This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is the End Game of Wikileaks Internet Censorship?
- Afghanistan
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Barack Obama
- Bear Stearns
- CDS
- Department of Justice
- Fail
- Federal Reserve
- goldman sachs
- Goldman Sachs
- Great Depression
- Iran
- Iraq
- Israel
- Main Street
- Merrill
- Merrill Lynch
- Money Supply
- New York Times
- Newspaper
- North Korea
- SmartKnowledgeU
- Transparency
- Washington Mutual
- World Bank
F. William Engdahl’s first book, A
Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, discussed
the roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979
overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the
Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis to accomplish US policy
goals in Iran. Not coincidentally, Brzezinski was a key figure in US
President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and played a key role in helping
former US President Jimmy Carter get elected. In 2007, he released a book that exposed the massive dangers of GMO
foods called, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO.
One of F. William Engdahl’s latest
articles is titled “Wikileaks, a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job”. In this
article, Engdahl implies that Wikileaks is
a US government-run propaganda and disinformation operation with an end goal of restricting
freedoms on the internet. Here are some of the key excerpts from this article.
"A closer look at the details of what has
so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international
media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally
serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to
North Korea.
It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army
soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence
analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer
geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true.
A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning,
a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the
military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information
at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
"Manning
then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to
get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the
Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the
documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the
public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington,
DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning
is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask
him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design
their security systems.
[Assange]
selects
as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda
against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to
the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should
be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.
The New York Times even assigned one of its
top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material.
Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign
Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy
Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary
William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy
Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among
others. Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be
anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government
version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a
normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.
Most important, the 250,000
cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and
three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of
"secret" document, [1] and some
500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not
recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages
of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret.
Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest
were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.
What
is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks
fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a
long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet.
Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks
server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken."
"The process
of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to
disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would
allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to
’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the
threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation
will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in
January.
US Department of Homeland Security, an agency
created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to
the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing
and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a
proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an
ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example
at http://torrent-finder.com (My note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"
On the
political front, I agree with Engdahl’s assessment of Assange’s leaked
government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the occasional embarrassing
quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely damaging to any US allies
revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret government cables.
And regarding Assange’s threat of leaking thousands of confidential documents
contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big US bank believed to be Bank of
America as an “anti-establishment” act, I’m not buying it. According to a Forbes
interview, Assange stated that his leak would “give a true and representative
insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will
stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.” I say, so what if this big leak
Assange is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals
documents that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays
out, this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than anti-establishment. The
demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan, as they have already done with
Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would have yet another opportunity to stamp
out their competition, swoop in like vultures, and pick up BofA’s carcass for
pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to
pick clean. Either way, if this
happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and could not have worked
out any better if Assange was a paid employee of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember
that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate
into a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
In
the book, “The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:
“In
1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker, published a rumor that a
competing unnamed large bank was about to fail. It was a false charge but
customers nonetheless raced to their banks to withdraw their money, in case it
was their bank. As they pulled out their funds, the banks lost their cash
deposits and were forced to call in their loans. People therefore had to pay
back their mortgages to fill the banks with income, going bankrupt in the
process. The 1907 panic resulted in a crash that prompted the creation of the
Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel with the veneer of an independent
government organization. Effectively, it was a coup by elite bankers in order
to control the industry."
"When
signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve would loan and supply the nation’s
money, but with interest. The more money it was able to print, the more
"income" it generated for itself. By its very nature, the Federal
Reserve would forever keep producing debt to stay alive. It was able to print
America’s monetary supply at will, regulating its value. To control valuation,
however, inflation had to be kept in check.
The
Federal Reserve then doubled America’s money supply within five years, and in
1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans. Over five thousand banks
collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal Reserve again increased the
money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it again called the loans back in, en
masse. This time, the crash of 1929 caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail
and an 89 percent plunge on the stock market. The private and well-protected
banks within the Federal Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks
at pennies on the dollar."
If this
sounds familiar, it should. This
seems to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for today’s banking industry as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression,
JP Morgan was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many
historians claimed they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of
1907 and the Great Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer
the Great Depression). If the future scenario
regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored private banks
of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.
Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them, the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase transparency. Now, if Mr.
