|
|
Post by phaedrus on Aug 20, 2005 5:23:31 GMT
Dear Fintan, regarding your show InsideTrackNews050805b.mp3 which I just downloaded recently and listened to about 6 times:
I still really enjoy listening to your show. I have never heard anyone else (well, its not like I even KNOW that many other internet radio journalists) get so into conspiracy theory on such a deep level. Its all very, what I would call, 'cool'. I feel like I am glimpsing a part of reality that I just never hear anyone else talking about. So as much as it titillates my conspiracy-bone, in the same way (I was recently thinking) that it probably did little kids who used to get a secret decoder ring that they sent away for from an ad on their cereal box, I still have to ask, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? You have said that you have been researching this for the last year. You say you now have "firm conclusions". Well, ok, let's see the evidence! Let's see more of this research you have been doing! I mean, you are putting forth some very controversial info here. That my conspiratorial view of the world is nothing compared to what is really going on. But you just state these theories and you haven't said anything to back up your theory. And I'm sorry to say this, but I haven't been too impressed with your reasoning ability so far. You Fintan Dunne (or anyone) can go and imagine all kinds of things and now that we have the internet you can write about it and in effect publish it and get lots of people to read it and say, "wow, that is amazing!" But what good is it if you don't have anything backing it up? And why stop there? Why not claim that all these 9/11 pretend researchers are actually shape-shifting reptilians who are in the process of taking over the planet Earth in order to colonize it?
You do have a very interesting perspective. I like your references to the 'holy television' for example.
You say things such as, the stolen election issue was raised to divert attention from the slaughter in Fallujah. Why do 'they' need to divert attention when they are totally in control of media from the beginning. Here you act like 'they' are a separate entity from the media, that 'they' have to 'play' the media (well, true, 'they' don't own every single little small town paper media, but as we know, all those little media feed off the big media). And even if 'they' didn't have complete control of the media, what difference does it make if we know about what is going on in Fallujah? 'They' have control of the left (you claim), it is totally a construction of 'them', 'they' have control of the elections, 'they' have control of the politicians. What the hell can we do about it, whatever 'they' decide to do?
You say: "And what's important to bear in mind is that if it wasn't for the funding which the corporates are putting into the left wing, there wouldn't be a left wing. There would be no opposition. The left is largely a government-funded fake opposition. Because otherwise you might actually realize you are living in a totalitarian state. So the left is a fable. It exists in the minds of the ordinary voter, but it doesn't exist as a political force. As a political force it is controlled from top to bottom, like all political forces are controlled by these people." <= very interesting and provocative statements! So I'll be looking forward to reading the book you are going to write supporting these conclusions.
You say: "The really big question I've got for those who are skeptical about what I'm saying about the extent and scope of CIA/establishment control of the U.S. political and media structure on the left as well as the right, for those who are skeptical of that, I would say: Well where the f**k are the CIA then? Are they on vacation, are they inept? Do you think these people are just so stupid that they don't feature. If its true, that 9/11 was an inside job, a full inside job, were they so asleep and lacking in resources that they couldn't stop a 9/11 movement coming out. Or were they so well funded that they were waiting for - not only were they waiting for a 9/11 movement to emerge but knowing that one would emerge they created it, from top to bottom. Every single component. And when you consider that there's no point in somebody who is going to cover a certain area for the agency not saying exactly what the people in that area want to hear. That's in fact precisely what they have to do. To go to the niche and tell the people in that niche exactly what they want to hear. That's how you do it. There's no point in doing it any other way. There's no point in having a guy out there running cover for the CIA's involvement in drugs who says the CIA doesn't have any involvement. No, what you want is a guy who says that the CIA is up to its ass in the drugs issue. Now, now you've got a cover. And using that principle of telling people exactly what they want to hear, they were waiting with a totally prepared 9/11 movement/script - characters, components." <= Ok, please excuse me while I put my head in the oven and turn up the gas. ;D
Instead of (or in addition to) listing web sites that are misdirecting us, how about personalities? Is Cynthia McKinney an agent? Is John Conyers an agent? What about Ted Kennedy? I mean, after all, he was for square behind the Kerry campaign. How about that supposed progressive Paul Wellstone? I guess they had to eliminate him because he was going a little too far with "saying exactly what the left wants to hear", eh? I mean, if that's true, maybe we ought to try to get more of our senators/congress people to be CIA agents who are tasked with saying exactly what we want to hear.
