Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The plan to silence dissent

For a vile and repugnant plan to work, the planers need to make sure to re-write any oppositional thought, cast it around and make it into something it’s not in order to attack it. This is a very common way of handling dissidents and free thinking individuals.

The problem with modern day society was, in the eyes of the powers that be, and before the age of internet, competition among media and journalists. As long as reporters fought over stories and we had a vide variety of papers with many different owners the elitist structure had somewhat of a problem. How could any politician lie and get away with it if journalists were lurking around every corner looking to break any juicy story?

For a brief moment in human history, the media actually did their job. Not always of course, and they could be manipulated or silenced in different ways, but even within totalitarian regimes there was, and still is, oppositional journalists whom risked their lives to tell the truth. Silently, and for no apparent reason this has changed.

Media today isn’t an auditor of government, they aren’t checking the facts or looking behind the curtain, and worse still, most of the time they seem to be in cahoots with those in power despite not being bribed or directly controlled. How did this happen?

Lefties would most likely argue that amassing of ownership in fewer hands with oligarchs directly owning or indirectly having great influence is the main problem. And I do admit, this is a problem, especially since many of those oligarchs goes to bed with other elitists daily and the fact that media moguls make a very important contribution to the enemy class.

But that’s not it, such power accumulation may hold a potential problem, but in a world with competition and freedom of speech existing, it wouldn’t matter, if there was a story it would come out and if one journalist wouldn’t write about something because of fear of getting fired, there would always be someone else that would. And if all else fails, people or enterprising entrepreneurs could always start their own paper or news station. But this is a situation that simply will not do for those in charge so in steps government and presto, all of a sudden such outs and potential for alternatives evaporate.

You see government has had a plan from the very start. Not really a conspiratorial thought-out plan, and for the most part the intent wasn’t what we actually got, but as always when government intervene the end result becomes worse or the complete opposite of what was initially intended.

One of the first things that happened was that journalists needed to get a specific education. If they didn’t go to government owned or subsidized schools with curriculums formed by state bureaucrats, it became very hard to get a job as truth-seeker. Well, you could still be famous or rich and they would put you on and let you tell a story, but otherwise, to become an actual journalist it wasn’t enough to have curious mind and wanting to investigate injustice of the world anymore, no, you also needed to first conform to a certain form of higher schooling.

The government of course claimed this was a good thing; it made journalists better educated which in turn would increase the quality. And journalist-unions agreed.

Another thing that happened early on was that government started to subsidize media or give them money so freedom of speech could be withheld with lesser thought on making a profit. Again it backfired.

I do actually believe that most politicians wanting this and still arguing for it, has good at heart. But as the case always is when you put the best of use of the state violence-monopoly, the intent doesn’t matter; the end-result will always worsen any situation.

You see, when a company suddenly gets ‘free’ money to do what they always done, they incorporate this money unto their books. Over time it becomes a part of the profit which makes them less inclined to make additional effort. In many countries (like Sweden) the government even gave more money to some within media then to others. Competition? Riiiight…

Then came a death-sentence for many unbelievers when government imposed aimed taxation. Through VAT-taxes or certain fees to be paid it became almost impossible for any potentially new paper or media-outlet to fight its way into the market. Most government even directly controls who can start and send TV and radio.

Over time the regulations, the taxes and the control functions mentioned (and some others) created a situation whereas journalists became partly dependent on the state, but even worse, became lazy. Today almost all reporting comes to us from a third of fourth (or more) steps away from the initial finding.

It goes something like this.

A reporter gets hold of a story; he can have got it from some government, from a big business or through his own investigation. The journalist in question then sells the story to routers or any other worldwide agency, and then all others buys that story, translate it and print it. No-one checks the facts, no-one argues against the initial report. If the story is big enough papers and such might send out their own people to built upon it and then they may check everything but since they’ve already said ‘A’, they cannot really say ‘B’ and certainly not ‘C’ because that would undermine their own initial reporting.