Assange releases cables that expose detailed correspondences between the US
Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding silver price suppression schemes or how
Goldman Sachs deliberately releases misinformation about gold prices, or if he
releases diplomatic cables exposing secrets between the US and Israel that have
been concealed from the public, I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide greater transparency
about government and banker actions. One thing I have learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not, and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.
About the author: SmartKnowledgeU is a fiercely independent investment research & consulting firm dedicated to helping Main Street avoid the fraud of Wall Street.
»
- advertisements -
" ...even if the "9-11 Conspiracy" story is utterly correct. It's toxic and unnecessarily divisive. Is there not enough undisputed knowledge about our government's actions to demonstrate a murderously psychopathic bunch without resort to 9-11?"
<emphasis mine>
There ya go. Perfect summary.
Kinda like all this talk about how wikileaks has yet to release anything damning about Israeli foreign/domestic policy: We already know lots; seriously, how much more do you need to see?
IE Even if the writer of this article is correct and wikileaks is really just a plot to hand over another big bank to JPM and shut down the internet, it shouldn't matter as there's plenty of actionable shit on public record already (JPM is 'answering' to some now).
Regards
Fair enough. I do know that the MSM "News" operates only on "new" information. New releases of sexy insider communications provides new opportunity for the rudderless media to revive what should indeed be a steady story on the sociopathic corruption of governments, particularly ours.
I, of course, don't know if Assange is either an intentional agent of disinformation or a pawn being played by TPTB. Nor if the simplest explanation is the correct one. But he does seem to be serving a useful purpose. How that apparent threat to TPTB will be answered remains to be seen. It might be a turning point for the better for humanity. It might be just more of the same. We'll see.
If he was a real threat he wouldn't have been released.
Notice his first press conference after being released he said government, especially US govt was not really after him. He is focusing on banks. Something just doesn't seem right with that response.
Right Bob, few people do know the motives/connections of Assange and wikileaks.
But even so, your point that there already exists plenty of damning information about our plutocrats stands on its own merits.
The hour is getting late...
This is exactly what I mean when I say it's more important to listen to what's not being said as well as what is being said. Regardless of a person's view of what really happened on 9/11, one thing is certain. The government conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory of the most egregious variety, failing to meet even the most elemental threads of consistency and confirmation.
To accept the government conspiracy theory lock, stock and barrel and in it's entirety, as Wikileaks does, flies in the face of common sense and a simple, even casual, perusal of the available evidence. I'm constantly amazed how many people swear to God that the government lies to them yet they accept for the most part the 9/11 official theory.
These are blatant and obviously contrary ideas. Can you say Cognitive Dissonance?
I've always found it funny when watching interviews with someone that questions "official" government statements or positions.. The person defending the government (or representing) always gives a chuck or a laugh to set a tone.. This is a such a red flag to me. The moment someone turns the discussion to laughter then they have no intention of using critical thinking.
For those of you that have swallowed the NatGeo investigation of 9/11, considering the segment where they claimed thermite cannot burn through steel, I would invite to watch this engineer's tests on the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
I knew when I was watching the NatGeo show it was biased and designed to collect anyone on the fence.. I also saw how the rigged the tests to get desired results.. Yes, I am an engineer and one that works a lot with structural steel. The government IS lying...
While talking about critical thinking: ever heard about Occam's razor?
You know I have my doubts about 9/11, and I thought on that day it might be another "Reichtagsbrand" (google it if you don't know that term).
But you don't need to start pulling rabbits out a hat -in this case Thermite- to stitch together a working conspiracy theory... that can be done a LOT easier.
Retired firefighter here. Yes they are lying about damn near everything that happened on 9/11 but I'm tired of arguing about it.
Speaking of 9/11 has anyone read these two reports? I find the gold/financial angle very interesting.
Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11 2001
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9442970/Collateral-Damage-US-Covert-Operations-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-on-September-11-200128062008
Collateral Damage(Part 2) The Subprime Crisis and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11 2001
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9421535/Collateral-Damage-Part-2-The-Subprime-Crisis-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-on-September-11-200126122008
Arguing won't change closed minds. Sadly when we come across a closed mind we feel it necessary to open it. This is a fools errand. Only the closed mind can open itself.
