Who Owns Alternative Media?

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby simonshack on December 11th, 2011, 7:35 pm

CryptoAnarchist wrote:I already answered this - is this some kind of litmus test? The only thing making me wonder if I'm getting duped is how persistent you have been in asking. That's not how you weed out an infiltrator, that's how you check if someone is brainwashed.


Crypto,

In the short while you've been here you have managed to act snotty with three forum administrators - including yours truly. What's the deal with that? And no, it is no 'litmus test' to ask your take on the vicsims - just a quite simple question which you appeared to be dodging - that is why it was submitted to you more than once.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 11th, 2011, 8:37 pm

simonshack wrote:
Crypto,

In the short while you've been here you have managed to act snotty with three forum administrators - including yours truly. What's the deal with that? And no, it is no 'litmus test' to ask your take on the vicsims - just a quite simple question which you appeared to be dodging - that is why it was submitted to you more than once.

Really Simon?

From http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fa ... umentation


#15. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

here's a less churchy reference: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

How am I being "snotty" if I think that repeatedly asking a question like its an interrogation is suspicious? I have my own questions.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby simonshack on December 11th, 2011, 9:30 pm

CryptoAnarchist wrote:

Really Simon?

From http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fa ... umentation


#15. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

here's a less churchy reference: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

How am I being "snotty" if I think that repeatedly asking a question like its an interrogation is suspicious? I have my own questions.


I can hardly imagine anything snottier than trying to lecture us about "fallacious argumentations", Crypto darling.

But I guess you'll say that me calling you "Crypto darling" beats that ! :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 11th, 2011, 9:56 pm

simonshack wrote:
CryptoAnarchist wrote:

Really Simon?

From http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fa ... umentation


#15. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

here's a less churchy reference: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

How am I being "snotty" if I think that repeatedly asking a question like its an interrogation is suspicious? I have my own questions.


I can hardly imagine anything snottier than trying to lecture us about "fallacious argumentations", Crypto darling.

But I guess you'll say that me calling you "Crypto darling" beats that ! :P


yep, it does. I guess that's why they say opinions are like...oh..nevermind...
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby grav on December 11th, 2011, 10:40 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Anyway, this is a start. I might try to trace Alex Jones, too - I heard something about big media funding for him but that is a serious accusation so I will not assume it's true just yet.


Alex Jones Show is broadcast over (GCN)Genesis Communications Network, which is supposedly affiliated with ABC(Disney)

http://www.wingtv.net/gcnabc.html

There's a bunch more info at this link about alternative media working with mainstream media. Not sure what is true or not, (though I don't need any proof to know by simple logic that almost any popular alternative media is controlled)

But it would be nice to get the specific affiliations confirmed...
grav
Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: March 31st, 2011, 3:46 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby HonestlyNow on December 11th, 2011, 11:00 pm

Dear CA,
I've been out of paying attention to the political scene since about ten or twelve years ago. The YouTube i.d. you provided here is actually an example of the topics that my favorite (and controversial) local radio talk show host would discuss. (His show was taken off the air approximately December 1999.)

But they've also had people that I thought could be trusted on there like Stefan Molyneux and ....ok, just Molyneux..

The aforementioned 'Moby' on RT:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jil6IR1ECFU[/youtube]


But that's not an RT piece, did you mean to link to a different video? . . . and who is 'Moby' -- is that Molyneux?

Please advise. Thanks.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 374
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 12th, 2011, 5:27 am

HonestlyNow wrote:Dear CA,
I've been out of paying attention to the political scene since about ten or twelve years ago. The YouTube i.d. you provided here is actually an example of the topics that my favorite (and controversial) local radio talk show host would discuss. (His show was taken off the air approximately December 1999.)

But they've also had people that I thought could be trusted on there like Stefan Molyneux and ....ok, just Molyneux..

The aforementioned 'Moby' on RT:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jil6IR1ECFU[/youtube]


But that's not an RT piece, did you mean to link to a different video? . . . and who is 'Moby' -- is that Molyneux?

Please advise. Thanks.


It was an RT piece. Adam Kokesh did that interview when he was on Russia Today. He just edited out the logo now that he no longer is a part of them.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby hoi.polloi on December 12th, 2011, 10:08 pm

Crypto, you can embed youtube videos by just putting the video code, leaving out the rest of the address. Example:
jil6IR1ECFU

In response to the question of whether any of these media folks can be trusted, I would assume even the YouTube hit people can be corrupted with power - especially since we are all encouraged in America to become "celebrities" and none of us are trained to avoid corruption once we actually reach any sort of real "celebrity" status. Even on this forum, you'll find that we can barely warn each other about untrustworthy types if just one person trusts a new creep.

Only people with their wits about them at all times could resist, and even then they could get fooled by a new trick or overlook a true friend. I still admit that trusting Simon and nonhocapito might be a mistake, but at least I don't ask anyone to trust me or them. I primarily ask people to just look stuff up for themselves and follow the routes without taking lazy mental shortcuts. You'll find that even if you don't trust any of us, what we are claiming about 9/11 is true. It's a big psy-op - a big hoax - and it's probably expensive to keep running.

