Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi David,

My understanding is that any negative commentary on these two companies is exclusively from niche sources, as opposed to MSM. Traditionally in the west we had laws against monopolies or cartels, they seem to have evaporated or to be ignored.

Regarding the media networks, it seems like you get down to about 9 conglomerates, I don’t think its clear the connection between some of them and Blackrock/Vanguard. You would think this might be newsworthy, that people invested in renewables are also in oil, or that if we buy Pepsi or Coke, McDonalds or Burger King, your profits reach the same people. 


Most peoples notions of a global conspiracy might be Bond villain-esque, a bunch of evil people sat around a table (like Quigley pointed out in terms of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner). When you consider how much influence and sway the people sat around the Vanguard table might have, do we create the circumstances of the Bond plot but, expect there to he only good as a result or, do the financial aims or other goals of shareholders prove incompatible with democracy or what is best for humanity? Or, do such individuals have aspirations of a world shaped by their own ideas and experiences? If we cast our minds back to times of fuedalism, the monarch largely did what was best for them, whilst recognising on some level that consent rested with the people, and all they had to do was avoid or resist revolution. The Roman’s for example kept their people happy with fantastical gladiator games, alcohol and women, it kept the minds of the masses totally occupied with entertainment. In the modern era we have more dopamine releasing entertainment and substances to abuse than at any moment in history.
I had this whole discussion around a table with some friends on Friday evening, one friend, a psychoanalyst felt that the circumstances today are a mix of capitalism and a natural progression (ie collectivism is creeping in by itself). I asked; if there was a conspiracy at play and the governments were being manipulated or controlled by a higher-order, how might the world look? He paused for a moment and said “It would look exactly the same as it does now”. Whilst I understand it’s heretical to make such a claim, considering the perception most people have of the world and how it works, I also think looking at the almost $20trn held as a combined by these two companies, it is probably something we should take more seriously. 
 

Cheers 

 

Chris

Chris - I do take all this seriously.  Conglomerate control of media limits the media response to issues that the electorate deserves, and the incisiveness of our entertainments.  Selfishly, it limits my rights and opportunities to create incisive entertainments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Chris - I do take all this seriously.  Conglomerate control of media limits the media response to issues that the electorate deserves, and the incisiveness of our entertainments.  Selfishly, it limits my rights and opportunities to create incisive entertainments.

One of the most unpalatable views I have here amongst an audience that holds politics closely to its hearts, is the concept of two parties being counterpoints, or two news networks being counterpoints to each other or government. ie serving a purpose in a larger, more complex game.
If the Republicans move left, as long as the Democrats move left at the same time, nobody notices the shift and, vice versa. The same with Labour & Conservative in the UK. Media also facilitates that move, they run stories and headlines that are as far left or right as possible and, the party shifts and acts as if it is responding to the people. We can sit and say whilst living in Maine that those views don’t represent me but, because the country is so vast, we don’t know if people in other states were crying out for the shift. Tech algorithms  make that even harder to understand. Did you notice Facebook removed the ‘Poll’ options. They were a bit inconvenient during 2015/2016, as they gave a true reflection (as far as we knew). We have no idea where we are at, we trust the news and the party to be a mirror of society, when they are often not. There is much passionate discussion over Trump here, was he necessary for an agenda, in the way Al Quaeda were needed to push the patriot act through? The 1/6 discussion rages on another thread but, the outcome is domestic terror laws that permit the state to break up protests and hold individuals captive, as a danger to democracy. How great is the propensity for misuse? If we have agendas coming that may invoke a public outcry and protests, will these laws be used to stifle them, make sure they are not heard?! We can look at how North Korea, Iran or China treat their dissidents to understand how this enhanced need for security and censorship is going to take us into dark times. 
 

