Disinfo Alert - Warning, this site is full of it...

Paradoxically, once their disinfo function is identified, these sites have a value as guides, because the energy they devote to deflecting certain issues tends to be proportional to the issue's sensitivity. Likewise, forceful ad hominem attacks often highlight witnesses and whistle blowers with genuinely damning testimony.

Disinfo's primary function is to deflect and stymie novice researchers, but eventually we learn to take "mentally unstable", "social misfit", "fool", "inveterate liar", "charlatan", "hoaxer", "attention seeker", "tax dodger", "criminal", etc., not as grounds to dismiss out of hand, but to attend more closely.

I think a problem with the revelation of concealed information, as transmitted via the Net, and radio shows, is that there is no single source in accord.
I particularly point to the Truth movement which does bring up valid points in the criticism of what we call The Official Version. But where is implied The Unofficial version? Does anyone wanting to know what really happen have to start from scratch, maybe by coming across Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc.

In the world of paper publishing, there is an established tradition of books on subjects being published, the better ones being considered definitive. And then there are respected peer review journals that carry ongoing issues.

What seems to happen with Internet surfing and research on a subject is that one has a point of view and the goes to sites and discussion forums that support that particular take on it.

Sensationalism is more popular than sober examination. So for every book and website demonstrating something fantastic, like the existence of UFOs, there are only a fraction that being these claims into question. This is the case with something like 9/11. There are 100 sources that try to demonstrate that the World Trade Center buildings fell due to a controlled demolition. The voices of those who have done their own homework and make the less dramatic claims as to why they were destroyed, are drowned out.

The notion of debunking has a negative connotation in certain environments. Less often is the concept used in it's original meaning "getting rid of bunk."

I'd like to see more balanced discussion of so many issues on ATS and elsewhere. I'm usually disappointed.


Mike F

Originally posted by badgerprints
When it comes down to a pool of information as big as the one we have of the world we live in, disinfo is just static, the picture can still be seen if we look at the whole thing.

Kind of like an old black and white tv that needs the antennae adjusted.
It won't ever be crystal clear, but you can still follow the game.

Thanks for the thoughtful post - I particularly liked the bit I've quoted. It's important, though, I think, to realise that disinfo is out there, and that's why I'm a bit of a regular in this particular part of ATS... if you stay alert you can see the disinfo process at work in the media, and occasionally sites like the "CIA Fakes" come up and just smack you in the face.

Trouble is, a lot of people on this board don't have the time energy or even smarts to do the reading required. I stopped going on line for a few months and coming back I realise how much I've missed. I thought Obama would lose... if I'd been hanging out here I think I might not have been so far behind the curve. Maybe that's just hindsight.

Originally posted by rich23

Yea! Yet another long thread about how anyone who disagrees with [insert conspiracy here] is a government disinformation agent. Wow, it's been sooo long since we've had one of these... awesome!



I notice that most of the people who post this nonsense and agree with it are the same people pushing a personal agenda on some subject or another. Their "truth" is subjective, not definitive. Any argument (good or bad) is considered an "attack" and they pull out the "ad hominem" argument only when it suits them, not considering the same ad hominem attacks when it goes the other way.

Calling someone who has a good argument to a theory a disinfo agent is an ad hominem attack in itself.

Originally posted by rich23
good sources will often be subject to attack if they're really on the money

Really? Because I find that those posts/threads or people "subject to attack" the most are the LEAST "on the money"

Argument Attack

I repeat:

Argument Attack

Someone who believes the government isn’t behind the latest conspiracy theory, or someone who believes planet X is a crock of (not butter) is NOT automatically a disinfo agent. I am so very tired of this type of disingenuous pre-attack. We know what you are doing, your setting it up to dismiss any opposing argument or opinion.

Did you know that EVERY single one of us here is both a believer and a disbeliever at the same time? Did you know that EVERY one of us has probably been called a disinfo agent or had his or her opinion discounted by a “believer”?

You cannot possibly believe in:
Aliens, Bigfoot, Lock Ness, Ghosts, God, Budda, Psychics, Taro Cards, NWO, Chemtrails, BushCo 911, the Grassy Noll, a moon base, pyramids on mars, planet X, 2012 and everything else out there all at the same time.

