needn’t concern yourself with these troublesome miscreants. Big Media will make things simple for you by excluding them.
…But wait a minute. Isn’t this a democracy? Don’t the voters decide who is voted off the proverbial island?
Well, now you know better. That is not the way America works. America is run by a ruling class of oligarchs no different than the ones who control Russia. The difference is the American media freely admits that oligarchs run Russia, but they would sooner give their mansions to the poor than admit America is the same. The exact reverse scenario plays out in Russia where the Russian (government/oligarch-controlled) media is free to disparage America and mock its corrupt institutions, while speaking ill of Russia is a good way to get your broadcasting license revoked.
The awful truth is that America has long been controlled by the rich, just like most nations throughout history. They have remade American society and government to suit themselves and they have grown very comfortable on their throne.
What is an Oligarchy?
Stephen Fleischman, himself a former mainstream media man, tackles the reality of the Oligarchy in an article for Counterpunch:
My dictionary says an oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power effectively rests with a small segment of the society. As Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, puts it, “Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed.” Does that sound like the administration of George W. Bush?
Why, yes it does! That must be a weird coincidence. … right?
I wish I could tell you more about the Oligarchy, but it operates in secret and prefers that most citizens do not even know it exists. In fact, by using the mainstream media the Oligarchy is able to program us so that even if we are provided with irrefutable evidence of the existence of said Oligarchy, many will still deny it and disbelieve it.
You’re probably wondering “How?!”
Have you ever been called a “conspiracy theorist?” Well, it tends to end any meaningful discussion of the facts and immediately puts the onus on the accused to defend himself from the charge leveled at him. The Media has a few “magic words” like this at their disposal. It’s amazing how effective they can be. Nobody wants to be called a conspiracy theorist… but isn’t that just an ad hominem attack? It’s no different than calling someone a poopy-head.
I suspect there may be more to it than that. In a future post I’ll look into how the Oligarchy exploits its control of the media for fun and profit.
What should we do about it?
At a certain point we in the ‘net community need to stand up and say, “To hell with you guys. We’re hosting our own debate and we’ll invite everybody!” We ju
st need to set up a website with a group of people dedicated to hosting the cyber-debate; we’ll get some buzz going and then what candidate will say “no” to a chance to get his/her message out to such an elusive audience?
The media can’t be trusted to define, design and delineate the ground rules for our national debate. Candidates are having trouble getting their message across because of the media’s filter. It’s time to cut out the middle man.
This post currently has
35 screeches.
Information Liberation points out the media silence in the wake of the recent Ohio State National Guard revelations:
The 1970 killings by National Guardsmen of four students during a peaceful anti-war demonstration at Kent State University have now been shown to be cold-blooded, premeditated official murder. But the definitive proof of this monumental historic reality is not, apparently, worthy of significant analysis or comment in today’s mainstream media.
After 37 years of official denial and cover-up, tape-recorded evidence, that has existed for decades and has been in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has finally been made public.
It proves what “conspiracy theorists” have argued since 1970—that there was a direct military order leading to the unprovoked assassination of unarmed students. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show collusion between Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes and the FBI that aimed to terrorize anti-war demonstrators and their protests that were raging throughout the nation.
The cover-up is over, but the media are still clinging to their code of silence.
Why? Well, that seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it? The circles of power are small and chummy. They all know each other and so the masters of the media are very much a part of the ruling elite. It is in their interest to keep us ignorant and distracted.
One day we shall awaken…
This post currently has
no screeches.
Filed Under : 9/11, America, conspiracy, crime, death, evil, false flag, fascism, lying, MSM, murder, oligarchy, Shadow Government, terror, TV, UK, videos by vemrion Mar.2,2007The BBC has been in the middle of a blogger firestorm the last couple days after clear and incontrovertible evidence appeared, showing that the Beeb had reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building — better known as World Trade Center 7 — before it actually collapsed! Check out the screen grab below (I’ve circled WTC7):
The BBC engaged in some quick (and pathetic) damage control but failed to calm the boiling outrage erupting around the world. In so doing they revealed that they’ve lost all of their tapes from 9/11 and doefully ask somebody to send them a copy, plz. (I’m not fucking kidding. Check the link):
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it.
I don’t even know where to begin.
Okay, Beeb… so you’re telling me that nobody fucking bothered to save or secure any of the tapes from an entire day of broadcasting — a day that, even for the Brits, would have to rank as one of the most important in a generation at least, and then you meekly ask for a copy as if it’s our job?! What the hell?! Then you claim incompetence (just like the Bush regime)?! Well, your excuse is so fucking pathetic I’m inclined to agree that you are a bunch of morons.
Do you believe them? I don’t. This is bullshit. I’m starting to think that the BBC, and all the other major news organs, are in fact part of the conspiracy — after the fact.
So how did the Beeb get the news that the WTC7 building was about to collapse? Well, that certainly could be fairly innocent on their part. If a “trusted source” informed them of the collapse, they would be inclined to report it, and not bothering to check and see that the building is still standing does reek of incompetence. However, they seem quite competent at getting videos removed from YouTube and GoogleVideo. Strange for a news organization that was supposedly trying to get their tapes back.