So in conclusion I just want to say, yeah Fintan, if you can prove that all of these web sites are not to be trusted. If everything you are saying is true, boy oh boy I am with you! I applaud you for finding this out and setting us straight! I will look at all these sites and their authors in a totally different light. And make your site my main site. Ok, so just prove to me what you are saying is true, and I will consider breakfornews a bright shining ray of truth piercing through the darkness of that jungle of disinformation known as the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pracau on Aug 22, 2005 14:29:56 GMT
Phaedrus
I recently happened to listen again to Fintan's 21 Sep 04 "We are NOT Just Smart Monkeys" audio-piece a few times straight. It pays a re-listen, particularly in the light of the CIA Fakes list controversy, short-lived as it seems to have been.
Still enjoying my new iPod and travelling a bit, I guess I've listened to The CIA, the Left & Tabloid 9/11 about 15 times, maybe 25. It is a good show, very COOL, I agree, Phaedrus.
You went on to seek proof for Fintan's nomination of sites to the list, as if being nominated would in any way make a difference to anything. The way I see the list is as its being the hook to gain attention, in a marketing sense, attention to the idea of Intelligence orchestrating and implementing the whole Terrorise people scenario, including its portrayal to us through a captive Media. The proof is irrelevant, you either see it that way or you don't.
We are NOT Just Smart Monkeys is so good because shows how extremely mechanistic and outright wrong ideas have hung on in our received vernacular reality. The whole purpose of Proof may have helped illuminate actual reality once, but its application constrains the vernacular reality to Corporate advantage.... in just about every area of our lives.
In this vernacular view the whole idea of being at a Higher Level is coloured by the mechanistic and militaristic hierarchic command structure, designed basically in the 19th Century. When one realises that most people are in debt (to banks) it is not surprising really that power should have become so centralised. Nor where money making has become the sin qua non of existence. What's done in this world is what's paid for. And the Piper calls the tune.
And they've got all corners covered because they pay for a lot of thinking. Yes, and great to hear it on the Media, albeit Breakfornews.com.
But I wonder why Fintan publically claims to being on a Higher Level with all of its vernacular Commercial/Military overtones? It makes more sense to be different, just another blind man describing the elephant to the king.
And I wonder why Fintan is so quick to dismiss Peak Oil as just another Psy-Op without considering the possibility that Peak Oil is hiding some other really serious truth from view... just as the examples he gives demonstrate.
I'm sure that Fintan has given some care to his selections to the CIA sites list... just as sports pundits give some care to their selections for teams of the Century. But this is the problem with the Higher Level. Everyone reads into messages or shows that which makes sense given their own experiences and being, So despite the many aspects of his show I like he's shutting off an avenue of enquiry important to me, a blind man feeling another part of the elephant. By Fintan's criteria I could well put him onto the disinfo list. I'm sure Michael Ruppert does. But I would leave Ruppert there too.
That's the problem with lists...the downside to set against their being a good and necessary marketing hook.
Fintan says that disinformation to be effective in a PsyOps sense it has to be embedded in information, strike a chord with the target niche, and divert them into some mindless energy consuming argument with no provable outcome. Peak Oil is a classic but why this PsyOp now and what important truth is being hidden.
Given the mechanistic view of the universe that has largely prevailed since the 19th century, it is hardly surprising that production is mechanised. The Oil Industry has conspicuously profited from and sponsored mechanisation, incidentally creating an elite that has been enriched in the process. This tight-knit group of corporations has profited mightily though its control of the production and distribution of this (till the Peak) abundant resource. The taps had to be controlled to stem the flow of this Free energy and to maintain obscenely high margins. And this at the same time profits were invested in anything that consumed their product. The perfect positive feedback loop.