It is not possible for anyone to believe all of that (some is contradictory) and yet.. here we are another person talking about disinformation agents from the government because people “attack” (debate, talk to, discuss, oppose) them. Is it SO hard to believe that SOME people honestly believe (with no government or otherwise agenda) as strongly against your theory as you do FOR your theory?

Is that so hard to grasp?

I see a rock, where you see a pyramid city and that makes me dishonest?

Are you so full of yourself that you believe that only YOU have all the answers, only YOU can be right and anyone else questioning it must be against you?

Come on people, wake up.. We all have different opinions, your truth isn’t my truth.. everyone twists and turns facts to fit their theory and everyone see’s it as truth.

Do you realize that if every government theory were correct we’d have to have at least 10 times as many “agents” and “secret agencies” to manage and keep it all straight? Doesn’t that mean that at least SOME of the theories are 100% wrong? How come [yours] is exempt from that possibility?

If you don’t like the debate, shut up and move on to somewhere where no one will say boo, where everyone will say “wow [insert your name], you’re so smart and intelligent, what would we sheep do without you?”

Ugg…

Lets move on from the "disinfo agent" nonsense.

The reason Alex Jones doesn't expose Israel is because he doesn't want to be accused of antisemitism. He doesn't want to give them any legitimate excuse to shut him down. He picks his battles carefully.
Just like Ron Paul knows 911 was a inside job, but he chose to pick his battle with the Federal Reserve and doesn't want to cause disruption to his battle by causing diversion on the 911 issues.
So STOP criticizing these people they chose to fight for all of us.
May God Bless those that have the courage to fight!

WE have become a degenerate generation when we call the "TRUTH" a conspiracy theory.
When the truth becomes a lie, and a lie is called the truth.

The Strong Delusion of God

The Strong Delusion is coming; the strong delusion will be sent by God, and the strong delusion will be directed not only at those of the world that are lost in their sins, but specifically at all lukewarm, undecided, and corrupt Christians…

2Thesalonians 2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

2Thesalonians 2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Why would God send a Strong Delusion upon the world?

Because lost (unsaved) people of the earth including those that claim to be Christians “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” II Thessalonians 2:7-12

God will send the strong delusion on those among us that are guilty of not accepting the truth of His Holy Word found within the Old and New Testament Bible. Their guilt also lies in their accepting and following after the unrighteous teachings perpetrated by false prophets within the Christian church.

These false prophets are controlled by seducing spirits; and while working under the guise of end times preachers, pastors, teachers, elders, and church laymen they are preaching, teaching and promoting doctrines of devils.

1st Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some (Christians) shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

To clarify; the strong delusion will not be sent by God solely because of the actions of the false prophets, or due only to the blasphemous content of their false teachings, but also the strong delusion will be sent upon those that claim to be Christian and are proven apostate due to their acceptance of ungodly teaching. The Strong Delusion will be sent upon the false teachers and those that believe them.

Why will atheists, those that say they do not believe in God, be cursed?

There is no denying God's existence, for everything seen and unseen speaks of the majesty of His existence through His Creation. Those that deny that God exists do so solely in rebellion and refusal to accept His Kingship. They choose to deny their true King rightful authority over their lives.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...

Luke 12:9 But he that denies me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Jesus speaking of the signs and wonders that will deceive the end times Christians:

"Even him (anti-Christ), who’s coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders"

Christ Jesus warned us in Mathew 24 that the “him” that shall rise up is the anti-Christ, and will do so with direct empowerment from Satan, and will show great signs and lying wonders that will be so grand and spectacular as to fool many.

The great signs and wonders being done by the false prophets are not true miracles, but are instead, “LYING wonders empowered by Satan, and are NOT miracles empowered by God.

These false prophets take advantage of men’s lack of knowledge regarding God’s Holy Word.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you shall be no priest to me: seeing you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.

Surely, if men had read God’s warnings in the Bible they would recognize these false prophets spoken of in end time’s prophecies. But, sadly, yet it is their due; they are capable of being deceived by falsehood, trickery, magic, lies, their own arrogance, and other deceptions sent on the world by Satan through seducing spirits.