Re-energize yourself and then set off working on the fence sitters and silent majority who are afraid to speak out because they feel they're outnumbered. They are not. This is part of the illusion. The person with the bullhorn doesn't speak for all and rarely even for the majority.
Stop trying to move the immovable and work on those who wish to be moved but are afraid to start the process.
This is good advice and perfect for me ears today. Thank you.
It took me many years and much emotional pain to learn this. And I still go back for a refresher course every now and then by trying to "get" someone to see what they wish to ignore. Luckily each time I hop back on the merry-go-round I (re)learn a bit quicker.
I return again and again because I long for affirmation in my relative isolation. And the most glorious affirmation and ego boast comes from turning a non believer into a believer, isn't it? Even when we claim not to be interested in joining the herd, in reality what we want is to create our own contrary herd. :>)
Interesting comment CD...
One might say that your longing for positive affirmation is an attempt to assuage the congnitive dissonance you experience as a result of attempting to think critically in a world that socially favors the mindless drone.
When one feels themselves sufficiently outside the herd, it often gives rise to the need to cultivate one's own, which of course invites the question of underlying motivation and its effect on reason. At the very core lies the rather thorny question of whether truth ultimately trump happiness, or are we all subject to the same uncertainty principle; meaning the harder we look, the further away we become. Is the best we can hope for to find a relatively stable balance, or is the "true path" to enlightenment simply to let go and thereby become part of the truth which we so desperately seek?
Seems at least that you know yourself well, which is no small feat in and of itself. Kudos.
-RR
good point...
Well said
Ditto that, and in the bid to move those who wish to be moved I would like to share these two links, the greatest source of evidence comes from the most respected professionals, architects, engineers and commercial airline pilots.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
+911..
And remember, this is the "holy grail" of lies that the government MUST protect. For if the people think that a government can cover-up something like this and use it to further domestic and foreign agendas, the fall would be swift and bloody..
The attacks on 9/11 are the trunk of the tree holding ALL the branches.. That alone should bring it into question and intense investigation.
Propaganda is the art of laying out information (sometimes fictional but always with truth mixed in to provide credibility) or even just ideas or concepts in such a way that the listener willingly processes it into something they can claim as their own. After all, while I can trust no one else, I can always trust myself because I know the source of my thinking. So if my thinking process is infiltrated, I can be corrupted without any self awareness.
If I'm predisposed to believe that the government cannot be trusted then I will be very receptive to a third party offering me information that confirms my existing belief. Wikileaks provides the government disbelievers something they can grab onto without applying critical thinking. If it passes the initial smell test, a very low standard, it gains entry straight to the center of the brain where it's welcomed as "truth" with open arms.
The thing is that it doesn't matter if Wikileaks is or isn't just another black ops project. What matters is what the people wish to believe. And it appears people desperately wish to believe that the good times are not over and that the present economic difficulties are a large bump in the road that will soon be viewed in the rear view mirror. Considering this predisposistion the American people are ripe for skillful manipulation.
I often say that one should closely examine what's not being said much more carefully than what is being said. This of course requires critical thinking and the capacity and desire for independent thinking. Both these skills are seriously lacking in today's world. We've all been trained to be wonderful linear thinkers. Lay out a path of oats to the feed trough and I'll soon show up for dinner. But since I found my own way, it was me who made the discovery. Depending on how hungry I am, this process can happen very quickly.
We can point out all the lies we want. Unless people are willing to examine those lies, we can talk until we are blue in the face. It seems inevitable that as economic conditions worsen, people are going to become critical of the government and more receptive to naysayers. Doesn't it make sense that the government would eventually co-opt the "truth" movement(s) to control and direct the process?
What's that old saying? Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer? Considering the massive and ongoing government and private disinformation campaigns, doesn't it make sense to carefully examine everything you're being told, particularly if it confirms a belief you want confirmed? We are all in need of confirmation and affirmation. It's a part of human nature. Don't let others use your emotional needs as a weapon against you. Think critically......starting with yourself.
I want to let you know I junked you. Not because I disagree with your post, but because you've wasted it on this blathering brain-salad article.
Anyone who buys into this Engdahl bulltwacky is seriously mentally hamstrung.
