Who knows what to believe? The Truth™ can be bought. In an age where practically anyone can broadcast an opinion, it's like drinking from a fire hose. False flags, agendas, pee doze in cahoots...
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
cove said:
I'm gonna vote false flag #harv
I have no inside line on this, so I don't know. But it is fishy to me that we've now had 2 terrorist attacks on free speech i.e. white peoples' right to disrespectfully make fun of brown peoples' cultural icons in a single month's time.
I have no inside line on this, so I don't know. But it is fishy to me that we've now had 2 terrorist attacks on free speech i.e. white peoples' right to disrespectfully make fun of brown peoples' cultural icons in a single month's time.
Interesting... who told you that Muslims are "brown people"? An inside line?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Frank said:
HarveyCanal said:
cove said:
I'm gonna vote false flag #harv
I have no inside line on this, so I don't know. But it is fishy to me that we've now had 2 terrorist attacks on free speech i.e. white peoples' right to disrespectfully make fun of brown peoples' cultural icons in a single month's time.
Interesting... who told you that Muslims are "brown people"? An inside line?
Mainstream Americans view Muslims as this...
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
J i m s t e r said:
Who knows what to believe? The Truth™ can be bought. In an age where practically anyone can broadcast an opinion, it's like drinking from a fire hose. False flags, agendas, pee doze in cahoots...
Vote wisely.
Not all opinions deserve equal weight. One person's truth may be different from another's. If you're not hearing as much about [x] as you are about [y], this does not necessarily mean THEY are trying to PREVENT you from hearing about it.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I could easily spend all day reading hundreds and hundreds of people talking about how the latest Boko Haram atrocity isn't being covered. Nice little irony there, if you like that kind of thing. I haven't exactly sought those stories out, however, because it's frankly too awful to contemplate and besides, I get miserable enough around this time of year as it is. Whilst I understand some of the arguments surrounding the nature and extent of the coverage in this case, the interesting point raised by that BBC story I linked to concerns how understandably difficult it's been for anyone to verify [em]what actually fucking happened.[/em]*
Personally, I blame CNN and the rise of 24-hour rolling news channels for this shit. No longer do we get to hear a story at the point where [x number of] facts have been established by one or more sources. Now we [em]have[/em] to see it "break", we [em]have[/em] to see it "develop", there [em]has[/em] to be pictures or, even better, video - this bit is critical; can you imagine how much (or should I say how little) footage from the scene of the Baga massacre is actually broadcastable from a position of basic human decency, never mind journalistic ethics? Does anyone ever wonder if maybe that's why we're not seeing quite so much coverage of it?
A friend of mine at the BBC has to watch everything - [em]everything[/em] - that comes in from all these places in order to establish, via the likes of A/B photo comparisons, existing footage and GPS technology, precisely what is legit and what is fake, as far as such a thing is possible; all the ISIS beheading videos, all the footage from the aftermath of this or that bombing or rocket attack from either side of the Israel/Palestine conflict, every scene of carnage that comes to them via whatever trusted sources the BBC has in any given war zone or theatre of conflict you care to name. It's his job to wade through more bestial and savage depictions of human behaviour than any of us could possibly imagine in the hope of establishing some sort of certainty (as opposed to The Truth™), and I don't envy him one bit. He's a lovely guy, too - whip-smart and nobody's mug - and when I see some cunt who's learnt everything he knows about life from Slayer lyrics and splatter movies posting their moronic analysis of something like the Charlie Hebdo shootings within hours of the first footage hitting the net, I think of my friend and I want to punch that other cunt into a fucking coma. "Oh, well, it's obviously Mossad because terrorists couldn't possibly be that well-trained - just another false flag operation to justify wars of conquest. Besides, where was all the blood when that copper was shot in the head?" Incidentally, during a discussion on that very point, he politely explained to me that, having had to scrutinise hundreds of execution videos, he can confirm that the human skull doesn't actually explode in a mess of blood, brains and bone when someone's shot at point-blank range in the head after all. Fancy that, eh? "Real life different from movies" shocker.**
And yet we still see one media outlet after another (including a great many of highly questionable legitimacy) racing to yell "FIRST" like some comments-box cunt and then having to publicly modify, backtrack upon or even completely withdraw stories once it's become embarrassingly clear they've been barking up the wrong tree entirely. Or simply just brazening it out. Things like this - the slow retreat from proper journalistic and news-gathering values - have contributed massively to this erosion of public trust in the media, easily as much as the likes of Fox News, morons like Don Lemon, Piers Morgan or Kay Burley, lickspittles like Nicholas Witchell and his brown-nosing ilk, openly biased "hard news" alpha dogs like Jeremy Bowen, Nick Robinson, Robert Fisk, etc, and that's without even starting on the tabloids. This has in turn led to all manner of lunatics at both extremes of the political spectrum rushing to occupy the vacuum between "something has happened" and "here are the details of something that happened earlier", and because there's no bias like confirmation bias, we end up with a situation where any and every story where there's any degree of uncertainty becomes something to be debunked and dismantled in order to get at The Truth™ that THEY are trying to hide*** and there is absolutely no shortage of people ready to do it. Mainly the kind of people for whom you'd abandon your favourite pub and drink in another part of town entirely, simply to avoid spending another minute in the same room as them.