If we were to think of news as entertainment,  perhaps the popular American WWF wrestling might be analogous in some ways (imho). The audience is all consumed, full of passion, and chanting for their desired victor. Given two horses we simply need to choose one. At the end of it all we are either elated or disappointed but, the journey is what entertains us and gets dopamine and adrenaline flowing. In a political race the news is part of that entertainment and we release the same chemicals during the excitement or combat. The election is much higher stakes, we feel our future depends on it, we are so much more invested. At the end of it, we’re triumphant or angry, feeling as though we won or lost something. 
Most of us are aware that the WWF is fake but, we think the election means something very significant, a reflection of democracy and fairness. The WWF winning fighter has been chosen to win and the losing fighter has been chosen to lose on that occasion. If we think about political candidates, the policy differences are almost always very narrow (the odd exception granted), the actual differences in office are even narrower still, with very little promises stuck to and very little change, of course for the powerful entities, continuity is great. The parties have sway or, the opportunity to manipulate who makes it to the election as their candidate (Hilary v Bernie). As we know in the past, candidates with benefactors or who can raise a lot funding have an advantage and a debtor or something they’ll feel they owe. The system in general is corrupted by the way that politics is funded. 

Is there some small possibility that we are watching a rigged game, a theatre At times does the odd idealist like JFK slip through the net and win an election that was intended to go the other way. One way to avoid that might be vetting candidates to make sure you have people that owe favours, that are utterly self interested and that understand the way the system works. How far away from the founding fathers vision of how the American constitution should work, are we? How far away are we from the America JFK desired? We’re in a bad way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of very thought provoking tweets from today:

 

Robert Kiyosaki wrote a tremendous best seller in “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and he has shared financial education with many.  That said, what do you think he is implying about the US political system here? Who will Kamala have as VP? 
 

The second tweet is one we should all recognise and relate to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana de Vegh said she first met Kennedy in 1958 when she was 20 years old at a ballroom in Boston, where he was on a re-election tour for senator.

“The senator was standing directly across the table. And he was looking … at me. ‘Oh, God, don’t let me blush’, I prayed. Useless, of course,” she wrote in an essay published in Air Mail News on Saturday.

“Give me your seat, so a tired old man can sit next to a pretty girl,” she recalled him saying to her date.

Ms De Vegh, a student at the time, said he would often tell her she was “special” and had a “spark”.

“‘I’m expecting great things from you, ya know.’ Always laughing, always looking at me in what I hoped was a special way,” she wrote. “I didn’t realise then that I’d simply been netted, separated from the other students, who might have offered some emotional ballast in this situation.”

She said the #MeToo movement “has provided a specific context for needed re-evaluation,” as she reflected on the “inequality and idealisation” of being in a relationship with the president, who was assassinated in 1963.

The affair reportedly continued for about four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, Regarding Your quotation below of Robert Kiyosaki's  about Kamala Harris's VP running mate.

Kiyosaki: TRUTH to come out. When Kamala is President the House and Senate will have to confirm her choice for Vice President. Her VP choice will show the world who the real “PUPPET MASTER’s” are. Stay awake. Rarely will people ever see who is “the real Wizard of Oz,” behind the curtain.

You've mentioned Robert Kiyosaki before Chris. Robert Kiyosaki is another one of these get rich quick shysters, that I've always resented his marketing handle which is to put down his poor financially unsavvy biological father in favor of his  financially savvy sort of adopted "rich father". I always hated his willingness to use his real father as a stooge in his marketing scheme. I think that says volumes about him as a person, but that's me.. I think the proof in the pudding about Kiyosaki   is that he is actually a part of Trump U. and has done many seminars with Trump.

Of course you know that. That's why you always seemed so willing when you first came here to embrace Trump as some savior against the "Deep state" (which in Trump talk, is any entity that could possibly collect taxes from him) and were the first here to suggest the election was stolen. 

Similarly in your chosen topics, there's very little about climate change, wealth inequality, very little disdain for the financial elites, you're actually down on taxing the rich, stating  the same reasons that the rich always use.  "The rich  never pay taxes anyway", and then you use the ever present elitist threat," besides the rich will just pick up and move somewhere else", which I'm sure happens a lot in the U.K., but not much in the U.S.