This is just a murky and subtle "blame the victim" -- any and all fascist and totalitarian responses to Wikileaked documents (many of which have been completely and legally damaging to date) is the fault of those valiant ones working for freedom and liberty, not the fault of those fascist thugs (and yes, Obama, Biden and Holder are definitely in that category, regardless of those who still believe in them and the Tooth Fairy) responsible for further fascistic behavior.
This blog post is simply stretching credulity to the max.
Nothing more need be said....
Constructive post CD, but ultimately less effective, imo, than South Park's episode on the 9/11 "conspiracy."
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/11/video-south-park-spoofs-truther-morons/
As a point of "critical" thinking, you might attempt to whittle down your often salient thoughts to their core essences. While the you draw an interesting contrast between linearity and criticality, one is not necessarily the antithesis of the other, and what can be said in fewer words, often should be.
Best,
RR
I appreciate the feedback.
I write what I think. I'm a story teller, not a writer or analyst who's trying to deliver just the facts in their most condensed and readable form. I often include anecdotes or personal experiences to humanize what I'm saying and to convey the point using a different form. Some people hate my style, some people love it, some could give a shit one way or another.
I find those who like my writing are those who are seeing something for the first time even though they might have read it a dozen times before. This has happened to me on countless occasions. I find those who dislike my style already have a grasp of these concepts. I'm not writing for them. I'm writing for those who don't.
Wikileaks is doing the Washington Post's and the SEC's job at the same time?
One of the excellent comments that I read recently.
You are so right.
Thank you for your contribution on the matter. I agree with everything you said....wait...no I don't!!
Critical thinking is one of the most under developed skill sets we have as a society. I took a critical thinking class in college and I can say it was one of the best classes I ever took in terms of preparation for living in the real world. Although, looking back, maybe if I had majored in dance, I could be on TV by now. Anyway, I still have the book we used for the CT class, it was called "with good reason." Here it is on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Reason-Introduction-Informal-Fallacies/dp/031...
My copy, probably one of the first edition runs, has a blue cover with a pig lying sick in bed. I go back to it every once in a while to refresh myself on fallacies that we run into every day. It's amazing how frequently it goes on. The reality is, however, upward of 95% of decisions made are based on emotion, not logic, so I can see why society functions as it does and how it can be readily controlled.
To end on a good note... Merry Christmas everyone!
" upward of 95% of decisions made are based on emotion"
In the first class session of my econ 101 class, the instructor told us that one of the basic assumptions made in economics is that people act rationally. This seemed wrong to me from the get-go. I realize now it is a completely false statement.
Contrarian indicator of a great book? Amazon with little to no "Great" book. I.e 200+ reviews of glow.
Exactly. This is why propaganda (and as someone noted below, salesmanship) is designed to circumvent critical thinking and go to work directly on the emotional centers of the brain. Billions of dollars have been spent over the past 60 plus year researching exactly how to do this and the techniques that have been developed are extremely effective.
To illustrate the most egregious example, anyone who sits down in front of the boob tube these days without their critical thinking skills fully engaged (a near impossibility which is why I rarely watch TV) are being manipulated with the same ease as someone who finds a computer connected to the Internet without an active firewall engaged. With the computer we can wipe the hard drive and start again. It's not as easy with humans.
just a nibbler : is more logic the answer to this conundrum? or is it that logic and emotion have been inverted, whereas we've all been trained to use emotion when logic is warranted and vice versa?
No, more logic is not the answer. And I think you're spot on about the inversion of the tools that need to be used when and where. This is all part of our programming and conditioning. Narrow the mind, narrow the thought process (i.e. your tool inversion) narrow the outcome.
Have to disagree CG. More reasoning is the answer. We fail to apply logic and reasoning in a disciplined manner. We accept assumptions and emotional pleas because they make a certain kind of sense. They appeal to the more hopeful part of us.
We fail to ask the important questions concerning unintended consequences or the opportunities foregone. These require reasoning and logic. We have to be able to set aside the emotional hook and question the foundation of an argument.
I do not use logic and reasoning interchangeably. I find them very different. The person asked me about logic. You said reasoning. Two different discussions in my book.
The original comment refers to the relationship between logic and emotion. That is my reference as well. While logic may be a system and reasoning is the action within the system, for this discussion, I would suggest they can be used interchangeably.
