Alex Jones- Debunked!

[Oxymoron]

If we are talking about the wealth concentration conspiracy, here is a good link.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

Content from external source

Infowars/Kurt Nimmo viewpoint is:

http://www.infowars.com/marxist-wealth-distribution-for-the-bankers/

Of course very little of the money stolen from you and me is used to feed and shelter the poor. It is used to make payments on the national debt and fund the Pentagon.

Moreover, simply stealing money from the producers and showering it on the poor is not how the game is played. The game is about debt and turning the little people into serfs and slaves.

Earlier this week, Dave Lindorff went over the numbers. “The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this October 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting funds collected for Social Security,” he writes. “Meanwhile, the military share of the budget works out to about $1.6 trillion,” more than half of the total.

So far this year, the Treasury Department has spent $201,928,781,952.77 on interest payments to the banksters who hold the national debt — not the principle, mind you, but merely the interest owed. The principle is right around $12 trillion, although some say it is actually higher.
IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson was remarkably candid last year when he said “that the finance industry has effectively captured our government” and they will continue the spiral of debt “at least until the riots grow too large.”

Happy people buying groceries with redistributed money usually do not riot

Content from external source

Which I tend to agree with. It appears to be about making the super rich super richer, the middle classes poorer, the poor desperately poor and the desperately poor to curl up and die.

People can feel it. I don't think the public dissent is due to the 'austerity', people can bear austerity with good humour and fortitude like in the war years when everyone pulled together.

The problem arises when disparity raises its head. The rich getting richer whilst the poor get poorer... that is the problem.

Billions in quantitative easing which do not help those in need, (and I mean by creating jobs and services). Instead, all the money printed goes to the banks which invest the money in the stock market which pump up the price of the stocks and the banks earn more money but that is where it stays. There is a 'trickle up' effect rather than the 'trickle down effect'. Personally I would call it a 'rush up effect' but then I would be accused of hyperbole.

But no matter how bad things get there is one thing that can rely on funding and that is the military industrial complex which is the U.S. No matter what, it continues to spend as much as the rest of the world put together on weapons of war and wars. The very same wars that many of the .01% of the wealthiest profit from whilst the poor continue to pay... with their lives.

AJ, brings that message to the masses and whilst it may be presented in a sensationalist way, so what... it is pretty sensational because most people do not understand what is going on here, (and deliberately so) and people do need to be shocked by it in order to counter the inherent social inertia. Only then will there even be a hope of change.

The mass opposition to the Syria war propaganda was a result of getting this stuff out to the public... the lies and scheming that go on to control the people and enrich the few.

Edit: I would argue that AJ and others provide a much needed service in providing those who need to be made aware at a basic level about the type of machinations which are perpetrated. That even if it is not entirely accurate or it is sensationalised, it needs to be said in such terms so that those who are unable to fully comprehend the intricacies of the deception, still get a good idea of the broader issues at a level they can understand and engage with. A counterbalance to the 'official,(and equally sensationalised), BS that is pumped out by the government MSM propaganda machine', if you like.

Perhaps that argument is worthy of its own thread?

As an aside, I listened to Jeremy Vine yesterday, (BBC Radio 2 presenter), discussing the financial situation and even he admitted he had no idea what the term 'fractional lending' referred to. A BBC spokesman then came on to 'clear the matter up' and stated it was 'banks not lending all their money out and keeping money back to ensure they were financially solvent in the event of a crisis'. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

 

[Bill]

If we are talking about the wealth concentration conspiracy, here is a good link.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)

Content from external source

Infowars/Kurt Nimmo viewpoint is:

http://www.infowars.com/marxist-wealth-distribution-for-the-bankers/

Of course very little of the money stolen from you and me is used to feed and shelter the poor. It is used to make payments on the national debt and fund the Pentagon.

Moreover, simply stealing money from the producers and showering it on the poor is not how the game is played. The game is about debt and turning the little people into serfs and slaves.

Earlier this week, Dave Lindorff went over the numbers. “The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this October 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting funds collected for Social Security,” he writes. “Meanwhile, the military share of the budget works out to about $1.6 trillion,” more than half of the total.

So far this year, the Treasury Department has spent $201,928,781,952.77 on interest payments to the banksters who hold the national debt — not the principle, mind you, but merely the interest owed. The principle is right around $12 trillion, although some say it is actually higher.
IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson was remarkably candid last year when he said “that the finance industry has effectively captured our government” and they will continue the spiral of debt “at least until the riots grow too large.”

Happy people buying groceries with redistributed money usually do not riot

Content from external source

Which I tend to agree with. It appears to be about making the super rich super richer, the middle classes poorer, the poor desperately poor and the desperately poor to curl up and die.

People can feel it. I don't think the public dissent is due to the 'austerity', people can bear austerity with good humour and fortitude like in the war years when everyone pulled together.

The problem arises when disparity raises its head. The rich getting richer whilst the poor get poorer... that is the problem.

Billions in quantitative easing which do not help those in need, (and I mean by creating jobs and services). Instead, all the money printed goes to the banks which invest the money in the stock market which pump up the price of the stocks and the banks earn more money but that is where it stays. There is a 'trickle up' effect rather than the 'trickle down effect'. Personally I would call it a 'rush up effect' but then I would be accused of hyperbole.

But no matter how bad things get there is one thing that can rely on funding and that is the military industrial complex which is the U.S. No matter what, it continues to spend as much as the rest of the world put together on weapons of war and wars. The very same wars that many of the .01% of the wealthiest profit from whilst the poor continue to pay... with their lives.