While the financial elites barely deserve a mention, the  whole problem to you is solely the totalitarian government which is exactly the pablum the elites try to tell the everyday people in their long term objective to defund the government while they're controlling it, so they can squeeze the government of resources in a way to leave only their priorities remaining. I'll credit you that hopefully you're not conscious of that, but are another aspirant, duped into another "get rich in  America" dream.

Anyway, those are just my impressions from rather corporate statements you've made and influences you cite. Speaking of which, As for your quotation of Kiyosaki, whose obviously no fan of Kamala Harris. That's sort of typical of the unsubstantiated  statements, you're sometimes liable to post here on this thread Chris. There is nothing more behind it than a fat rich billionaire turned political prophet, airing his wacko suspicions of a supposed "Socialist" who would dare insinuate that Kiyoshi pays more taxes. In the end, he doesn't even deliver the VP's name, because it's all a tease to get more subscribers. And you don't have to speculate any more about it than that.

It's like that other right wing tripe rumor I heard here during the 2016 election that the DNC knowingly made Biden the party nominee for President knowing he  was soon to die (or maybe killing him?) in order to make Harris President!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Diana de Vegh said she first met Kennedy in 1958 when she was 20 years old at a ballroom in Boston, where he was on a re-election tour for senator.

“The senator was standing directly across the table. And he was looking … at me. ‘Oh, God, don’t let me blush’, I prayed. Useless, of course,” she wrote in an essay published in Air Mail News on Saturday.

“Give me your seat, so a tired old man can sit next to a pretty girl,” she recalled him saying to her date.

Ms De Vegh, a student at the time, said he would often tell her she was “special” and had a “spark”.

“‘I’m expecting great things from you, ya know.’ Always laughing, always looking at me in what I hoped was a special way,” she wrote. “I didn’t realise then that I’d simply been netted, separated from the other students, who might have offered some emotional ballast in this situation.”

She said the #MeToo movement “has provided a specific context for needed re-evaluation,” as she reflected on the “inequality and idealisation” of being in a relationship with the president, who was assassinated in 1963.

The affair reportedly continued for about four years.

How do you feel about the words above, Pete? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

How do you feel about the words above, Pete? 

Another belated tell all of an affair with JFK.  One of many.  I judge JFK as a president.  An esteemed world statesman, liberal, environmentalist, advocate of world peace etc.  No, not perfect....who is?  Times change and I don't go too judgemental on the morals of figures of history.

It's sad that a lot of news believers will judge, when we know that so many of JFK's contemporaries were holding skeletons in their closets, never really reported, that were many times more darker than JFK's love life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Another belated tell all of an affair with JFK.  One of many.  I judge JFK as a president.  An esteemed world statesman, liberal, environmentalist, advocate of world peace etc.  No, not perfect....who is?  Times change and I don't go too judgemental on the morals of figures of history.

It's sad that a lot of news believers will judge, when we know that so many of JFK's contemporaries were holding skeletons in their closets, never really reported, that were many times more darker than JFK's love life.

