This is actually really ironic, because 95% of your posts involve firing so many points at people in a short time that it becomes difficult to pick them apart.
I post evidence...that is different from throwing a whole load of ad hominum accusations or other comments designed to discredit the poster rather than deal with what they are saying
The reason that not every story deals with big important issues is because if they did, people would get so depressed and so anxious that life wouldn't be worth living.
No the reason the big issues aren't dealt with is to maintain an 'information assymetry' between the workers and the ruling class. the ruling class largely control the corporate media and as a result they don't want to inform the workers of what is really going on because if they did the workers wouldn't get depressed they would get angry and would be more proactive in trying to improve the system
If there was someone like Alex Jones around during the cold war, people probably would have been hibernating in bunkers 365 days a year, not going to work or even going outside because the missiles would always be on their way, and we would all be constantly surrounded by communist spies.
It was the military industrial complex that manufactured the 'red scare' please see hollywood films of the era and also the 5 minute warning exercise where my parents generation had to duck under their school tables as a practise for the big event.
The military industrial complex used the work of the mathmatician John nash. He came up with an incredibly paranoid thing called game theory which theoretically portrayed human nature in a very cynical light. However when he tried game theory out on the secretarys in his building to find if they would turn against each other they DIDN'T. this is because game theory does not mirror human nature. It was the brain child of someone who was very imbalanced at the time he created it. He has since publically admitted it is a flawed theory
The military jumped on it however because as marine general smedley butler said 'war is a racket' and they stood to make lots of money by making weapons
This is because the US structured itself into a war economy during world war two. They turned the incredible resources of north america not towards making the most incredible society in the world that would be a beacon of liberty, health and happiness for all but rather into a war machine.....an insatiable war machine that needs to be fed the lives of humans to stay alive. The paranoia stirred up in the cold war provided the perfect opportunity to keep manufacturing weaponry and for the corporations to make lots of profits
BBC journalist Adam Curtis made a good documentary called 'the trap' about game theory and how it not only shaped cold war strategy but also how it seeped into politics and affected the thinking of people like thatcher and reagan
If you're interested you can watch it here:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-trap/
So if Alex Jones was alive at that time he would probably be telling people that the government was deliberately stirring up trouble with the russians and that people should be buidling bridges between the us and russia....but that is speculation!
I think there is an urgency to what he is saying at the moment because he is right in the eye of the storm....it must all be looking pretty intense from where he's standing...its looking crazy enough from where i'm standing! But he gets fed info from a network of people and also from random individuals and whistleblowers so he has probably seen some pretty mind blowing stuff
There are a lot of whistleblowers being interviewed in the alternative media. There are ex NSA, ex military, ex CIA, ex government etc all speaking out.......there is widespread dissent against the direction the central controllers are taking us
It's a good thing to be informed but a lot of the alternative media isn't interested in objectivity in the slightest and is more interested in putting people on edge and stoking their emotions.
Sure let the buyer beware as the saying goes...
But if you look at the mainstream news it is all sensationalism and emotion stoking. The main emotions it is trying to stir up is fear and revulsion. But the good news is that the world is not as messed up as it is because humanity is that messed up....it is that messed up because a small group of people are creating that mess; that is something solveable
And there's a difference between someone who likes some BS lowbrow TLC program saying I think I'm smarter than them because I like award-winning documentaries... and someone who repeats wild conspiracy theories and sensationalist propaganda saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them, despite their taking an interest in world events through more 'mainstream' sources, is a 'sheep'. And this is what happens to people who visit these sites-- they come out with a 'redpilled' sort of attitude and refuse to admit that anything but their version of the events could be true... they're not actually 'smarter', but most of them think that they're more informed or that they know better than anyone else and are unwilling to accept that the objectivity of these facts might be questionable.
Ok but you have to also give them credit for going an extra yard and actually finding out some extra perspective. All you need to do is find the evidence that proves them wrong and present it to them
If you engage me in debate you will probably find pretty quickly that i have not just pulled something out of my schving schving but have in fact a large store of information gleaned from a variety of sources that have all gone towards building the perception that i hold...i am also very happy to share these
The video isn't defending the value of what you personally think, they're defending the value of informative fact that enriches perspectives versus mindless entertainment that provokes a chortle then evaporates from your brain 20 minutes later... I agree that there are some pretty lame shows out there and that we should improve our standards, but what's a solution that doesn't involve censorship? It has never crossed your mind that the people who enjoy these kinds of things might not be 'controlled' into liking them? You have your opinion about the alternative news sources and I have mine... why do you think that I'm not entitled to my own opinion?
I think people are conditioned into things. i think they are spoon fed stuff by the media and that over time for example over a generation or two you can change society drastically if you can shape the way people think and feel about things
If we look at the Platos cave example. I heard it wasn't actually platos idea but i can't remember who's it actually was....
I like to give credit where i can but anyway most people know it as platos cave theory.
You know the one....where people are chained in a cave and all they can see is the shadow images cast on the wall in front of them by a fire behind them and the objects which pass in front of it
One of the people finally escapes and finds a whole world outside the cave....
If we are the people chained in the cave....the cave being our tunnel vision view of the world gained by only taking in information from a narrow band of sources for example school, college, newspapers, news channels, radio etc and all we listen to is the corporate news then we will only ever know what the corporate news tells us. Our view of the world...how we felt and thought about things would all be shaped by the corporate news
So what if the corprate news is completely centrally controlled by a small number of people? And those people decide what information was passed to the public? Then those small number of people could decide how they wanted the public to think and feel about things....they could decide how the public saw the world.
And of course how we think and feel about things then determines how we behave and how we behave then determines how we shape the world we live in
So if a small number of people can control the flow of information to peoples heads they can shape the world through them however they want
So lets see if a small number of people do control all the corporate news
If you look at the history of any area of media be it movies, TV , radio, newspapers or whatever the companies have over the decades all joined together into larger and larger corporations until now only a handful of corporations control each aspect. please check out the following webpage to see the names of them:
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart
So this is really about how we perceive reality....because how we perceive reality determines how we all behave and how we behave shapes our world
If we just listen to the corporate media it could be telling us ANYTHING and we would be none the wiser. It could be telling us that the moon is made of cheese and we would have no way of verifying whether or not this was the case
So now we have proven that the corporate media is controlled by just a handful of corporations there is another aspect to consider.
What if these corporations had an agenda? For example what if these corporations wanted a government that will give big tax breaks to the big corporations? They could then fund a political party and candidates for office in return for a promise form those people that they would make changes to the law to give tax breaks to big corporations when they get in office.
Then they would just need to convince the public to vote for that party and/or candidates. This would be easy because the public trusts their corporate media and has no other source of information to cross check anything they are told with so if the corporate media told them to vote for a particular candidate they would do it
But in effect what the public have then done is voted into office a party that will then tax them more so that they can tax the corporations less
Another example would be if the corporations wanted to go to war so that they could make lots of money manufacturing and supplying all the equipment for war whether it was bombs, bullets, boots, biros or brass buttons. They could then tell the public through their media that there are some dangerous people who mean to do them some harm and they must let their government go and bomb those nasty evil people and the public would agree because they wouldn't get another perspective.
The public wouldn't ever get to know that the supposedly evil people had no sophisticated weaponry at all and were in fact no threat to them at all
This is why reliance on a single source of information is a very bad idea