For us as true Christians, that is, those of us whom have asked with a broken and contrite heart for God to forgive us in the name of Jesus.

www.falsemessiahs.com...

95 percent of the stuff posted on this site is complete nonsense anyway, and when you disagree with any of it, you have people calling you a disinfo agent. It's frickin hilarious.

Alex Jones is kinda like Rush Limbaugh lol.

Originally posted by gormly

Originally posted by rich23

Yea! Yet another long thread about how anyone who disagrees with [insert conspiracy here] is a government disinformation agent. Wow, it's been sooo long since we've had one of these... awesome!

Wrong.

You clearly haven't read the thread properly or, I dare say, looked at the site to which I linked.

The fact is, there are disinfo agents out there, and Dunne is very likely one of them. Get over it.

We know it's a fact that there are such people because the Pentagon themselves have documents attesting to that fact.

I'm saying that Dunne is very likely a disinfo agent because he purports to support what might be broadly called "9/11 truth" while simultaneously disparaging most of the sources I've found reliable.

But then, you obviously haven't read the thread, or you'd know that.

Calling someone who has a good argument to a theory a disinfo agent is an ad hominem attack in itself.

But he hasn't got any good arguments. That's what I'm saying. His arguments themselves are either ad hominem attacks, or appeals to authority. Perhaps you can find a piece on his site that departs from this tack?

I was going to take the rest of your post point by point, but... you so clearly have missed the point I'm making I really can't be bothered. Please try to post something intelligent next time, eh?

One more time for the world... read the original post and work out that I'm not talking about ATS before you shoot your mouth off.

As I said before... I'm not changing the title to this thread to remove the ambiguity. It just shows up the people who arent' reading it properly.

And so help me... the level of response on this thread has exposed much of the ATS membership as people who don't read further than the thread title, get hung up on whether Alex Jones is or isn't a disinfo agent (hello! I did try to make it clear that this isn't about whether AJ is or isn't one, but... never mind), or decide to bring imaginary friends with long white beards into the discussion.

Very disappointing.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Fox news, probably the most well known disinformation agents and news outlets are really showing the stuff of legends when they successfully have gotten many in the ATS community into trusting them meanwhile carrying their own agenda while at it.

I'm not going to be suckered into defending an American news outlet, but if you think Fox News is the "most well known" outlet of disinformation, then you're perpetuating false information yourself.

Fox News was established as an alternative to the politically-biased propaganda outlets that fill the remaining news market; and, interestingly enough, Fox ratings consistently blow away the other lumbering juggernauts of propaganda. Which could mean, I suppose, that Fox is employing some sort of Videodrome-like signal to addict the minds of its viewers and draw them away from the other networks — or it could more simply mean that viewers do recognize Fox as a legitimate alternative to the lies and disinformation of the other 95% of the news market.

When old-time news networks such as ABC, NBC and CBS are caught red-handed fabricating lies and false documents to undermine industry or the political process in this country, we're all enraged for about a day, their ratings fall for a week or so, and then they surge right back as viewers and listeners succumb once more to their steady stream of lies and bigotry.

The cable news networks are just as guilty of brainwashing their viewers and listeners, particularly with politically-biased disinformation. CNN and MSNBC, for example, are renowned for endorsing candidates and causes to the exclusion of all opposing voices. So much for unbiased reportage. Again, if you think that Fox News is the most egregious purveyor of disinformation — if you're pointing to one small corner of the news media and crying "burn the witch!" — then your mind is probably saturated with the more heinous lies of the other 95% of the news outlets in America.

Personally, I don't trust any American news media for factual reportage. They have yet to prove themselves. The only way to glean any "fact" regarding current events is to scrutinize the same story from a variety of international news sources. You will find a very fine thread of common detail (perhaps only a few phrases or sentences) from one story to the next, and this is usually the "fact" of the matter — the rest of the news copy is opinionated, editorial rubbish, usually generated and regulated by the state.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I'm not going to be suckered into defending an American news outlet...

But that's exactly what you've done...

... but if you think Fox News is the "most well known" outlet of disinformation, then you're perpetuating false information yourself.