* [em]I'm actually surprised not to have read somebody saying that nothing did happen, and it's all part of a massive cover-up because oil/Illuminati/global capitalism/the Jews.[/em]
** [em]If we were having this discussion elsewhere on the internet, this would be the point where someone chimed in with some generalised dismissal of "MSM", followed by a shitload of links to articles by David Icke, John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald, Alex Jones et fucking cee.[/em]
*** [em]SPOILER: they're trying to cover up [x] because oil/Illuminati/global capitalism/the Jews****[/em]
**** [em]PLOT TWIST: it might not actually be that complicated.[/em]
I have no inside line on this, so I don't know. But it is fishy to me that we've now had 2 terrorist attacks on free speech i.e. white peoples' right to disrespectfully make fun of brown peoples' cultural icons in a single month's time.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Returning once more to my man at the Beeb, he had this to say about the following link; "When someone asks you what the value of the BBC is to the UK, point them to the section of this in which Lindsey Hilsum points out the reliance on its correspondents for both Nigerians and others as the baseline of reliable information."
Surely there have never before been false-flags that have justified wars of conquest...
Surely the rich and powerful don't conspire to become more rich and more powerful...
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
cove said:
Surely there have never before been false-flags that have justified wars of conquest...
Surely the rich and powerful don't conspire to become more rich and more powerful...
I mean, we all heard the stories years ago about how the CIA was responsible for the influx of crack into black neighbourhoods during the mid-80s, and it turned out to be true. What [em]wasn't[/em] true was the part where a load of old white guys from Carlyle, Bilderberg, Halliburton, Opus Dei and fuck-knows-where-else all sat around a huge polished mahogany table in a smoke-filled room in Bohemian Grove and [em]plotted it all out[/em]. Closer to the truth, as the above piece concludes, is that a bunch of CIA operatives were probably told by their superiors; "We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it."
Of course there are conspiracies. Of course there have been "false-flags that have justified wars of conquest", but does it automatically follow that [em]everything[/em] must have a conspiracy at the heart of it, or must be a false flag to justify, etc., etc? And y'know something else? Sometimes the rich and powerful become more rich and powerful by no more sinister means than a numbered high-interest Swiss bank account or two. Kool-Aid does come in more than one flavour, after all.
Comments
Vote wisely.
I have no inside line on this, so I don't know. But it is fishy to me that we've now had 2 terrorist attacks on free speech i.e. white peoples' right to disrespectfully make fun of brown peoples' cultural icons in a single month's time.
Interesting... who told you that Muslims are "brown people"? An inside line?
Mainstream Americans view Muslims as this...
Not all opinions deserve equal weight. One person's truth may be different from another's. If you're not hearing as much about [x] as you are about [y], this does not necessarily mean THEY are trying to PREVENT you from hearing about it.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I could easily spend all day reading hundreds and hundreds of people talking about how the latest Boko Haram atrocity isn't being covered. Nice little irony there, if you like that kind of thing. I haven't exactly sought those stories out, however, because it's frankly too awful to contemplate and besides, I get miserable enough around this time of year as it is. Whilst I understand some of the arguments surrounding the nature and extent of the coverage in this case, the interesting point raised by that BBC story I linked to concerns how understandably difficult it's been for anyone to verify [em]what actually fucking happened.[/em]*
Personally, I blame CNN and the rise of 24-hour rolling news channels for this shit. No longer do we get to hear a story at the point where [x number of] facts have been established by one or more sources. Now we [em]have[/em] to see it "break", we [em]have[/em] to see it "develop", there [em]has[/em] to be pictures or, even better, video - this bit is critical; can you imagine how much (or should I say how little) footage from the scene of the Baga massacre is actually broadcastable from a position of basic human decency, never mind journalistic ethics? Does anyone ever wonder if maybe that's why we're not seeing quite so much coverage of it?