I'm not arguing, just clarifying. I was answering the first question asked.
And I don't see reasoning as action within the system. From my perspective logic is tightly contained by the system presenting the boundaries of logic while reasoning is a very loose construct that is subjective in nature and can cross logic barriers.
But this is why dictionaries have several definitions under each word. We are in basic agreement. It's difficult having these discussions when basic word meanings have not been established in advance.
It is difficult indeed. However, I can never see logic constrained within a system. As logic requires the freedom to follow it's process, any restraint would nullify it's purpose. It would cease to be a power for the exploration of an idea in a disciplined manner.
Purposeful thought requires SOME discipline, otherwise conclusions are reached on invalid assumptions.
It is another discussion. Thanks for your response.
This is similar to chaos theory. Since a small change in initial conditions can cause wild variations over a long timeline, if you control the initial conditions and narrow their range, your variances will be less (as you said).
As to controlling the initial conditions and narrowing their range, well that's state-funded compulsory education.
The seed parameters of the generating equation control the entire fractal display. Mentioning this allegorically. The Mandelbrot set (the familiar one) repeats itself as a result of the controlling equation (2nd order) and seed parameters.
You can make other 'fractals' by changing the equations. Sixth order makes beatiful pictures. The social engineers have the fractal ordering of society through a variety of instruments. But it is possible to select parameters that do not sustain.
Ever watched Ghost in the Shell? =)
Someone asked me this a few months ago and I have been working my way through the series/sequels etc. I love them. They make me think and disturb me at times. Exactly what the doctor ordered.
The man who created that series, Masamune Shirow, is a prescient genius. It's chilling to see the national security meme taken to absurdity. Talk about your brave new world...
That series is fantastic!
Your reference to Brave New World reminded me of the article on ZH recently comparing our current society to Fahrenheit 411 by Bradbury. I've thought a lot about that piece since it came out. It's so scary to see how close we are to living in real life what was written as a negative utopia. :(
Your reference to Brave New World reminded me of the article on ZH recently comparing our current society to Fahrenheit 411 by Bradbury. I've thought a lot about that piece since it came out. It's so scary to see how close we are to living in real life what was written as a negative utopia. :(
Check out Akira too.
I just placed it at the top of the cue. Thanks. :>)
The language of the conscience mind are words. The language of the subconscience mind are images.
As you read down the comments, notice that very few people question what is happening here and that there are no trolls popping up.
This is an interesting piece, but one we have already written in our own minds and had some resolution about, IMHO. Good for us. However, how about the rest of the population? Anyone who checks out the closed site referenced above is greeted with a huge display of authority and zero information.
This is the business of tyranny. There is a process and it is identifiable. When the Elites decide they no longer have to sneak around in order to do their dirty work- it is time to worry. JPM in 1907 had to be secretive. FDR in 1932, had to be subversive. Today, it is done in the light of day (eg 9/11) and lied about to a compliant public and accepted.
I can remember my initial reaction to 9/11 as clearly as if it was yesterday. It was not patient or forgiving. When I began to realize who really did it (or allowed it to progress, take your pick), I also realized that the wrong people were accused and punished and that the real perpetrators had gotten off scott free.
America is no different from Germany in 1939. Ironically, the same Elites are in charge now, that were in charge then. The same goose-stepping, brown shirt security forces, the same encouragement to "turn people in", the same restrictions on liberty.
Surely you jest...their shirts are blue!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://linnnk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tsa-pedobear.png&imgrefurl=http://linnnk.com/tsa-pedobear&usg=__jLnXLcH7GnryxNnult8K1zicRuE=&h=667&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=2vek1Qpm4buU_M:&tbnh=138&tbnw=103&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtsa%2Bpedobear%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1
Holy shit! That's it! That's how they've been smuggling this into our subconsciousness. And I really did think that Stephen Colbert was just trying to be funny!
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210979/december-01-2008/exclusive---godless-killing-machines-mash-up
"I can always trust myself because I know the source of my thinking." You might very well be the rare individual who understands your motives, putting you in the same class as Krisha, Allah, Buddha, Jesus...
Most people do not understand their motives, which is why they tend to go along with the masses...