Oh, I don't know... they are pretty well-known for spreading disinfo. There was even a study that established that watching Fox means you're likely to be misinformed about the Iraq war.

WASHINGTON, Oct 2 (IPS) - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released here Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

I think there's a very good case to be made for saying that Fox News is "the best known source of disinformation."

Fox News was established as an alternative to the politically-biased propaganda outlets that fill the remaining news market

Now, if, by "alternative", you mean "Republican party biased alternative", then you are correct. But your language seems to suggest that Fox is, as its endearingly Orwellian slogan states, "fair and balanced".

No, right from the start, Fox was intended to be a Republican mouthpiece, and that's why they hired Roger Ailes, who worked with Republicans to improve their media profile since the days of Richard Nixon.

and, interestingly enough, Fox ratings consistently blow away the other lumbering juggernauts of propaganda... it could more simply mean that viewers do recognize Fox as a legitimate alternative to the lies and disinformation of the other 95% of the news market.

It could mean any of several things. The first that spring unbidden to mind are that Fox tells people what they want to hear; that most US citizens are already pretty brainwashed by saluting the flag and bathing in propaganda 24/7 that they lap this stuff up; that no-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.

And certainly this thread is a testament to that, judging by the level of attention people have paid to the original post.

Again, if you think that Fox News is the most egregious purveyor of disinformation — if you're pointing to one small corner of the news media and crying "burn the witch!" — then your mind is probably saturated with the more heinous lies of the other 95% of the news outlets in America.

Or it might just be that Fox really lay it on thick with a trowel and pander to a particularly ugly lowest common denominator.

The only way to glean any "fact" regarding current events is to scrutinize the same story from a variety of international news sources. You will find a very fine thread of common detail (perhaps only a few phrases or sentences) from one story to the next, and this is usually the "fact" of the matter — the rest of the news copy is opinionated, editorial rubbish, usually generated and regulated by the state.

It also helps to look at which facts are reported, or omitted, and by whom. This lest you know a great deal about the bias of the parties involved.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by rich23]

Alex (Who ate all the Pies) Jones is an unwitting tool of the Power Elites. He is everything that the movement needs not. I say unwitting because I dont think he actually is aware of the damage he does to the movement. If the Truth Movement needed a Rock Star he would be it. He's Loud without saying anything in the way of a solution that wont get us all killed. Look at his fan base for gods sake Middle Class White Kids and Christian Identity Libertarians. Big deal. The Movement doesnt need a leader, it needs a teacher. It also needs to change the Paradigm.

Originally posted by rich23
But that's exactly what you've done...[defended an American news media outlet]

Not at all. Not once did I endorse nor defend Fox News. I know that Fox News is a parody of the other networks, mocking their dedication to "fair and balanced" news. Fox News is more like an SNL sketch of the righteous blowhards across the rest of the news market proclaiming their own objectivity, although even a cursory examination of the "facts" reveals that our American news media, as a whole, is very strongly biased and is dedicated to political correctness and social engineering.

If anything, Fox News could more properly be categorized as entertainment rather than as a source of news, a fantasy escape from the Orwellian gibberish flowing from the rest of the news media.

— Doc Velocity

I remember when that site used to list mysite as someone that put out disinfo and yet mysite was locked down and classifed so called national security because there were documents there that exposed black projects among other things.

There are plenty of disinfo agents here at ats ive seen my fair share of them over the years ive been here people that attack someone and there view point or ideas just because they can or any attempt that person or persons can do to derail the subject matter being discussed at the time.

The problem is if we ban them or try to get rid of them they scream to high heaven your censoring my rights to freedom of speach blah blah blah yada yada yada.

Heres my rule of thumb when it comes to disinfo or information that is real that this or another government is trying to discredit. If that information no matter what it is the media that hour or that day comes out with a news story to spin down the orginal story that came out they have something to hide or theres something else there the media or someone involved with the story doesnt want out.

Another good example is if a outside source either by hacking or a direct attempt to shut down your opperations depending on what they are for instance a small example being the exposer of human trafficing. Say you get a name or a location of a group involved in human trafficing and then you have x, y, and z groups or governments that go out of there way to pull in some agency or group saying we already have that information on that location were handling it exc.