AJ, brings that message to the masses and whilst it may be presented in a sensationalist way, so what... it is pretty sensational because most people do not understand what is going on here, (and deliberately so) and people do need to be shocked by it. Only then will there even be a hope of change.

The mass opposition to the Syria war propaganda was a result of getting this stuff out to the public... the lies and scheming that go on to control the people and enrich the few.

I won't argue that there is not a concentration of wealth occurring. I am curious about the speed of that concentration compared to past periods when wealth has been hyper-concentrated (it's happened several times in the past). My argument is against an Alex Jones type conspiracy where a cabal of corporations and wealthy individuals is working to nullify national governments and by extension create a New World Order run by our corporate masters. I don't see the behavior of business being any different than it was a hundred years ago.`

I also tend to avoid editorial opinions that use phrases like "banksters" and talk about "turning the little people into serfs and slaves". It's an appeal to emotion similar to the type used by Alex Jones and his peers. If their arguments are supported by verifiable facts and things are as bad as they say they are the sensationalism isn't needed to get their point across. You only need to resort to fear if the arguments are supported by allegations and tenuous connections outlined by strands of yarn between pushpins on a bulletin board. Then every prison in the US suddenly becomes a hidden FEMA death camp and "They" are out to get you.

I also think the public is more aware than people credit them. They just don't share the point of view of the Alex Jones types.

 

[Oxymoron]

I won't argue that there is not a concentration of wealth occurring.

I am not surprised because it is a fact agreed upon by virtually all.

I am curious about the speed of that concentration compared to past periods when wealth has been hyper-concentrated (it's happened several times in the past).

I think that can reliably be traced back to deregulation policies which enabled the extremely rich and clever to bring in changes which benefitted themselves at the expense of the 'average person' by effectively defrauding them with impunity.

My argument is against an Alex Jones type conspiracy where a cabal of corporations and wealthy individuals is working to nullify national governments and by extension create a New World Order run by our corporate masters. I don't dee the behavior of business being any different than it was a hundred years ago.`

In a sense I agree with you. The 'desire to rule the world' has been there throughout history. I think what has changed is that technology and changes to the law, (which were no accident but were fought for and paid for), have made it a far more realistic proposition, as is evidenced by the way things are moving.

I also tend to avoid editorial opinions that use phrases like "banksters" and talk about "turning the little people into serfs and slaves". It's an appeal to emotion similar to the type used by Alex Jones and his peers. If their arguments are supported by verifiable facts and things are as bad as they say they are the sensationalism isn't needed to get their point across. You only need to resort to fear if the arguments are supported by allegations and tenuous connections outlined by strands of yarn between pushpins on a bulletin board. Then every prison in the US suddenly becomes a hidden FEMA death camp and "They" are out to get you.

Not everyone is capable of understanding the technicalities and intricacies of what is happening. I admit I find it very taxing myself. It therefore needs to be put out at various different levels so that people can understand it at whatever level they can comprehend. Obviously, if it is at a 'basic level', it will be flawed and can be 'picked apart to some degree', but the basic truth needs to be accessible to all IMO. At the worst, it can be described as a 'starting point' for comprehension.

I also think the public is more aware than people credit them. They just don't share the point of view of the Alex Jones types.

I think a large proportion of people are so busy at the basic level trying to make ends meet that they have not the time or energy or probably the mental capacity to understand these highly intricate, deceptive and technical machinations. This is where the likes of AJ, (even better Max Keiser), comes in by putting it in simplified terms.

I think Grieves point about scale was extremely valid and well put.

 

[Bill]

I think Grieves point about scale was extremely valid and well put.

No-one has explained why scale is the factor that makes it more insidious. The arguments to date have amounted to: "Don't you see man - Its about scale. Scales the problem" (read with your best 60's conspiratorial inner voice - I use Phineas Freak myself).

Of course the scale is larger today than 50 years ago, the economic environment companies operate in is larger than it was 50 years ago.

 

[scombrid]

I would argue that AJ and others provide a much needed service in providing those who need to be made aware at a basic level about the type of machinations which are perpetrated. That even if it is not entirely accurate or it is sensationalised,

There is no value in the "service" he provides if his narrative is riddled with bunk.

If anything, he makes people less aware by directing them to worry about his fabrications.

A counterbalance to the 'official,(and equally sensationalised), BS that is pumped out by the government MSM propaganda machine', if you like.

Bullshit as a counterbalance to corporate media bullshit is still bullshit.

 

[Grieves]

More hyperbole

You asked: "A lot of hyperbole but no real argument beyond it's changed in scale and form. How do scale and form fundamentally affect the argument." I gave you an answer which illustrated the impact of scale and form on any 'basic premise', such as theft, conflict, or commerce. Yes, theft, commerce, and conflict have been around for thousands of years. Nothing new there, you and SR are absolutely right. That seems to be the only point you're arguing here. You're continuously missing mine.

Adjusted for inflation Rockefeller was worth 340 billion. His products and services dominated the US at the time and his influence reached globally. Bill Gates has a maximum adjusted wealth of 136 billion His product and services dominated during his time and his influence is felt globally. Saying Rockefeller didn't own the rights to pen and paper is a false dichotomy. He did own a good chunk of the energy industry. They operate in different field but both use their wealth to influence decisions.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...es/25-richest-people-lived-inflation-adjusted

You weren't asking why I thought Bill Gates was wealthier than Rockefeller adjusted for inflation, a claim I never once made or inferred. You asked why Bill Gates is more POWERFUL than Rockefeller was, and the answer is entirely bloody obvious. Think about it, please. Who would have more actual, employable power and influence at his fingertips at any given moment? A hint....
http://www.complexmag.ca/rides/2012/08/10-outrageous-celebrity-owned-private-jets/bill-gates

You actually haven't shown anything. You have made a claim and resorted to hyperbole but you haven't presented anything factual to support the idea that modern business practices are more influential or damaging.