It's an interesting topic. I think I saw her speak about it some years ago, but, at the time it was less #MeToo and more that she was mesmerised/captivated, she had no regrets. The way the world thinks about this has dramatically changed. In the modern era, for whatever reason, JFK seems to get more flack for it than MLK Jr for the same behaviour, ie having affairs. Today, it is not a welcome comment in the public sphere to suggest that they were 'men of their time' as an excuse but, actually it's true. No mobile phones, or connectivity of society meant that there were a lot of affairs. I question why the enemies of JFK did not use his affairs to destroy his chances of re-election and the prominent answers are that rather than because journalists were more honourable, I think every guy in politics was 'at it' or vulnerable to it and perhaps they thought it wouldn't have been enough to change public opinion in a male dominated America?! If we compare it to the Clinton affairs and reprehensible tactics to silence the women, it seems a different thing to me. Dominance hierarchies are as old as mankind, I listened to Jordan Peterson describe rock stars and celebrity, the way women marry on their level or above them, whereas men marry on their level or below them in the social strata. The truth is women do throw themselves as celebrity, rock stars and people above them in the social strata. If we break down this scenario, she was 20, probably very naive but, also a consenting adult. By that age she would undoubtably know the difference between right and wrong, on her part she has not only been unfaithful to her partner but, risked breaking up another marriage or partnership. She certainly waited a long time to tell the story and the dead guy can't defend himself. What I am trying to say is, it's a lot more complicated than a short article or excerpt.  It's complicated, there are a lot of grey areas that are frequently discussed in psychology. With all that said, reading Nasaw's "The Patriarch", I think JFK never valued fidelity and this habit or example comes from his father, I think they even shared the same women on occasion. There seems a disconnect with the mother, she seems devoutly religious and a rock in many ways, stoic even. Perhaps the combination of those two made JFK who he is in regard to his relationships/flaws.
Whichever way we look at, by 2021 standards, it's not received well, its simplified but, its very complex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Chris, Regarding Your quotation below of Robert Kiyosaki's  about Kamala Harris's VP running mate.

Kiyosaki: TRUTH to come out. When Kamala is President the House and Senate will have to confirm her choice for Vice President. Her VP choice will show the world who the real “PUPPET MASTER’s” are. Stay awake. Rarely will people ever see who is “the real Wizard of Oz,” behind the curtain.

You've mentioned Robert Kiyosaki before Chris. Robert Kiyosaki is another one of these get rich quick shysters, that I've always resented his marketing handle which is to put down his poor financially unsavvy biological father in favor of his  financially savvy sort of adopted "rich father". I always hated his willingness to use his real father as a stooge in his marketing scheme. I think that says volumes about him as a person, but that's me.. I think the proof in the pudding about Kiyosaki   is that he is actually a part of Trump U. and has done many seminars with Trump.

Of course you know that. That's why you always seemed so willing when you first came here to embrace Trump as some savior against the "Deep state" (which in Trump talk, is any entity that could possibly collect taxes from him) and were the first here to suggest the election was stolen. 

Similarly in your chosen topics, there's very little about climate change, wealth inequality, very little disdain for the financial elites, you're actually down on taxing the rich, stating  the same reasons that the rich always use.  "The rich  never pay taxes anyway", and then you use the ever present elitist threat," besides the rich will just pick up and move somewhere else", which I'm sure happens a lot in the U.K., but not much in the U.S.

While the financial elites barely deserve a mention, the  whole problem to you is solely the totalitarian government which is exactly the pablum the elites try to tell the everyday people in their long term objective to defund the government while they're controlling it, so they can squeeze the government of resources in a way to leave only their priorities remaining. I'll credit you that hopefully you're not conscious of that, but are another aspirant, duped into another "get rich in  America" dream.

Anyway, those are just my impressions from rather corporate statements you've made and influences you cite. Speaking of which, As for your quotation of Kiyosaki, whose obviously no fan of Kamala Harris. That's sort of typical of the unsubstantiated  statements, you're sometimes liable to post here on this thread Chris. There is nothing more behind it than a fat rich billionaire turned political prophet, airing his wacko suspicions of a supposed "Socialist" who would dare insinuate that Kiyoshi pays more taxes. In the end, he doesn't even deliver the VP's name, because it's all a tease to get more subscribers. And you don't have to speculate any more about it than that.

It's like that other right wing tripe rumor I heard here during the 2016 election that the DNC knowingly made Biden the party nominee for President knowing he  was soon to die (or maybe killing him?) in order to make Harris President!

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply Kirk and for finding it within your pride to address me directly again. We can all get along and discuss things if we are not nipping at eachother. 