I managed to find a clip on YouTube that hasn’t been taken down yet. It’s got a full 25 minutes of the BBC’s feed from 9/11, so you’ll have to fast forward ahead to the 15 minute mark to see the footage in question.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0]
What are we to make of all this? Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. The corporate-controlled media is lying to us. Every day, with every breath, and every death in Iraq or from the growing numbers of dead or dying first responders… they’re lying to us. They know which way the evidence points, and they’re doing everything they can to cover it up. After the BBC’s litany of pathetic excuses they had the gall to mock those of us who question the official story:
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “
So they’re not only mocking those of us genuinely concerned about the events of 9/11 (if we don’t learn what really happened, how can we prevent another one?), they’ve sunken so low they’re using a Bush regime apologist’s anonymous comments on YouTube to make their case. FUCKING PATHETIC.
What’s even more intriguing is how the BBC flak, Richard Porter, seems more interested in carrying water for the Bush regime than he does in showing his news organization as a competent and trustworthy news source. In fact, he goes out of his way to make the BBC appear utterly incompetent — no doubt because it helps the Bush regime with their own claims of incompetence rather than malfeasance. Instead of acknowledging legitimate questions about that fateful day he does all he can to back up the official story (which, by the way, is a conspiracy theory no matter how you slice it). I say again: FUCKING PATHETIC.
That’s it. You’re done, Beeb. I had you in my bookmarks, but you’re gone now. You’re fucking gone. You are nothing more than an agent of evil to me now. I will give you the same amount of trust I give the Bush regime — less than zero.
I’m calling for a BOYCOTT, folks. We can’t let our media LIE to us and get away with it. Going back to them and reading their deception-stained news would be like an abused wife going back to her drunked and violent husband. Enough!
What’s the number one thing a news organization is supposed to do? Tell the truth, right? When a news outlet refuses to do that, what good are they? They’re about as useful as a knife in the eye. They’re about as helpful as gonorrhea.
I’m calling for a boycott until such time as the BBC fires that arrogant, pandering fuckhead, Richard Porter, head editor of world news… AND launches a full and impartial investigation into the tragic events of 9/11 — giving all theories equal credence until the evidence makes clear which is most likely. And not a trashy hit-piece like that Conspiracy Files piece of shit (which was debunked about 5 minutes after it aired).
It really pains me to do this. The BBC has a lot of quality programming and some of their shows have really hit hard and exposed lies and crimes in government. However, they are tainted meat to me now. I can’t eat the rest of it just because it looks okay — how do I really know? Trust is such a fragile thing, and getting it back after losing it is not easy. Good luck, BBC. I hope you do the right thing.
This post currently has
4 screeches.
Filed Under : conspiracy, global warming, oligarchy, paranormal, Shadow Government, terror, UFO by vemrion Mar.1,2007
A retired Canadian official has called for the use of alien technology to solve the looming global warming crisis. The AFP, via Yahoo, is carrying a short story on his recommendations.
A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.”I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation … that could be a way to save our planet,” Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.
Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.
You know, at first glance, this guy probably appears to be completely batshit crazy. But I think people who think we’re alone in this universe are the fucking crazy ones. I mean, buy a telescope and you can see thousands of stars in our neighborhood alone. If you start considering that there are billions of stars in a given galaxy and billions of galaxies…. the chances of us being alone are effectively nil.
It’s an open question as to whether they have travelled here, but this guy seems to think they have. They mention he saw a UFO once. Of course, the “U” in UFO stands for “unidentified”, but I think it’s pretty clear that our government is aware of the truth behind the UFO phenomenon. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that our government has a treaty or some sort of understanding with these aliens.
All you have to do is look at the government’s behavior when confronted with UFO evidence and people demanding disclosure. The government routinely tells people to shut up and stop being silly. But isn’t that an incredibly irresponsible tactic in an age of terrorism and (previously) a nefarious communist threat? I mean, those UFOs could’ve been Russians, but our government seemed unconcerned. Why is this? Because they have a bit more information on the matter. Otherwise they’d be playing up the threat, like they usually do for terrorism (real or imagined). Yet, when Chicago’s O’Hare airport was visited recently the reaction from Washington was…. nothing. Strange, unidentified, crafts hovering above a major airport full of thousands of people apparently doesn’t worry them. And these are the people protecting us from external threats??!!
As a general rule I don’t believe anything the government says, or people who used to be in the government. So why should we believe this guy, Paul Hellyer? Well, we shouldn’t. As Jeff Wells makes clear, trusting “former” government officials is folly. Many of them are still connected to the military-industrial complex they formerly served, and their motives should always be suspect. When a major figure offers to lend his prestige to a long-derided group like UFO investigators, it’s best to approach with caution, or even outright cynicism.
However, just because we’ve been burned before doesn’t mean I’m not gonna keep my eyes on the skies.
This post currently has
no screeches.
Posting tweet...
Tags : 