Do I seriously have to make some sort of presentation of evidence that business is more influential than at any other point?

You just keep saying it's a matter of scale without explaining why the increase in scale matters. Of course the scale is larger now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The markets are no longer confined to North America and Europe.

Indeed, they've expanded and integrated world-wide, making the national currencies themselves commodities of trade and speculation as though they were minerals. That's my point. Never before in the history of our world has every market been so intrinsically bound to every other market. That's a simple fact. What I'm saying is that unlike in the past where the competition, conflicts, ideals and ambitions of Nations were the arena in which markets and major business entities were forced to operate, the new system of global commerce is reversing those roles. With a relatively impotent United Nations where regulating commerce effectively is concerned, the Global Market has no truly significant oversight, and gains more and more influence over the policies and politics of Nations, who either adhere to IT'S rhythms and demands or literally starve. East India Trading Company keeps coming up, but that was a British venture. Aye, they had their own ambitions/motivations, but they were ultimately answerable to the authority of a single Nation, and were dependent upon the success of that nation, at least to an extent, for their own success. To whom are the major multinationals really answerable?

We live interesting times. Enjoy them if you can.

If we're giving out advice, I'd say we live in crucial times. Better them how you can.

Absolutely nothing...except for the FACT that its people trying to kill other people...same as it ever was.

Just because man has developed ever more efficient tools to do so doesn't change the fact that the premise and motivation remain the same.

"vague" - no-quite literally identical. Wars fought for economic dominance are not a new concept.

I don't even know what to say to this argument anymore man. 'I mean, people always kill people, so what makes extremely efficient methods for killing massive amounts of innocent people a big deal? I mean, same as it ever was, right?' Are you serious...? No. It's not the same. In nothing other than some Nihilistic, 'Hey, everybody dies' sense.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Monetarily. A global community of trade, commerce and finance is taking shape that circumvents, overrides, and increasingly subverts the authority of Nations. Indeed, Nations are in increasing turmoil and remain at odds with one another, even the US is in an apparent state of disarray. The 'New World Order' isn't taking shape as the unification of all Nations in peace, harmony and cooperation. It's taking shape as the progressive dissolution of National authority/of Nations outright in strife of all sorts, solidifying the dominance of politics and policy this new Global Community of 'corporate citizens' already holds.

Can't fault the logic of that. It's fairly obvious that corporations are currently more powerful than nations. In the US you see ALEC, the Koch brothers, the GMA, all shaping policy and law to their own ends. Russia is in thrall to the new oligarchs who act as patrons to the new elected elite. China, well who knows what is really happening there. If they are maintaining nation-hood over the mega-companies that have sprung up over the last 2 decades then the rest of the world has something new to worry about as it buys up global resources on a scale we've never seen before. See how much of Australia's mineral wealth has remained Australian, for example.

 

[Bill]

You asked: "A lot of hyperbole but no real argument beyond it's changed in scale and form. How do scale and form fundamentally affect the argument." I gave you an answer which illustrated the impact of scale and form on any 'basic premise', such as theft, conflict, or commerce. Yes, theft, commerce, and conflict have been around for thousands of years. Nothing new there, you and SR are absolutely right. That seems to be the only point you're arguing here. You're continuously missing mine.

Then maybe you need to explain it more clearly.

You weren't asking why I thought Bill Gates was wealthier than Rockefeller adjusted for inflation, a claim I never once made or inferred. You asked why Bill Gates is more POWERFUL than Rockefeller was, and the answer is entirely bloody obvious. Think about it, please. Who would have more actual, employable power and influence at his fingertips at any given moment? A hint....
http://www.complexmag.ca/rides/2012/08/10-outrageous-celebrity-owned-private-jets/bill-gates

So what makes him more powerful if not the ability to leverage economic influence derived from his wealth. Is it his ability to hop a plane at a moments notice? Instantaneous international communication? Is the concern that Bill Gates and others can afford expensive jets? They can also afford yachts and luxury cars.

Do I seriously have to make some sort of presentation of evidence that business is more influential than at any other point?

You need to make some kind of argument beyond "Are you suggesting there isn't a global 'corporate community' to which most Nations are largely beholden politically, and that this isn't a new phenomenon historically speaking?" or "John D. Rockafeller didn't own the rights to pen-and-paper".

Indeed, they've expanded and integrated world-wide, making the national currencies themselves commodities of trade and speculation as though they were minerals. That's my point. Never before in the history of our world has every market been so intrinsically bound to every other market. That's a simple fact. What I'm saying is that unlike in the past where the competition, conflicts, ideals and ambitions of Nations were the arena in which markets and major business entities were forced to operate, the new system of global commerce is reversing those roles. With a relatively impotent United Nations where regulating commerce effectively is concerned, the Global Market has no truly significant oversight, and gains more and more influence over the policies and politics of Nations, who either adhere to IT'S rhythms and demands or literally starve. East India Trading Company keeps coming up, but that was a British venture. Aye, they had their own ambitions/motivations, but they were ultimately answerable to the authority of a single Nation, and were dependent upon the success of that nation, at least to an extent, for their own success. To whom are the major multinationals really answerable?