The Peak Oil PsyOp is hiding from view the importance of this phenomenon as the force largely behind the world as it is. Its hiding from view any linking of the oil price and economic experience. Yet oddly, no-one is really surprised at the fact that since the 1940's every oil price spike has been followed by recession. We all know this.
But whilst the Peak Oil PsyOp rages... no-one is remotely interested is the quite serious possibility that the world as we know it is dependent not just on oil but on cheap oil. This happens to be so (and again surprises no-one). But the vernacular reality depends on proof given by experts whose job it is to support the status quo with its concentrated oligarchies. So this obviously important area of enquiry receives no formal scientific attention.
It doesn't meet the tabloid need; whereas the Peak Oil argument clearly does.
Fintan couches much of his show in terms of the traditional Left and Right, seeing the PsyOps as deliberately disabling and humiliating the Left. This dichotomy has served the System well with both Left and Right comfortably in the elite (Higher) strata. The Left may have been of the people once but it certainly isn't now at the representative level. Personally I'd much prefer that we look at the world through a top/ bottom or mechanistic/ organic frame rather than Left/Right (which has only been around since the 18th Century).
The top has always striven to maintain and enhance its hegemony or control. But in the end, can it now when the price of energy promises to upwardly spiral, whether or not its genuinely Peak Oil time or just another Oil Company commercial ploy.
Another byproduct of the growth to economic prominence of oil is that energy research and development has been publically constrained to prevent real alternatives from reaching the market place.
Returning to the We are NOT Monkeys piece Fintan concludes that by very simply demonstrating that Free energy exists, despite the fact that our oil based world says it can't, on the basis of 16th and 17th Century science. Tinkerers round the world are yet again proving to themselves that Free energy devices work.
As the top collapses then it will be tinkerers, ordinary people, that will take us where we will go. Not the elite who are locked into their money based measures so tightly that they can't see beyond their apparent success. Feeling powerful, they take their Nations to war. But they are in reality just dogs in a corner, flexing their dying muscles.
Don't wait for proof. There is no way to find it.
Just watch this unfolding... all aspects of which will contribute to whatever will be the next stage or Level of things.
And thanks to Fintan for coming out and saying what has long needed saying.
Looking forward to the shows.
Keep scraping the bullshit off the truth, to steel a phrase from one of the sites on your list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pracau on Aug 23, 2005 2:01:15 GMT
Odd thing. A few hours after posting the above post I came accross this comment to today's Rigorous Intuition post by Jeff Wells' blog (which features on Fintan's CIA list) It expands usefully on my point that Left Right are just points within the Corporate/ Mechanist frame that characterizes our vernacular 'Reality' as it is portrayed by the Media, and that a better (more useful now) frame would be Top/Down, Mechanistic/organic, Money economy/non-money economy. The RI comment (incidentally to Jeff Well's latest take on the Stockwell murder PsyOp which is worth a read): rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-job-on-square.html#commentsThe comment by a James Redford Jeff, you said in the above "What we see in British Freemasonry is an occult organization with a political inclination towards the Right and even Far Right, with deep roots in both the Satanic and the police fraternities." In the original meaning of the political terms "left" and "right" the above statement would be true, but the meanings of "left," "right," "liberal," and "conservative" have changed from their original political meanings. The modern meanings of the political terms "left," "right," "liberal," and "conservative" are all the same ideology: statism and collectivism. "Far left" and "far right" have the same meaning nowadays: totalitarianism; authoritarianism. Really, there is only up or down: up to liberty or down to slavery. In the original sense of the political terms "left" and "right," left meant liberty and right meant government control. The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.) Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal. Of course, this bastardization of the original meanings of "liberal" and "leftist" to nowadays mean statism--same as the orignal meanings of "conservative" and "rightist"--was quite intentional on the part of the ruling elite. Present the public with two false "choices" which are really the same, i.e., more power to the government. So either ideology the public chooses, the ruling elite wins. As you say, Fintan, "BreakForNews requires actual thinking". About the frames we think in and where they came from. Respond please. This is not an attack. Its a provocation. Not like that silly You won't post this email. Don't get sucked back to their level now that you have exposed it. Else I could be inclined to put you on my list of Elite fakers |
|
|
|
Post by BreakForNews on Aug 24, 2005 1:33:10 GMT
Quite a lot in this post and your previous one.