What is interesting to me is what is triggering you here. You have taken exception to Kiyosaki but, I don't think you actually addressed what triggered you in this reply, it was something else. He is an interesting character, he's had his critics which you have pointed out. I have read his book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and from what you are saying here, I don't think you have read his book, which actually is enormously useful (IMHO). He maintains that being poor is a mentality in the west, it starts with words and becomes flesh and bone. So much of it comes from the mentality of your parents and the example they set. Successful people think differently and like so many things, it boils down to psychology. Kiyosaki makes a very valid point which fits in with this thread, that is that we don't learn about money in school, in fact it's obvious that it's the most important thing we could learn about, managing our finances and there is no education on it. What we are doing is sending people out into he world like lambs, waiting for wolves (financial institutions) to lure them into debt and servitude. I am very pleased someone is pointing that out. You can judge Kiyosaki for having a bankruptcy on his record, but, that's going to be a lot of us when this pandemic is done, including your friends, neighbours, maybe even family etc. I can see the criticism of Kiyosaki online, he doesn't pay any taxes or very little and openly points out that those loopholes are there for everyone to exploit, if you wish to be 'self-employed' instead of 'employed'. Google paid zero corporation tax last year, was it the same for Amazon? Are you using both of those services? If so, where is your outrage? What that might do is put your nemesis, Trump, in the same boat as Google and Amazon. It's so interesting the way media driven narratives make one person a hero and another a villain, as always the devil is in the details. Just remember, your political system makes and upholds the laws on taxation and leaves loopholes in for wealthy people, whether they be Dems, Reps or independents. It's the same in the UK. 

It hasn't escaped my attention that you are trying to attach me to Trump, as a means of a smear. Much like Benjamin, at times if we are comparing DEMS and REPS, I might side with the REP over the DEM or vice versa. I may side with JFK over Nixon, or Trump over Hilary on some things. And in some cases (very often), I think the whole system is corrupt and filled with morally reprehensible people on both sides, and that it amounts to theatre for people like you who are thoroughly bought in and invested in this tribal, red/blue, divide and rule system, which works for one class of people and not the majority of the electorate. 

You have mentioned 'Climate Change' and you are surprised that very little is mentioned about it on this thread, as if it casts a suspicious spotlight on me. You are a contributor here, if you feel you have things to say about it in terms of conspiracy, please feel free to contribute, we may even find some common ground on the topic. This has become a thread addressing a diverse spectrum of issues, frankly I welcome more issues to be added. My personal views are that we are destroying the planet, every food we eat is contaminated with something, I am personally involved in some forms of activism regarding what we are doing to the sea. I also am intelligent enough to realise that not everything under the 'Climate Change' banner is being presented exactly as it is. I do believe we'll have a carbon debt attributed to us all after 2030 and the same people who profited the most from the destruction of the planet, without punishment, will be the ones who profit the most from future systems. 

Just to address another paragraph of yours, I think we're in the last days of capitalism before technocracy fully moves in. Though I don't really subscribe to Karl Marx, he seems to be exactly right about what we'd see in the end days of this unsustainable system, Oligarchies moving in like vultures. Using your words, perhaps you have been duped by your political class and you are not aware of that? You voted didn't you? You mentioned a conspiracy theory about Biden dying, I think it was more than clear he is in cognitive decline before the election, why wouldn't people think he may not see a full term based on age/mental faculties. Was it the 25th amendment from 1965 that allows a president to be replaced if they lack the presence of mind? 

One thing I would hasten to add here, I am not keen for this thread to me a red/blue thing, I know you guys love to talk about that but, I have no control over that, I am just conscious we already have one thread that is covering that and is very popular. 

Cheers

Chris






 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...



The John Birch Society gets mentioned a fair bit of exposure on the forum in respect to the JFKA but, how many of you have heard this speech by Robert Welch, and what do you make of it? Is it prescient? Does any of this apply to the present? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is there fear in the air stateside amongst the political elite?

 

Society divided so much that we can't talk to eachother, this has been driven by our leaders. They divide society as many ways as they can. 
 

Dan Andrews, premier of Victoria, Australia.
Tyranny ... 
 