Finally an actual argument. Indeed the markets are integrated as never before but that does not automatically mean corporation have the ability to run roughshod over National Governments or entities like the EU. Apple, Microsoft and others have repeatedly found themselves on the losing side of regulation. They find themselves the targets of frequent antitrust legislation and locked out of markets they want into unless they conform to local standards. Ultimately corporations are answerable to their stockholders, whether they be institutional investors, pension plans, or the individual stockholder. You have hinted a couple of times that one of the problems is there is no oversight for the global market. Wouldn't the creation of international regulatory oversite actually bring us closer to a one world government and the corporate "New World Order" that is currently being claimed to exist.

 

[Oxymoron]

That could have just as well described Mercantilism as it fueled Imperialism 400 years ago.

The underlying premise and motivation are the same...the fact that there are new tools to with which they attempt to achieve the objective doesn't change that.

Well not many people say that when it comes to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad Govt and those who do remark on does it matter if you are killed by chemical weapons or have your head cut off with a bread knife or burned with white phosphorous because the end result is the same, (a painful and terrifying death), are boo hooed.

Seems people pick and choose when it is 'the same as it ever was' or 'oh no this is entirely different'. Each viewpoint can be argued but can they be argued with integrity?

Anything can be taken to its most basic form and argued that nothing has changed but that is really bunk. i.e. a mud hut is not the same as the Taj Mahal but they are both buildings so... 'nothing new there'. An old model t Ford is a car and so is the new Jaguar F... why bother with the Jaguar... nothing new,its the same as the Model T

 

[Oxymoron]

There is no value in the "service" he provides if his narrative is riddled with bunk.

The 'service' he provides is far from perfect but then what is? If you are to attack AJ for his errors it would only be right to attack other mainstream media for the bunk they put out. Also the bunk put out by politicians and corporate execs right up to the bunk that is put out by Bush/Obama et al.

That is where I think this site benefits from people like myself who will debunk bunk from any source. Most Meta Members tend to only apply their debunking selectively.

If anything, he makes people less aware by directing them to worry about his fabrications.

At the core, he is not wrong. Foreign policy, warmongering, corruption, government held to ransom by corporations, people being used and abused by the elite. Can you really argue with any of that. Yes some of it is hyped and or inaccurate i.e. bunk... but the core is real and MSM does little to address these realities. If MSM did a better job then there would be no need for the likes of AJ.

Just look at Cameron on The Guardian:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24555955

The Guardian knows it compromised national security when it used data leaked by ex-US intelligence worker Edward Snowden, David Cameron has said.

At Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Cameron argued that "what has happened has damaged national security".

The newspaper had since effectively accepted its culpability by destroying the data when asked, he suggested.

Content from external source

The fact they were coerced into it by draconian and illegal fascist overreach is not even mentioned.

Typical propaganda and stifling of the press. That is why 'we' are fighting against MSM bunk.

What Cameron is saying is, MSM should not print real news and that when TPTB are up to no good, they should not be challenged. It is like Bush on 'You are either with us or against us'. It is mindless fear mongering, persecution and stifling of dissent.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said last week that he planned to publish more revelations from Edward Snowden, despite warnings from MI5 that such disclosures cause enormous damage.

Mr Rusbridger insisted the paper was right to publish files leaked by the US intelligence analyst and had helped to prompt a necessary and overdue debate.

He had previously claimed that "shadowy Whitehall figures" had threatened to take legal action aiming to block further publication of the material.

Content from external source

Bullshit as a counterbalance to corporate media bullshit is still bullshit.

As I said, if you only selectively debunk bunk, that is not debunking, that is propaganda, ergo your debunking becomes bunk because it is biased and selective.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

As much as I agree with the majority of what you have said above, I still can't countenance Alex Jones. I feel that he is one of the worst anti-establishment figures simply because so much of what he produces dilutes the real issues. There are so many sites available to us to counter the MSM pro-war, pro-govt spin, sites that don't make it a cult of personality, sites that don't mix right-wing, libertarian nonsense with sensible observations, that I can see no need for Alex Jones at all.

The worst block to explaining something to people who take the BBC et al as the font of all good reporting is to have them say "Well, Alex Jones was saying something like that". My point is that he does more harm than good. Sure, he has spotted some of the same problems that you and I have spotted, but it's the mixture of those with 'the government is making gays with this lining for soda cans' type of bullshit that does my head in. As a previous poster so correctly pointed out "Bullshit as a counter balance to bullshit is still bullshit".

That's not to say you're totally wrong in your counterpoint. There should be threads on here that identify the bunk that comes out of the media. The problem is that often it's hard to find the evidence until long after. In the meantime, perhaps this isn't the site for that particular exercise. If you want, and direct message me, I can provide you with a wealth of sites that are active on a daily basis in countering the mass media spin. None of them deal in HAARP, FEMA Camps, NWO, etc. They do deal with wealth distribution, spending on warfare, global poverty, resource theft, etc. Within their forums you might find another home.

 

[SR1419]

I don't even know what to say to this argument anymore man. 'I mean, people always kill people, so what makes extremely efficient methods for killing massive amounts of innocent people a big deal? I mean, same as it ever was, right?' Are you serious...? No. It's not the same. In nothing other than some Nihilistic, 'Hey, everybody dies' sense.

you seem to be focused on the tools- the superficial aspects of the hardware and not the underlying premise and motivations that drive the behavior. Forest for the trees. So be it man.

never said it wasn't a "big deal" that man has developed more efficient killing methods...but massive amounts of innocent people have always suffered has a result of the machinations of those who strive for power and wealth.