Been hetic today with Rave Raid and Saddam,
will reply properly soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by BreakForNews on Aug 24, 2005 10:30:29 GMT
I came accross this comment to today's Rigorous Intuition post by Jeff Wells' blog (which features on Fintan's CIA list) The comment by a James Redford Jeff, you said in the above "What we see in British Freemasonry is an occult organization with a political inclination towards the Right and even Far Right, with deep roots in both the Satanic and the police fraternities." The persistent overlay of themes about Masons, Satanism, ritual child sacrifice etc. are just the kind of tinfoil emphasis that gives conspiracy theory a bad name. It's meant to. The reality is far more banal. Thus far more believable. Which is why the sensational spin is so counterproductive. |
|
|
|
Post by phaedrus on Aug 25, 2005 0:37:02 GMT
And I wonder why Fintan is so quick to dismiss Peak Oil as just another Psy-Op without considering the possibility that Peak Oil is hiding some other really serious truth from view... just as the examples he gives demonstrate. Yea, whose to say that Peak Oil isn't hiding some other really serious truth from view, such as WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF f**kING OIL!! Fintan's logic (from what I have read and listened to) on this seems to be, the oil people would pretend that we're running out of oil to jack up the price if they could, so they are (a no brainer). But to that I say this: What if the peak oil stuff is really true? How would what is happening be any different? If there is no difference, then there IS NO EVIDENCE that peak oil is a scam, ok? Any logicians out there correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that last sentence is a logical certainty (and if you think that logic is an old mechanistic concept from the 18th century that no longer applies, I'm afraid I will have to regard you as a 'no brain'er). By the way, another web site I really kind of like, that talks about things similar to breakfornews is called cyberjournal.org. This is not a very well known web site and is not generally pointed to by others so is almost invisible (I discovered it not through the internet but from this article this guy Richard Moore wrote that was published in a magazine I subscribed to. This article is called "Escaping the Matrix" ( www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/WE/jun00Matrix.shtml) and I think everyone interested in what is really going on should read this.) Here is R Moore's take on the London Bombings: "In context: The London Bombing Black Op" ( www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id='997'&batch='16'&lists='cj') Now this Moore guy, who is an ex-pat American living in Ireland of all places, probably won't impress Fintan since he references many of those web sites that have been relegated to 'disinfo purgatory' by our host and hostess. But he also has a very interesting perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Aug 25, 2005 19:11:45 GMT
phaedrus, thanks for the links to cyberjournal. It is always good to find sites we might not have been aware of and interesting to find people also in Ireland writing similarly to Fintan.