Why do they? 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who are students of history or psychology, this is a fantastic 3 hour audiobook (free). It covers the build up to WW2 and a profile of the key third reich politicians and their motivations. It also covers how Nietzsche was interpreted and misinterpreted. You'll see parallels of what we see today and what we have read about the JFK era. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “vaccine passport” is a form of social credit. Social credit, in our capitalist democracies, has in its contemporary form always been associated with authoritarian governing structures. The problem, as Neill Oliver infers, is the social credit passport system invariably inverts routine and common facets of daily life - such as having a drink with friends, going to the movies, or sharing a family dinner at a nice restaurant - into a privilege. Or, put more ominously, into a privilege granted by the State (i.e. the statements by the Australian premier) based on one’s behaviour.

The unique difficulties posed by Covid - i.e. not an existential threat to the vast majority of peoples but capable of wreaking societal havoc by its contagious properties - should cut some slack for public figures and health authorities, but we are being steered down a rather perilous road without any firm assurance that mass vaccination programs will stem let alone eradicate the virus. Further, it is quite apparent that it is the reopening of the public school systems rather than lack of adherence to mass vaccination programs which is currently driving the continuing problems. In that, the actual priorities at play come somewhat clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The “vaccine passport” is a form of social credit. Social credit, in our capitalist democracies, has in its contemporary form always been associated with authoritarian governing structures. The problem, as Neill Oliver infers, is the social credit passport system invariably inverts routine and common facets of daily life - such as having a drink with friends, going to the movies, or sharing a family dinner at a nice restaurant - into a privilege. Or, put more ominously, into a privilege granted by the State (i.e. the statements by the Australian premier) based on one’s behaviour.

That's exactly it, it's "papers please" to do something that was free before, reminiscent of communist states and Germany in WW2. We lose something, the authoritarians gain. The China situation is so dystopian, the state powers and social credit scoring system which was mentioned much earlier in the thread is a nightmare for anyone who cherish freedom. Such a system eliminates any dissent of government, as you'd be tyrannised just for speaking up. To put that in context, the freedom we express in the 'last 56 years thread' would see us unable to leave the country for our comments and having state privileges revoked. That's right now, how long until we emulate gulags? And all the rest of it?!

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The “vaccine passport” is a form of social credit. Social credit, in our capitalist democracies, has in its contemporary form always been associated with authoritarian governing structures. The problem, as Neill Oliver infers, is the social credit passport system invariably inverts routine and common facets of daily life - such as having a drink with friends, going to the movies, or sharing a family dinner at a nice restaurant - into a privilege. Or, put more ominously, into a privilege granted by the State (i.e. the statements by the Australian premier) based on one’s behaviour.

The unique difficulties posed by Covid - i.e. not an existential threat to the vast majority of peoples but capable of wreaking societal havoc by its contagious properties - should cut some slack for public figures and health authorities, but we are being steered down a rather perilous road without any firm assurance that mass vaccination programs will stem let alone eradicate the virus. Further, it is quite apparent that it is the reopening of the public school systems rather than lack of adherence to mass vaccination programs which is currently driving the continuing problems. In that, the actual priorities at play come somewhat clearer.

This vaccine passport (biometric ID) was in the pipeline before the virus was even leaked from that lab, it's in the EU website literature from 2019. That should really bother people. It isn't solving the problem with the pathogen, any educated person who has read a little can see that. How can we ask people to take something that isn't the cure and as myself and others have pointed out, has a risk factor that is underplayed in the most deceitful way. We know it's 10X whatever the Yellow Card or VAERS system of self reporting is disclosing to the public. I can't blame anyone for not taking it, I have to ask why the very people so intent on population control and climate change, are the ones most keen to see everyone have the jab and those who don't be punished. That in itself is 'doublethink'. What gets me is we are seeing the biggest transferal of wealth upwards in history, we are wiping out the middle class and making citizens state dependant. It's not the 1% it's more like 0.01% and those are the guys funding these medical institutions and advocates of the 'great reset' and restructuring of systems. It gives those who care about the present of future so much to ponder. Those born after WW2 in the west, have lived in a very good time comparatively, we have been very lucky, but, that appears at an end. 

Cheers

Chris

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...