If anything, the massive amounts of innocent people are more empowered now than ever before to try and blunt the impacts of the lust for greed and power...or pursue their own desires.

 

[SR1419]

Well not many people say that when it comes to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad Govt and those who do remark on does it matter if you are killed by chemical weapons or have your head cut off with a bread knife or burned with white phosphorous because the end result is the same, (a painful and terrifying death), are boo hooed.

Seems people pick and choose when it is 'the same as it ever was' or 'oh no this is entirely different'. Each viewpoint can be argued but can they be argued with integrity?

I agree on the inherent contradiction of dying by chemical weapons is somehow worse than being beheaded and your heart cut out...war is hell- always has been.

Anything can be taken to its most basic form and argued that nothing has changed but that is really bunk. i.e. a mud hut is not the same as the Taj Mahal but they are both buildings so... 'nothing new there'. An old model t Ford is a car and so is the new Jaguar F... why bother with the Jaguar... nothing new,its the same as the Model T

The tools may evolve...but the underlying motivations and machinations that drives the processes forward have not.

 

[Grieves]

So what makes him more powerful if not the ability to leverage economic influence derived from his wealth. Is it his ability to hop a plane at a moments notice? Instantaneous international communication?

Yes, certainly those things are major contributing factors. There's no question Rockefeller was a very rich man, and had the ears of a lot of very important people, but his capacity to exercise power can't begin to compare to that of Bill Gates, if only because the technology, infrastructure, and systems weren't in place to facilitate such broad application of wealth as influence.

Is the concern that Bill Gates and others can afford expensive jets? They can also afford yachts and luxury cars.

The concern has been stated previously in this thread. Backtrack if you've forgotten. I didn't bring up Bill Gates.

Finally an actual argument. Indeed the markets are integrated as never before but that does not automatically mean corporation have the ability to run roughshod over National Governments or entities like the EU.

Sure, it doesn't automatically mean it. But they do it. A whole lot. Because they can.

You have hinted a couple of times that one of the problems is there is no oversight for the global market. Wouldn't the creation of international regulatory oversite actually bring us closer to a one world government and the corporate "New World Order" that is currently being claimed to exist.

That would entirely depend on who's doing the overseeing. If such a regulatory body were established from within the corporate community or as an extension of/ appointments by governments already enduring excessive corporate influence, then yes, that would indeed be the very picture of a 'Corporate Government' of the World... and is the direction that I believe we're headed in.

As much as I agree with the majority of what you have said above, I still can't countenance Alex Jones. I feel that he is one of the worst anti-establishment figures simply because so much of what he produces dilutes the real issues. There are so many sites available to us to counter the MSM pro-war, pro-govt spin, sites that don't make it a cult of personality, sites that don't mix right-wing, libertarian nonsense with sensible observations, that I can see no need for Alex Jones at all.

The man is an Astro-Turfer, through and through.

you seem to be focused on the tools- the superficial aspects of the hardware and not the underlying premise and motivations that drive the behavior. Forest for the trees. So be it man.

The 'forest' you're referring too in this case is 'human nature'. That is not the subject being discussed, and is far too debatable a subject to have any real bearing on the current subject.

never said it wasn't a "big deal" that man has developed more efficient killing methods...but massive amounts of innocent people have always suffered has a result of the machinations of those who strive for power and wealth.

Again, that greed and murder are not unique to the modern age, and have frequent precedent in human history, is not the subject being discussed. No one questions this. No one argues this. You keep bringing it up as if to suggest the general motivations of the past and the specific circumstances of the present are the exact same thing... or that one somehow excuses the other. Or maybe you're trying to say something that makes more sense than that, and I'm just not getting it.

If anything, the massive amounts of innocent people are more empowered now than ever before to try and blunt the impacts of the lust for greed and power...or pursue their own desires.

Tell me: If a 'french revolution' style situation were to occur in America/an American state in this day and age with corporations and their execs. as their target, how do you estimate that would end for the people in rebellion? How about in the UK? In Canada? In Greece? In France? I'd agree, people are incredibly empowered comparative to the past where the pursuit of personal desires are concerned. Their power to change or end the system which manages them is, so far as I can see, at an all-time low.

 

[Oxymoron]

If anything, the massive amounts of innocent people are more empowered now than ever before to try and blunt the impacts of the lust for greed and power...or pursue their own desires.

I agree that was pretty much the case up until 9/11 but since then the hard fought for improvements have been eroded for the majority of people. Since then civil liberties have been curtailed, the 'public' are surveilled as potential terrorists and peoples standards of living are falling very fast, (except for the elite).

So I think that observation, only applies depending on the starting point. If you start at the beginning of the 20th century, it holds up but if you start from the beginning of the 21st century, it doesn't.

 

[SR1419]

The 'forest' you're referring too in this case is 'human nature'. That is not the subject being discussed, and is far too debatable a subject to have any real bearing on the current subject.

cop out. The drive for power and control is at the heart of the "nwo" discussion.

Again, that greed and murder are not unique to the modern age, and have frequent precedent in human history, is not the subject being discussed. No one questions this. No one argues this. You keep bringing it up as if to suggest the general motivations of the past and the specific circumstances of the present are the exact same thing... or that one somehow excuses the other. Or maybe you're trying to say something that makes more sense than that, and I'm just not getting it.

You are correct. You are not getting it. The general motivations of the past and the present are the same. The specific circumstances of the present are a result of those motivations thus the "order" of the present is not "new" but merely a continuation of the long processes of human history. The order is not fundamentally any different even though the tools used are "new".

Tell me: If a 'french revolution' style situation were to occur in America/an American state in this day and age, how do you estimate that would end for the people in rebellion?

don't know.

 

[SR1419]

I agree that was pretty much the case up until 9/11 but since then the hard fought for improvements have been eroded for the majority of people. Since then civil liberties have been curtailed, the 'public' are surveilled as potential terrorists and peoples standards of living are falling very fast, (except for the elite).

So I think that observation, only applies depending on the starting point. If you start at the beginning of the 20th century, it holds up but if you start from the beginning of the 21st century, it doesn't.

The starting point being the beginning of Human History.

Looking back over the breadth of history- Humanity is much more empowered now than ever before.

(Your qualification seems to be US/West centric...standards of living "falling very fast" is pure hyperbole")

 

[Grieves]

cop out. The drive for power and control is at the heart of the "nwo" discussion.

Not a cop out at all. I'm pointing out the huge detour your argument is taking from the actual subject. Look at your own comment:
"you seem to be focused on the tools- the superficial aspects of the hardware and not the underlying premise and motivations that drive the behavior."
In this statement you summed up Multinational corporations, the current financial markets, the current situation of individual nations, and the current wealth-divide as 'superficial aspects of hardware'. Yes, indeed, I'm more focused on those 'superficial' things than on the basic fact that 'folks be greedy.' Somehow I feel I remain more on-point in the context of the subject.

You are correct. You are not getting it. The general motivations of the past and the present are the same. The specific circumstances of the present are a result of those motivations thus the "order" of the present is not "new" but merely a continuation of the long processes of human history.

So you're actually coming right out and saying general motivations/emotions directly equate to specific systems of control? That doesn't make any sense at all. By that logic, absolutely nothing is new, and absolutely everything is just 'a continuation of the long processes of human history'.

Are you taking the 'Fate' position here..? That the currently emerging system and the form that it's taking is somehow the inevitable and thus unalterable result of human development or something? If that's the view you're assuming, I should point out it's a rather religious one.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

The man is an Astro-Turfer, through and through.

Yeah, and I've always preferred the grass.

 

[Cairenn]

When in the past could someone like an Alex Jones or Glenn Beck had the ability to reach thousands or millions of listeners every day? In many ways, every one of us with a computer has the ability to influence hundreds of folks every day. EACH of us is as powerful as a major media was 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.

 

[SR1419]

Not a cop out at all. I'm pointing out the huge detour your argument is taking from the actual subject. Look at your own comment:
"you seem to be focused on the tools- the superficial aspects of the hardware and not the underlying premise and motivations that drive the behavior."
In this statement you summed up Multinational corporations, the current financial markets, the current situation of individual nations, and the current wealth-divide as 'superficial aspects of hardware'. Yes, indeed, I'm more focused on those 'superficial' things than on the basic fact that 'folks be greedy.' Somehow I feel I remain more on-point in the context of the subject.

You're entitled to your feelings. You should focus on the current tools of exploitation...just don't call the exploitation "new".

Are you taking the 'Fate' position here..? That the currently emerging system and the form that it's taking is somehow the inevitable and thus unalterable result of human development or something? If that's the view you're assuming, I should point out it's a rather religious one.

No.

"unalterable"? Not at all....have at it. Get off the computer and go out and alter your fate.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

When in the past could someone like an Alex Jones or Glenn Beck had the ability to reach thousands or millions of listeners every day? In many ways, every one of us with a computer has the ability to influence hundreds of folks every day. EACH of us is as powerful as a major media was 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.

No. We might have the potential, but we don't have the readership. It is very, very hard to build up an online following. Jones is the exception, not the rule. And even someone like Jones, who sits at the very peak of his field, is fairly limited to true believers. He has many followers, or listeners, but he can't compare with the established media like CNN.

Keep in mind that 90% of all media in the US is controlled by SIX corporations:

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

 

[Bill]

Tell me: If a 'french revolution' style situation were to occur in America/an American state in this day and age with corporations and their execs. as their target, how do you estimate that would end for the people in rebellion? How about in the UK? In Canada? In Greece? In France? I'd agree, people are incredibly empowered comparative to the past where the pursuit of personal desires are concerned. Their power to change or end the system which manages them is, so far as I can see, at an all-time low.

I think if a French style revolution were to take place you would still end up with the wealth and power concentrated in a few hands. The French Revolution did not substantially improve the lot of of the French peasant. It just changed whose hands in which the money and power were concentrated and paved the way for the installation of a new emperor. The Russian and Chinese revolutions also had less than desirable outcomes.

 

[SR1419]

No. We might have the potential, but we don't have the readership. It is very, very hard to build up an online following. Jones is the exception, not the rule. And even someone like Jones, who sits at the very peak of his field, is fairly limited to true believers. He has many followers, or listeners, but he can't compare with the established media like CNN.

Keep in mind that 90% of all media in the US is controlled by SIX corporations:

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

That list is -imo- an outdated definition of "media"- isn't Znet, FAIR and thousands of other alternative sources of information also "media".

Moreover, "media" does not equal information. Most of the companies on that list are entertainment and almost none of them are personal sources of information for me. The insinuating hyperbole of that BI list is also noted as it claims "232 media executives control the information diet" of all Americans and "90% of everything Americans see (and) hear" which is simply not true.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

That list is -imo- an outdated definition of "media"- isn't Znet, FAIR and thousands of other alternative sources of information also "media".