Often if a agency or group has something to hide they will either come out with a cover story to say they have that information or its a disclosed story then you see the story disappear within days and something else entirely will come out to explain away the first story that came out.

I remember being called a disinfo agent until the people here on ats took a look at information that I put out that didnt come out in some cases for months and in some cases years and some stuff I have put out that still hasnt happened but in the end most of the time I sadly have been right here more then I have been wrong.

You have to be careful when you get anything either from the media the military or even a private corp each one of them have there own agenda's and plans to break down the other for there own selfserving ends. One person on a topic that relates to this one on a post that I saw not that long ago mentioned about the AP at least having to do a retraction when they publish something thats false.

Thats why even when I was still running my site I used to stick with as much AP stories as I could even if the gov tried to discredit me or my site or stories they would have to go after the authors at the AP first. And the same thing goes for Government documents published here or that come out of any government not excluded to the united states. Something published from MI6 or MI5 or Ministry of Defense or some other agency in britan is more then capeable of making up false and misleading information.

The real way to tell if you have a sceptic or a disinfo agent is most sceptic's are disinfo agents especially if there going out of there way to put in misleading information into the topic titles or discussion at hand. Considering how big ats is to where it was when it first started off with a few hundered members I think the staff here does a fine job at stemming off as much disinfo as they can.

On the subject of disinfo and people having nothing to hide lets for starters take a long look at how many websites and information sites have been shut down both under bill clinton and under george bush in the last 20 years for having for instance a decenting opinon. I know news reporters that have been arrested for writing negitive stories about george w. bush and still are waiting for the courts to straiten out there cases.

How many times was either executive privilage used to hide information and how many times was national security used in the last 8 years under bush and the 8 years under clinton to hide information that has been exposed on ats and other places.

And how many of those stories have just disappeared or hardly if any media coverage on them I will give you a perfact example "Jeff Gannon" how quickly did that story disapper huh? Weeks if that as I recall that story disappared if not within a week but within days and websites related to it were also shut down.

I remember the secret service documents being released to me and a few other people in the media just because people that were in the secret service had seen too many things covered up under bush and the people trying to get out that story didnt want to see it disappear. People that are invloved in disinfo went out of there way then to make that and alot of other stories just vanish and despite sometimes running into brick walls here at ats we do pretty good here considering how big this site is.

I know people in the media in fox and cnn and other large media outlets get paid to spew glittering generalities among there watered down and in many cases false and misleading information stories everyday and gov and the people do in many cases nothing to hold either gov or the media's feet to the fire.

For now we have ats and a few other sites that make coverstations and postings like this possible I have a feeling however that wont be much longer with this new administration unless measures are taken to keep the new Mr. Obama's hands off the internet and freedom of speach but dont hold your breath.

I have the feeling it will take a court case a number of named reporters going to jail for a while before this will straiten out and even if it does that doesnt mean that people that put out disinfo are going away anytime soon.

Thats my 2 cents for now.

Falcon

reply to post by falcon


I Wish I could have seen your site when it was up. Are you the guy from the "aviary"?

I agree about your rule of thumb about the spin story coming out... During the invasion of Iraq, informationclearinghouse was posting translations of the intel Saddam was getting from the Russians, which included synopses of radio chatter they'd been monitoring. I took it with a pinch of salt but then weird distorted echoes of what had been in the reports started surfacing in the media. There was one story where the Russian intel was saying there was a massive row going on between various Generals and Rumsfeld about troop levels being insufficient and so on, and a bizarre, smoothed out version of this cropped up on CNN. Strange.

ICH has had a few hacking attempts, too. And of course they're on Fintan Dunne's list.

My personal favourite of the Great Disappearing Website Mystery involves Edgar Fouche and the TR3-B Astra (not to be confused with the Vauxhall Astra, a slightly less spectacular and secret piece of technology). Fouche's original website was only up for a short while but it was really cool. Now all you can find is a smattering of images and an old lecture he gave which were all mirrored so quickly it must have been regarded as counter-productive to go after each of the sites.