So whenever you read something or watch the news, it comes down to you from several steps back, often translated one or two times in the process. With this in mind do you really think what you see and read always is the truth?

This far you probably agree with me. Whatever the color of your politics may be, this is facts and as such cannot really be ignored.

But wait, there’s more.

You see journalists also have a tendency to sleep with those in power. More often than you think, quite literarily ‘sleep with’. Marriage between a politician and a news-anchor isn’t that uncommon, and since many papers have a political agenda ties between the powers tightens even further. And even those that don’t marry within the elitist structure are very dependent on “sources” and “whistleblowers” inside the sphere.

It is here that Internet comes into play.

The internet has blown all this away. Suddenly it doesn’t matter if you’re educated or how much money you get from government, you can still reach a worldwide audience. Anyone can be a journalist, anyone can find out the truth by cross-checking facts or talking with nearby spectators directly online instead of waiting for the next day paper edition.

Internet revolutionized our entire way of life and this is certainly true comes to information. Internet isn’t about terrorists sending emails back and forth (which they never do) and it isn’t about pedophiles picking up kids left unsupervised, it’s about the free flow of information. As such nothing in our entire history comes close to internet in importance.

You can read about a story from different angles, double-check it, read others opinions of it and make up your own mind hours, sometimes even days, before it reaches mainstream media. In effect turning the old media structure into yet another spectator needing to react.

Over time this has developed and today all people growing up with the free flow of information can quite easily see through much of the elitist agenda. I would even argue that we don’t need schools anymore. Why would we? Everything exists online, and if you have an interest in a certain topic you can read until your eyes bleed and consequently learn more than any school could ever teach you.

In the eyes of the righteous this is a problem.

How can you persuade people about the bible story when anyone can go online and read about how Sumerians’ told it first and how the church meeting in Nicea voted (!) on what story to tell and not to tell? How can you convince citizens about how scary a flu is when anyone with an hour over can check statistics and facts that makes them ignore the scare as well as the vaccine? Is it even possible to hide away a scandal today? And when anyone can read an article and then look up who the writer is and find out that that person actually stand to gain power or wealth if people listen to that story, will that not put a dent in the agenda?

So again government needs to regulate, control, tax and monitor what’s going on.

We cannot have people roaming around finding out things without first having an agency check how relevant the facts actually are.

And aren’t there pedophiles on Facebook? Didn’t some anarchist send an email on how to make a bomb? Didn’t grandma read about Hitler’s sexy wife? And how about those kids downloading porn eh? Certainly we need departments checking this.

And those pesky bloggers, how dare they write about the latest scandal mainstream media is ignoring!?

If you listen to politicians and most of the mainstream and old media; the best and brightest invention of human history is a playground for child-molesters, terrorists, political fridge groups and illegal file-shares. The shining hope of freedom and education has been twisted around into something evil the elitists can fight.

In my eyes this is a very dangerous situation and if this way of silencing any dissent is allowed to continue, and if we let this beacon of light end up in the hands of the enemy class, well then we can say goodbye to democracy.

Internet is freedoms last stand, and I hope more of you out there realize this before it is too late.


  1. Spot on about the the Internet. I'd like to add that government is not the REAL culprit. A corrupt government is just a symptom of a flawed economical system. Remove the current government and a similar will take it's place. The only way to maintain Internet freedom (and freedom elsewhere) is by changing the economical system itself.

  2. I always thought it was the other way around, a flawed economical system is (amongst other things) the fruit of a corrupt regime/government (and those behind it).


  3. I need to agree with homan, at least mostly. The system have been created by and withhold by those in power, no matter how you look at it this is true.

    Although stefolof do have a point. We live in a deeply socialistic system with planning economies and of course this leads to worse and worse situations. In a capitalist world there would be no internet regulations.

  4. That was not my point at all.

    It might look like corrupt governments are the problem but it's more complex than that. Politics is a continuation of economics which in turn is a continuation of energy (oil, human labor or what have you). All known economical systems are based on energy management and political systems are founded upon that. Socialism and capitalism within that context is quite irrelevant.