Moreover, "media" does not equal information. Most of the companies on that list are entertainment and almost none of them are personal sources of information for me. The insinuating hyperbole of that BI list is also noted as it claims "232 media executives control the information diet" of all Americans and "90% of everything Americans see (and) hear" which is simply not true.

It's not outdated, and the outlets you refer to make up the other 10%. Although describing FAIR as a media outlet is a bit of strange one. It's a site that monitors media. Znet has a rather pathetic reach, unfortunately. As does Democracy Now, The Real News Network, etc.

What are 'personal sources of information' for you is beside the point. Media does not equal information, that is certainly true. It tends to equal info/propaganda. The point is that 90% of all television, radio, and newspapers (not to mention advertising outlets, which includes billboards, bus-stops, subways, etc), are controlled by six corporations in the US.

The internet provides us with alternative media sources. At this moment those alternative sources have minimal reach in comparison with the big 6.

 

[Grieves]

I think if a French style revolution were to take place you would still end up with the wealth and power concentrated in a few hands. The French Revolution did not substantially improve the lot of of the French peasant. It just changed whose hands in which the money and power were concentrated and paved the way for the installation of a new emperor. The Russian and Chinese revolutions also had less than desirable outcomes.

Truly, the french revolution didn't result in any sort of utopia for the poor. It's just a clear example of the poor forcibly ousting the ruling class of the time and region and insisting their society be restructured, at least to a point. I'm expressing the doubt that such a thing is even possible in this day and age: that the new global aristocracy is largely impervious to most any sort of popular action of the 'peasant' class, violent or otherwise.... and thus that class has less power to change the ruling system than in the past.

 

[Grieves]

You're entitled to your feelings. You should focus on the current tools of exploitation...just don't call the exploitation "new".

I'm calling the system 'new', the system being an amalgamation of what you define as tools. Again, no one questions that greed has been around a long while. The emotional motivator that is greed and the currently developing global system of commerce and control are not the same thing, even if the latter is largely inspired by the former.

 

[Oxymoron]

If I can just offer a word of caution about staying on topic as I wouldn't like to see the thread Rambled

 

[Grieves]

If I can just offer a word of caution about staying on topic as I wouldn't like to see the thread Rambled

Fair, but there's only so much to be said for what a goon Alex Jones is. The man wastes enough breath and keystrokes on himself.

 

[Oxymoron]

Yep, it is just accessibility to others. It doesn't show up on search engines if Rambled.

 

[Pete Tar]

...
"you seem to be focused on the tools- the superficial aspects of the hardware and not the underlying premise and motivations that drive the behavior."
In this statement you summed up Multinational corporations, the current financial markets, the current situation of individual nations, and the current wealth-divide as 'superficial aspects of hardware'. Yes, indeed, I'm more focused on those 'superficial' things than on the basic fact that 'folks be greedy.' Somehow I feel I remain more on-point in the context of the subject.
..

So this is an argument about technology and how much control it can give?

 

[Grieves]

So this is an argument about technology and how much control it can give?

Nah, not exactly. The issue of technology and its influence came up in this discussion only when the inference was made that there's no measurable difference between the wealthy classes and ruling systems of the past and the wealthy classes and ruling systems of today. The most evident and indisputable difference between past systems and the present system is the powerful influence of modern technology, so it seemed the simplest point to get across. It's certainly not the only difference.

 

[SR1419]

It's not outdated, and the outlets you refer to make up the other 10%. Although describing FAIR as a media outlet is a bit of strange one. It's a site that monitors media. Znet has a rather pathetic reach, unfortunately. As does Democracy Now, The Real News Network, etc.

What are 'personal sources of information' for you is beside the point. Media does not equal information, that is certainly true. It tends to equal info/propaganda. The point is that 90% of all television, radio, and newspapers (not to mention advertising outlets, which includes billboards, bus-stops, subways, etc), are controlled by six corporations in the US.

The internet provides us with alternative media sources. At this moment those alternative sources have minimal reach in comparison with the big 6.

The list is outdated or factually wrong as GE doesn't own Comcast OR NBC, Time doesn't own Huffington Post, NFL.com is not owned by CBS-and there are more than 6 radios (15) stations in Minot, ND. There likely other errors and liberties taken with that graphic.

Moreover, the definition of media as defined by that list IS outdated...media is "means of communication". Web media is huge- "minimal"? I bet far more people surf the web and/or read newspapers online for their news than watch TV for it. Viewership for the 3 traditional network news casts has been declining for years...

Fewer than half the public (42%) now says it regularly watches one of the three nightly network broadcasts — down from 48% in 1995 and 60% in 1993.

Content from external source

http://www.people-press.org/1996/05/13/tv-news-viewership-declines/

Fox news (the most watched TV news) averages about 1.5 million viewers a day whilst HuffPo averages about 5 million unique visitors a day. InfoWars/Alex Jones gets about 700,000 per day.

(here is an interesting article on AJ and his machine: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/alex_jones_conspiracy_inc/ )

Moreover, 90% of all Newspapers in the US are NOT owned the the "big 6". The graphic left off all the newspaper media companies in America...Gannett, McClatchy, NYT, Washington Post Company, Tribune Company, Hearst, Media News Group, Belo, etc...

Clearly my personal sources of info is NOT beside the point if the media site that printed that list is claiming 90% of everything I watch, listen to or read is controlled by those 6 companies. Its not. Thats hyperbole.

(my 1000th post...don't know whether to laugh or cry)

 

[Pete Tar]

Also how exactly does owning a media outlet necessarily equate to 'controlling' every bit of information allowed on it?
Do the heads meet every month and pass down a memo on what's acceptable to report?

 

[SR1419]

The most evident and indisputable difference between past systems and the present system is the powerful influence of modern technology

Hasn't that always been the case? Hasn't technology always been a leading factor in ability to control?

 

[Bill]

Truly, the french revolution didn't result in any sort of utopia for the poor. It's just a clear example of the poor forcibly ousting the ruling class of the time and region and insisting their society be restructured, at least to a point. I'm expressing the doubt that such a thing is even possible in this day and age: that the new global aristocracy is largely impervious to most any sort of popular action of the 'peasant' class, violent or otherwise.... and thus that class has less power to change the ruling system than in the past.

Other than the executions, revolution didn't have a long term effect on the aristocracy in the past. I have a friend from college that fled the USSR in the late 70's. She was descended from the former Russian aristocracy and as soon as she hit western Europe she and her husband laid claim to family money that was waiting for them in the European banks. Using family connections, her husband settled into a high paying job in the US and she went back to college to earn her third degree.

 

[Grieves]

Hasn't that always been the case? Hasn't technology always been a leading factor in ability to control?

Certainly. From the longbow to CCTV, technology is very often at the forefront of major changes and new developments in world affairs. That's what they are, though. Changes and new developments. To say they're all part of the same overarching human condition evidenced throughout history isn't inaccurate, but the same could be said of any and every human act/interaction, ever. Pointing out that greed and the desire to dominate aren't new doesn't change the fact that the system being established now has never been established before, making it new by definition.

Other than the executions, revolution didn't have a long term effect on the aristocracy in the past. I have a friend from college that fled the USSR in the late 70's. She was descended from the former Russian aristocracy and as soon as she hit western Europe she and her husband laid claim to family money that was waiting for them in the European banks. Using family connections, her husband settled into a high paying job in the US and she went back to college to earn her third degree.

Doesn't your anecdote directly counter your position? That your friend hasn't suffered to any notable extent as a result of the Russian revolution is great for her, but your story suggests both her and her family no longer have a place in the Russian aristocracy in the long-term. Thus the revolution clearly had a long-term effect on those members of the aristocracy at least, didn't it? Not on their lifestyle perhaps, but certainly on their ability to influence Russia.

 

[SR1419]

Certainly. From the longbow to CCTV, technology is very often at the forefront of major changes and new developments in world affairs.

I agree and thus your previous comment- "The most evident and indisputable difference between past systems and the present system is the powerful influence of modern technology" is inaccurate as you admit that "modern" technology has always had a powerful influence in past "systems".

Pointing out that greed and the desire to dominate aren't new doesn't change the fact that the system being established now has never been established before, making it new by definition.

What? The wealthy elite controlling the vast majority of the Worlds wealth is new?

 

[Boodles]

...the revolution clearly had a long-term effect on those members of the aristocracy at least, didn't it? Not on their lifestyle perhaps, but certainly on their ability to influence Russia.

Inclined to agree. People see these revolutions, France to Ireland, Russia to China, as calamitous failures, don't they? However, though they failed to bring about lofty, utopian realities, they succeeded, to some significant degree, in destroying feudal systems (at great cost, admittedly), which was their point within a long historical process. Even Mr Jones has a role, and quite a significant one too, I'd contend, in this process as it continues.

 

[Clock]

Alex Jones predicts World War III again!!!

WWIII! For realsies this time!!
Saturday, October 12, 2013


I've written before about Jones' interesting habit of predicting the outbreak of WWIII about once a year. This year, the alleged transfer of nuclear warheads from an Air Force base in Texas (Dyess AFB) to one in Florida (DERMO) is the tip-off that WWIII is about to erupt, Jonesclaimed in early September. Jones and Anthony Gucciardi wrote, "There’s a reason that Russia has begun amassing 160,000 troops and heavy military equipment following an Israeli strike on Russian missiles in Syria. There’s a reason that the troops were called along with naval ships and bombers to attain ‘immediate combat readiness’ along the border. We reported on this months ago while the media was too busy focusing on the Trayvon Martin case to talk about the ignition of World War 3." The entire story is based on the say-so of a single anonymous military source.
Today, Infowars is crowing over the firing of Major General Michael Carey, the person in charge of intercontinental ballistic missiles at three U.S. bases (note that Dyess is not one of them). Carey was allegedly engaging in illegal gambling in his off-hours, but of course Jones doesn't accept that explanation. Jones is certain that Carey was canned for the paperless transfer of warheads. On his Facebook page, Jones (or someone representing him) posted the following status update yesterday morning: "The General in charge of America's long range nukes has been fired a month after Infowars exposed the top secret transfer of nuclear weapons by Dyess Air Force base."
Let's assume, for a moment, that Jones' unknown military "insider" is legit and truthful. Let's say that Dyess really was shipping all its ICBMs to Florida for some reason, without the proper authorization and documentation. I have absolutely no reason to trust this information, but let's justsay it's solid.
Does this mean WWIII has to start soon?
Of course not. Even if a nuclear strike against Syria takes place soon (and there is absolutely no reason to believe this will be the case), subsequent events are not a foregone conclusion.
Take a look at Jones' other WWIII predictions. Ask yourself how plausible they were. Keep in mind that he was just as adamant about those predictions as he is about his most recent, Syria-based one.

Content from external source

-from Leaving Alex Jones Town

http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.ca/2013/10/wwiii-for-realsies-this-time.html