I will read through Robert Moor's site with interest. Thanks
|
|
tj
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by tj on Aug 25, 2005 21:25:48 GMT
One of the principal ways in which the Global Elite may control the world is through the deliberate manipulation of relative scarcity and relative abundance. This may be true both about the evidence regarding 9/11 (etc.) & about oil and other supposedly scarce resources. One of the easiest ways to get a preliminary indication about whether a site is “fake” may be by looking at whether the site reports on “The Sham Saddam Scam” story (as indicated in Fintan's latest main site post). None of the sites that Fintan & Kathy say are “fakes” have done so (except for the now deceased Joe Vialls). All of these sites continue to plow away in the barren fields of the “orgy of evidence” that may have been (probably was) deliberately planted by the 9/11, London Bombing, and Iraq perpetrators. Another way to determine the "fakes" is to look at the number of “Fear & Confusion” stories that these sites continue to print and to hype. How many of their “9/11 Smoking Gun” and “Imminent Warning” stories have proven to be true? Look at their track records. "Peak Oil" is a scam both because there is plenty of oil in the ground and because there are plenty of other viable energy technologies that may be able to replace oil (at least in part, given proper investment and encouragement to develop). The Chinese just signed a $200 Billion Dollar oil & gas deal with Iran. Virtually none of Iran's "proven" reserves will be used to supply China; and thus, no existing Iranian oil customers will be deprived. West Africa is brimming with "unproven" but known-to-exist oil & gas reserves in the Nigeria / Sao Tome e Principe Joint Development Zone and elsewhere. Southeast Asia, the Gulf of Mexico, the Falkland Islands, Russia, India, and even Israel have "unproven" but known-to-exist oil. Canada and Colorado (and other areas) have massive oil shale deposits available for exploitation. Some of this oil is cheap to develop, and some of it is not. "Proven oil reserves" has a very specific, very restrictive meaning for accounting, tax, and other purposes -- and deliberately so. The concept is designed to understate the true abundance of oil on this planet (and to enable an “oil depletion allowance” deduction for tax purposes for oil companies in the U.S.). Deliberate chaos (or threatened chaos) in Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, etc. is also used to threaten a cut off in oil supplies, thus increasing the price of oil. Have you noticed? "Peak Oil" can be "scientifically proven" for existing, "proven" oil reserves (especially with all of Mike Ruppert's footnotes), but what does it mean? Much of the “Peak Oil” hype is in part a scientifically verifiable but meaningless oil drilling artifact due to the fact that oil fields produce less oil per day over time as the old drilling apparatus clogs and as the pressure in declining oil fields decreases. Why have oil companies decreased their expenditures for new oil exploration as "Peak Oil" is impending? If you stop exploring for oil, then you may not find as much. Why do most of the “fake” Internet media continue to chase all of the bright, shiny, Red Herring that continue to swim in our pool? Why do both so-called “Right” and so-called “Left” Internet media continue to pursue the minimal (but verifiable) links of Israel to 9/11 (to the exclusion of more fertile fields of evidence)? Why do the mainstream media continue to pursue the minimal (but verifiable) links of Arabs & Muslims to 9/11 (to the exclusion of more fertile fields of evidence)? Is there any possibility that “un-American Christians” played a more prominent role in 9/11? See, e.g., www.VaticanAssassins.org. What happened to all of the Nazis and all of the wealth plundered during World War II? Could Nazi progeny and Nazi wealth be involved? Didn't some or much of the Bush family fortune (and the fortunes of others) come from trading with the Nazis? Didn't the Vatican help to spirit Nazis and Nazi wealth out of Germany & elsewhere? In today's market, the wealth plundered by the Nazis would be worth Trillions of Dollars. Who controls it? Why do the Internet media continue to pick on Bush (that stupid boy) and Cheney (that evil man) to the exclusion of other possibilities? For comic relief? Could it be that the orgy of evidence that Bush & Cheney were involved in letting it or making it happen on purpose may be deliberate? Have you noticed that we may be entering an era of “Peak Evidence”? As more and more of the abundant Red-Herring evidence of 9/11 is exposed for what it is, the supply of new evidence appears to be drying up. The new evidence and theories that are being mined & manufactured may also be watered down and/or contain less octane. The evidence company miners, drillers, and manufacturers may have a solution. They appear to be producing much more new evidence and many more new theories. However, the new evidence may be less plausible, less powerful, and less filling. How many times (and in how many ways) can you say that the U.S. (or Israel) is about to bomb or invade Iran? How many terrorist attack imminent warnings can you give? How many dead Muslim terrorist leaders can you get to speak on Al-Jazeera in the same week (on tape, of course)? Which duly elected foreign leader should we assassinate next? Which election should we rig next? Are Cheney & Bush really indicted? What about Global Warming? Has “Jellystone” erupted yet? Who’s a lizard? And who’s not? Given the possibility that we may be entering the era of “Peak Evidence,” maybe the evidence companies need to be given an “Evidence Depletion Deduction” for their taxes…  [glow=red,2,300]T J[/glow]“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think “ -- Niels Bohr (physicist) |
|
|
|
Post by Hawkwind on Aug 25, 2005 22:14:47 GMT
TJ, your analysis has a flaw.  The palatable evidence may be exhausted. There are many levels of evidence that have yet to be exposed, because it is so counter intuitive ... but simple, never the less. The fakes take their theories to the point of "average" understanding or they take it into ridiculous territory to negate the logical/simple. Remember there is a very solid principle called "Achems Razor", look it up and learn it! You may also want to look at something called "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle". I am and will be vague by design. It still is way too soon to dictate the possibilities when one ponders any truth.  Reality may be nothing more than endlessly asking the same question, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in a lie ... bounced off a mirror ... talk about hyperbole! There really is a "Next Level" .... -- H |
|
tj
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by tj on Aug 26, 2005 0:04:14 GMT
Hawkwind, I agree with you that "There are many levels of evidence that have yet to be exposed..."