However, the more you entertain people with things like The Daily Show or Prison Planet or Coast to Coast AM that offer aspects of the truth that never touch on the widescale phenomenon of human deception and self-deception inherent to those highly produced, money-churning, power-enforcing outfits ... the more you pretty much reinstate any of the problems brought up. These "alternative" media things are just too big and important to people for the-powers-that-be to just let them run away with people's inspiration and dreams. It's why the rock industry is also so penetrated and coerced by these people obsessed with power.

I don't even want to touch this site if it ever becomes popular, because it's just going to become the same thing.

Sorry if that sounds paranoid, but many things in this world will tell you there are people who deliberately focus on risk and wanting to overcome dangerous or awkward situations, and some of those people might inevitably get hired/controlled by those who don't want to do that themselves and can offer a handsome reward to those who do. Spies are probably hired to do that all the time, if you believe any of the numerous horrible, cliche, over-acted, cheesy movies about it that makes the concept seem ridiculous and cartoonish.

So this question of "who owns the alternative media" is actually pretty brazen. It conflicts directly with the official narrative that, "Yes, there is propaganda and yes, there are spies and yes, there are deeply secret military operations -- but we'd make a television show about it if it were really real. Spies are just people with guns who shoot secretly. They're not actors, teachers, every-day sorts of folks."

It asks what the real purpose of many conspiracy theories actually are and why they exist. It asks why Simon is continually painted as a "conspiracy theorist" when in fact he hasn't even come up with a conspiracy for people to latch onto and run with. In fact, we've resisted coming up with an alternative explanation for the official story - despite some speculation here and there out of our innate curiosity - because any alternative explanation, no matter how solid, would be very similar to the story the perps have propped up to lie about the unalterable truth. We can't afford to bet on a slight possibility of what happened. We focus on the most "likely" of explanations when confronted with different probabilities for a phenomenon.

E.g.; which is a more likely explanation for all the 9/11 video being fake: it was planned and known within the USA media long beforehand, or it was spontaneously replaced with fake footage the exact moment a real, identical, terrorist strike occurred?

It is highly erroneous to say the first explanation is "impossible" if you believe the second explanation. In fact, most people would say you are going out on a far limb - a twiggy leaf at the end of a limb - if you really believe the American media so whole-heartedly.

The truth is that something happened, and we don't know what. We never will know. The only time truth succeeds is when people agree to tell it. As soon as the agreement is broken, truth breaks down and cannot be recovered until the agreement is remade. Right now, America - and much of the world - is lying to itself, seducing itself into this "terrorists must be blown up and tortured and destroyed like animals" story. It's not only a pathetic explanation for government misbehavior - it's a terrible excuse to give up your own rights in this country under the assumption that we are all potential terrorists that must be destroyed!

Very few people, on this forum included, seem to have come to the conclusion that conspiracy shows and movies are created by the conspirators themselves ... and they will always be the first to create the conspiracy movies, even before a lie is suspected. Isn't that what a liar would do? They would create the "conspiracy discovered" show themselves so that they can scramble in front of the girl crying the emperor has no clothes and say: "Why of course! You're right. You caught us. However, here is some examination of why I lied ..." and just whip up some other smooth-talking excuse.

O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ...
- Sir Walter Scott, someone who definitely had some (inside) knowledge of the Templar's passion for power

It would be lovely to trust a loudmouth with a camera and slick production values, but the lie about how we live is so enormous and regenerated by so much ignorance about the Earth, it seems foolish to get totally 100% invested in any electronic show at all - be it a movie, a TV show, a YouTube channel or a forum like this one.

You don't even need to cry out "this conspiracy show seems legit" or "this conspiracy show is bogus" because the assumption that we will ever find a valid and truthful, incorruptible conspiracy show is a very unlikely possibility.

The best we can hope for is a forum like this that pries open all the official stories and lets the public details hang out to dry, so that individuals with scrutiny are given time and space to think - instead of being coerced into a position they don't believe in.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby fbenario on December 13th, 2011, 2:14 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The best we can hope for is a forum like this that pries open all the official stories and lets the public details hang out to dry, so that individuals with scrutiny are given time and space to think - instead of being coerced into a position they don't believe in.

Hoi, your entire post is excellent, excellent, excellent.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby Farcevalue on December 13th, 2011, 5:53 am

There is a book by Neil Postman entitled "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (well worth the read, or listen, I finished the audio book recently) that elaborates on Marshal McLuhans Quote: "The medium is the message". It talks about how television has overtaken typography as a method of discourse. The 16 second magic sequence was delivered through a sort of hypnosis, the very notion of airliners disappearing into buildings is ludicrous, but we bought it (well I did, to my chagrin). Now when I see it I feel like kicking myself for falling for something so cheesy, but at least it won't happen again.

I did a search recently for 9/11 in school history text books and the "official" story is becoming calcified year by year. It's strangely, morbidly fascinating, watching a myth of this magnitude be codified into a "fact" of history. Maybe it's not a question of who owns the media, but how the media itself drives the discourse. Once the studio lights are blazing and the pinstripes are in front of the prompter, it's hard to break the spell. Simon's admonition to turn it off carries more power than we can imagine.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby abirato on August 20th, 2012, 6:27 pm

fbenario wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:The best we can hope for is a forum like this that pries open all the official stories and lets the public details hang out to dry, so that individuals with scrutiny are given time and space to think - instead of being coerced into a position they don't believe in.

Hoi, your entire post is excellent, excellent, excellent.


I second that. Excellent post.
abirato
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: August 10th, 2012, 1:49 am

Previous

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest