Gate Keepers of Deception

It works like this.

      The CIA find a niche, a potential habitat for a genuine 'alternative media personality', then fill the niche with one of their own people. Sometimes the niche is very broad, like the one Alex Jones fills. He is big enough to fill out an entire niche. He was put in place very early on, to make it hard for any competition to find a 'footing'. It is hard to compete with his professional set-up. Even though he began relatively low scale, it was still at a scale that few other people could afford. And he was quickly 'picked up' by the CIA from his 'home studio days' and provided with all the resources he required to 'make it big'.
     At the same time, to appeal to other demographic elements, the CIA also set up 'The Young Turks', as a more 'slick' operation, pretty much on the level of a typical commercial 'conventional corporate media' operation. People being paid well, with all the professional studio people to support them, all the latest gear, and most importantly marketing and promotional people to ensure they reached 'their' market and made it really hard for any truly 'independent' alternative personalities like Jimmy C (James Corbett) or Kenneth O’Keeffe to gain a foothold, grab your attention, or compete in the 'alternative media' eco-system.
     In other cases, a media outlet leaks out too much Truth. So, there are 'controlled opposition' personalities within movements that other groups set up, and populated. To discredit the movements. To misdirect people already in the movement. Such as the 911 Truther movement.
     It is a form of 'bait and switch'. Offer 'truth', but then at the last minute admit you've 'sold out' of the truth (literally) and offer an alternative product (lies).
     The CIA formulated the 'controlled opposition' formally as 'offer 90% truth, so audiences will then swallow the 10% lies'. It is these 'lies' which the controlled opposition media personality has been resourced and built up to 'sell'. Like any con-man or card shark, they know that you've got to 'lose' first, to 'reel in the suckers', before you can 'pull the fast one', the 'shakedown'. Like the pro pool hustler who will let their 'make' win a few games, win a few dollars, before upping the ante. Increasing the stakes. Then making the 'kill'. Leaving the victim feeling like a fool. Not realizing they'd been 'played' from the start.
     So, the CIA 'feed' their 'controlled opposition' with enough 'valuable' information to gain the trust and rapport with their audiences. A yes-set. You feel good watching Alex Jones or Noam Chomsky as these 'good guys' 'reveal' 'secrets' from their 'sources' and 'research'. You 'fall in love' with them.
      You are 'generous' with their 'apparent failings' as they strangely appear to 'dismiss' ideas you'd expected them to get behind. Like a lover's tiff. You forgive and forget. You want to keep the warm safe feeling of the 'yes set'. It is a very 'agreeable' feeling. Call it 'agreeableness'. It's rapport. It’s how 'mirroring and leading' works. How salespeople 'overcome objections'. First, they agree with you. Mirror your emotions and body language, even your 'representation system'. They adopt your mannerisms, your accent, your voice tone, even the speed of your breathing, not just how fast you speak. And then they start 'leading'. And we tend to follow. It is human nature. It is NLP 101. How to influence people. How to 'bring them around to your way of thinking'. To buy your product. Whether that product is a gadget or an idea.
     You try not to notice as they 'dodge' questions, appearing to 'avoid' them completely. You make excuses for them. You don't want to see your idols fallen. You don't want to see the truth when it dawns on you. That you'd constructed an idol from wood. You've idealized them. Your Noam Chomsky, crusader for the underdog, has really been playing you. Gaining your trust. Building up 'capital' with you, that he can then go on to spend where it will hurt you most. Letting you have small 'wins', so you will lower your defenses, and be defenseless when the attack comes. When the stakes are highest. When it really counts. He is going to 'make you pay'.
      The CIA knows that sooner or later someone will start speaking the truth about Israel and Palestine, and all the U.S war crimes. So why not get your own guy in there first, to fill up that particular niche. Give your controlled asset all the 'scoops' he needs to make a huge impression with the public he is there to 'entrance' and 'trick'. Give up some less valuable information, so that you can later use the trust this gets him, to protect much more valuable information.
     Give him some 'inside information' about something harmless, so that later his 'word is gold' among his followers, and he can lead them astray, where it counts. Like 911. Like 'man-made global climate change crisis'. Like JFK. Like 'The Fed'. Like 'The Holocaust'. Like 'Sandy Hook', 'Miami nightclub shooting', 'San Bernadino Shooting', 'Nice', Oklahoma City bombing, or 'Operation Sinaide (U.S.S Liberty).
     At the very moment your asset's listeners and viewers need to be able to count on them most. At the most crucial moments. On the most crucial subjects and topics. THAT is when you spend all that capital you have painstakingly 'earned' over the years of little 'leaks'.
     Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have 'revealed' very little, considering the 'hype' they have attached to them, and the 'credibility' they have earned.

     What you need to focus on is the 10% of things they do NOT speak about. The things they 'dismiss out of hand' as 'tin foil hat conspiracy' stuff. As 'unworthy' of YOUR consideration. The things they 'mumble and stumble' about, while never actually addressing. 

                                                                               --The Scientism Delusion

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Death of Atheistic Materialism        In the domain of Natural Science, events have natural causes which can be determined according to Natural Laws. However, Natural Science, due to overt Methodological Naturalism Confirmation Biases, which prevent it from entertaining any Supernatural explanations for natural effects, is ill-equipped to handle the problem of Supernatural causality. And that’s why Natural Science can say nothing about the Supernatural. It simply cannot test for something that it assumes is not there.        Natural Science is crippled under the burden of its own Methodological Naturalism prejudices. (Methodological Naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider Supernatural causes, from intrinsic assumptions and biases about the world and in their approach to science, even as a remote possibility.)        Anything that Natura...
Read more
The Morally Myopic Atheist Letter to an Atheist:        “Your language use, limited and severely crippled understanding of science and philosophy, and degree of comprehension simply do not reflect intelligence at all. Methodological Naturalism is your only credential, I am sorry to inform you. I think you know this already an have become good at self-deception. Using the gatekeepers of peer review, in the monolithic field of Atheistic Materialism to prop your confused body up in neither impressive, compellingly persuasive, effective, nor advisable. What you have accomplished, however, is in effect to reveal to everyone listening to your inane speculations about reality that you live in The Dark Ages of Prejudice and Presupposition about reality. The very notion that Metaphysical plausibility is not a part of your lexicon of cognates is indicative of someone who has rarely, if ever, explored anything other than the narrow and myopic boundaries of his si...
Read more
The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality        “Finally, on the theistic hypothesis, God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end, the scales of God's justice will be balanced.        Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So, I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.        Cont...
Read more