However, given the need for constant action and copy in the Internet and mainstream media, this has not stopped the "fakes" from manufacturing, drilling, and digging up "new evidence" and new theories (as fake or as watered down as they may be). Thus the need for the "Evidence Depletion Deduction" (at least for U.S. evidence drillers and manufacturers).
Yes, I am very familiar with "Occam's Razor" (which has some relevance here) and even more so with the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" (which may have little releveance here, except for the fact that some part of all of us would sometimes like to be in more than one place at the same time).
As for your need to "be vague by design," I won't ask why... However, you may want to recall the prolific post in the forum topic "Warning Imminent Attack on New York." Despite your generally positive response to the initial post and your indication that you thought that my follow-up post might be "spam," his semi-predicted terror event did not occur on the indicatd dates.
The effusive vagueness of the initial "Imminent Attack" forum poster (and his primary source) and the vagueness of his responses to you and to me was one good indication that he may have been so full of himself that his eyes were turning brown. Since I was born with brown eyes, you can never tell with me... ;D
T J
|
|
|
|
Post by BreakForNews on Aug 27, 2005 3:13:36 GMT
It's hard to summarize three years of watching every story, tracking who is pushing what, etc.. But I have now posted a lot of new articles on Wagnews.blogspot.com which are fleshing out the reasoning behind the Fakes List.
They had to have a diversion from Fallujah because they were about to commit international war crimes there. These people are ruthless, but not reckless. They don't take risks unnecessarily.
Yes, they have control of the left, elections and the media. But it's not total control. And it was achieved by methodical work over many, many years. This level of control is not something you establish -then forget about.
It's a top-down control, so there is always a risk that lower levels will rebel or see through the ops. So, it's a constant campaign with risks at all times. Risks they are prudent enough to minimize.
I am not going to prove a thing to you. I offer a macro analysis and spotlight the examples which point to a covert agenda. I will detail that agenda. But, as ever, you believe what you want. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
But bear in mind that I have been on this ball since 7 days after 9/11; have been full-time on these events with the help of reader/listener donations; have interviewed many of the key people and have had plenty of time to carefully figure out what is really going on.
That's why I was spotlighting the role of the G8 a year before the G8/London bombs, for example.
Well the title "CIA Internet Fakes" is centainly a sort of marketing handle for the concept. But the list of 108 sites is a painstakingly-researched effort to expose the specific ways the deception was created and is beng maintained.
The only reason I put the issues in a Left-Right context is bcause that's the practical reality of political systems today. I certainly don't see the solutions in Left/Right terms.
Agreed. We do not have democracy, we have something called "Representative Democracy". That's an outmoded concept from an era where the people were "represented" by an elite who could read, write and rule.
We need more democracy and less representatives. That's a big, big part of the solution.
Good point.
Here goes: if Peak Oil was true, then the oil-producing countries would be taking a look at their supposedly almost empty reserves and raising their prices --thus squeezing the margins of the Oil Corporates, who would now be making less and less money. Whereas they are actually making more and more.