A friend of mine at the BBC has to watch everything - [em]everything[/em] - that comes in from all these places in order to establish, via the likes of A/B photo comparisons, existing footage and GPS technology, precisely what is legit and what is fake, as far as such a thing is possible; all the ISIS beheading videos, all the footage from the aftermath of this or that bombing or rocket attack from either side of the Israel/Palestine conflict, every scene of carnage that comes to them via whatever trusted sources the BBC has in any given war zone or theatre of conflict you care to name. It's his job to wade through more bestial and savage depictions of human behaviour than any of us could possibly imagine in the hope of establishing some sort of certainty (as opposed to The Truth™), and I don't envy him one bit. He's a lovely guy, too - whip-smart and nobody's mug - and when I see some cunt who's learnt everything he knows about life from Slayer lyrics and splatter movies posting their moronic analysis of something like the Charlie Hebdo shootings within hours of the first footage hitting the net, I think of my friend and I want to punch that other cunt into a fucking coma. "Oh, well, it's obviously Mossad because terrorists couldn't possibly be that well-trained - just another false flag operation to justify wars of conquest. Besides, where was all the blood when that copper was shot in the head?" Incidentally, during a discussion on that very point, he politely explained to me that, having had to scrutinise hundreds of execution videos, he can confirm that the human skull doesn't actually explode in a mess of blood, brains and bone when someone's shot at point-blank range in the head after all. Fancy that, eh? "Real life different from movies" shocker.**
And yet we still see one media outlet after another (including a great many of highly questionable legitimacy) racing to yell "FIRST" like some comments-box cunt and then having to publicly modify, backtrack upon or even completely withdraw stories once it's become embarrassingly clear they've been barking up the wrong tree entirely. Or simply just brazening it out. Things like this - the slow retreat from proper journalistic and news-gathering values - have contributed massively to this erosion of public trust in the media, easily as much as the likes of Fox News, morons like Don Lemon, Piers Morgan or Kay Burley, lickspittles like Nicholas Witchell and his brown-nosing ilk, openly biased "hard news" alpha dogs like Jeremy Bowen, Nick Robinson, Robert Fisk, etc, and that's without even starting on the tabloids. This has in turn led to all manner of lunatics at both extremes of the political spectrum rushing to occupy the vacuum between "something has happened" and "here are the details of something that happened earlier", and because there's no bias like confirmation bias, we end up with a situation where any and every story where there's any degree of uncertainty becomes something to be debunked and dismantled in order to get at The Truth™ that THEY are trying to hide*** and there is absolutely no shortage of people ready to do it. Mainly the kind of people for whom you'd abandon your favourite pub and drink in another part of town entirely, simply to avoid spending another minute in the same room as them.
* [em]I'm actually surprised not to have read somebody saying that nothing did happen, and it's all part of a massive cover-up because oil/Illuminati/global capitalism/the Jews.[/em]
** [em]If we were having this discussion elsewhere on the internet, this would be the point where someone chimed in with some generalised dismissal of "MSM", followed by a shitload of links to articles by David Icke, John Pilger, Glenn Greenwald, Alex Jones et fucking cee.[/em]
*** [em]SPOILER: they're trying to cover up [x] because oil/Illuminati/global capitalism/the Jews****[/em]
**** [em]PLOT TWIST: it might not actually be that complicated.[/em]
New satellite images reveal devastation of Boko Haram massacre.
Surely the rich and powerful don't conspire to become more rich and more powerful...
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
both completely overrated, would throw out the whole fucking tub for a cold beer
Whilst a healthy degree of scepticism is a useful quality for anyone to have, a big part of the reason I don't subscribe to wildly implausible modern conspiracy theories of the all-encompassing "9/11 was an inside job/chemtrails/Illuminati" variety is because the real conspiracies are usually much more prosaic in their nature and tend to involve far fewer people.
I mean, we all heard the stories years ago about how the CIA was responsible for the influx of crack into black neighbourhoods during the mid-80s, and it turned out to be true. What [em]wasn't[/em] true was the part where a load of old white guys from Carlyle, Bilderberg, Halliburton, Opus Dei and fuck-knows-where-else all sat around a huge polished mahogany table in a smoke-filled room in Bohemian Grove and [em]plotted it all out[/em]. Closer to the truth, as the above piece concludes, is that a bunch of CIA operatives were probably told by their superiors; "We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it."
Of course there are conspiracies. Of course there have been "false-flags that have justified wars of conquest", but does it automatically follow that [em]everything[/em] must have a conspiracy at the heart of it, or must be a false flag to justify, etc., etc? And y'know something else? Sometimes the rich and powerful become more rich and powerful by no more sinister means than a numbered high-interest Swiss bank account or two. Kool-Aid does come in more than one flavour, after all.