If Peak Oil was true, then governments would be passing laws requiring mandatory insulation levels in homes; putting caps on car engine size; would be making mass transit investments; would be relentless eliminating waste, etc. etc. All this would lower oil turnover --thus lowering prices and lowering oil profits.
In reality, the Oil cartel will NOT pump more oil --if it means lower prices or margins. They keep supply at the level they reckon we will pay for without revolution. Right now they can get away with murder, because others have murdered to create the right climate.
Peak Oil = Boy is it a good idea we are over in Iraq.
End of Suburbia = Ditto.
Peak Oil AND Global Warming are both also a warm-up campaign for something else entirely: Nuclear Power.
We don't have unlimited oil. There's plenty for decades.
While they squeeze max profits out of oil, they are lining us up to accept more nuke power. After all those naughty hadrocarbons are warming the planet, eh? And we are just out of oil, eh?
That way they make megabucks from both oil and nuke power.
Both are top-down distribution systems with monopolistic control. Zero point energy would be the beginning of the end of this power. Think about it.
The Oil
|
|
|
|
Post by Pracau on Aug 28, 2005 3:25:17 GMT
And that's that.
A cynical but accurate outlining of one side of the Peak Oil PsyOp and the absolutely true 'What they're not telling you" is that Zero Point Energy would be the beginning of the end of monopolistic Power.
Now lets get back to what I was on about... the marketing hook, what was it, I remember now, the CIA internet sites.
***
Thanks for praising my posts as thought-provoking but where is the evidence yet of thought having been provoked.
I really hope that that is not that... that you might respond to what I was trying to get accross to you in those posts.
The PeakOil PsyOp undoubtedly is a cover for an OILCO scam.
But to dismiss it simply as that hides from us the possibility of exploring the implications of the fact that this OIL scam has being going on for a Century or more... that has been the critical ingredient (not the only one, but critical none-the-less) giving us the world as we know it, and sustaining it.
Complete with the fact that every oil price spike since the 1940's has been followed by recession, firms going bust, bankruptcies, workers loosing jobs, etc etc. Bit of a worry, don't you think... with oil prices sprialling ever upward.
All to the tune of record OilCo profits.
***
But that's that.... where was I now? Peak Oil is just a scam.
Exposing the CIA fakes... tabloid marketing territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by BreakForNews on Sept 4, 2005 2:56:08 GMT
Pracau Wrote: I really hope that that is not that... that you might respond to what I was trying to get accross to you in those posts.
The PeakOil PsyOp undoubtedly is a cover for an OILCO scam. But to dismiss it simply as that hides from us the possibility of exploring the implications of the fact that this OIL scam has being going on for a Century or more... that has been the critical ingredient (not the only one, but critical none-the-less) giving us the world as we know it, and sustaining it. You're telling me that Peak Oil is an extension of an old con. Right. It is. And that it gave us the world as it is. Right. It has. I know dude. So what's the problem? Why are you busting my b***s as if I am disagreeing with you? |
|
|
|
Post by phaedrus on Sept 16, 2005 19:26:41 GMT
Thank you Kathy! I hope that you and/or Fintan will let me/us know what you think of the writings of Richard Moore. I admit that he seems to accept a lot of what you call CIA fakes on the internet as fact, but you have to admit his article (Escaping the Matrix) is pretty interesting I think. But if you think he hasn't got it right, you have my permission to go down to Wexford and straighten him out!! |
|
The palatable evidence may be exhausted. There are many levels of evidence that have yet to be exposed, because it is so counter intuitive ... but simple, never the less. The fakes take their theories to the point of "average" understanding or they take it into ridiculous territory to negate the logical/simple. Remember there is a very solid principle called "Achems Razor", look it up and learn it! 
Reality may be nothing more than endlessly asking the same question, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in a lie ... bounced off a mirror ... talk about hyperbole! There really is a "Next Level" ....