A close second, probably because I'm British, is the Dr. David Kelly inquest. While that was going on, there was a guy on the Independent (UK newspaper) comment website who was analysing each day of the inquest absolutely brilliantly. He had a prodigious command of fact and predictably attracted a few VERY obvious disinfo agents. He ran rings around them and it was great to watch. Of course, not too long after this, the website was closed down, and then "outsourced" - opening up a few weeks later. All those wonderful posts, chock full of relevant detail and cogent argument, gone. Bummer.

And of course, then you had the "fallback position" coming into play. A Lib Dem politician went after the story, and he had to be headed off at the pass but was an MP. Now if your memory is as long as mine, you'll know that the traditional MI5 method of dealing with this is to not merely kill someone, but make it look like auto-erotic self-strangulaton with an orange up the bum. I kid you not. (Mind you, termination methods have become MUCH more inventive, as you'll know if you've kept up with the mysterious deaths of scientists in various fields. How about the guy who apparently tied a rope - quite a long one - at one end to a tree trunk, put the other round his neck and then drove off. Outstanding.)

So, rather than just off this inconvenient MP, which might have lent credence to his position, they spoon-fed him a story about how it was the Iraqis who did it - our Iraqis, the ones who were helping us with the invasion and who expected to be installed in the government we'd set up.

It kept him quiet, at any rate.

Thanks for reminding me of Jeff Gannon. I did a quick search... my, the dirt's almost completely disappeared, hasn't it? Such a juicy story, and it's all just gone away. Well, almost all... on page three of my initial Google search I found, in a comment added by a member of the public to an otherwise fairly dull article about Plamegate, the sentence, "the reason Bush's mind is addled is not because of the booze or drugs - it's because Jeff Gannon ****ed his brains out through his ears!"

A search of "Jeff Gannon Tony Blair" turns up some interesting stuff, though. "Did Jeff Gannon Bend Over Tony Blair?" That's a story the UK press has stayed well clear of, more's the pity. Poor old Tony, it can't be much of a life if your choice is between porking blokealike Cherie or gripping the back of a chair for Jeff.

Still, he can always count his blood money.

Thanks for the post... let's hope the day is far away when the net gets shut down for good, and let's enjoy it while we can.

Notice the failure of hard copy newspapers in the last year with more to come.

MANY newspapers have laid off 10% of their staff in the last year.

Some newspapers may survive with 1/4 of the staff and 1/4 of the ads by going online.

Young people & the lost gen read fewer newspapers, publishers are scrambling to keep a subscription base to attract businesses with less money to spend to buy ads.

What will public opinion be like with a large number of people not being exposed to the same version of the news? (Or not being brainwashed?!)

Supposedly the average USA resident sees 7 hours of tv a day. It used to be that the average show was geared toward the mind of a 10 year old!

Notice in recent years the degeneration of good tv shows - probably because they do not pay writers enough. The result is an increasing number of reality shows, some nauseating.

It may be that more people are using the internet than watching tv? At least there are
a lot more than there used to be since in the the last 2-4 years the major increase in computer users has been people over age 50.

It is probable that older people tend to seek their news from sources slanted in the direction they already are leaning and that has meant more polarization as well as eclectic knowledge as fewer read mainstream press or listen to network tv.

I read that the number of entities owning major US media has been reduced from
50 to 5. Talk about mind control....

I have often seen facts slaughtered in mainstream press which makes me think that there has been a lot of CONTROL and DISINFO to manipulate public thought. The stories they have not covered are the ones that are spreading like wildfire on the net.

I like to recall this 1820 quote:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the
remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion
by education.

This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

--Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis,

With the rise of the internet in the last 15 years, more people obtain news from diverse sources, especially youth who are not yet molded by prejudicial views and probably will be more enlightened since they are exposed to broad information on the internet.

Places like Indymedia have independent journalists reporting worldwide; one can download a press pass and be a journalist! Put Indymedia in your browser to see the rest of the story no matter what the story is.

What we really need to be concerned about is the threat that the internet
could cost more money and less information allowed to be presented – CENSORSHIP.

Then disinfo artists and rogue government goons could be paid to increasingly infiltrate social networks, newsgroups and other public forums.

Although this has occurred, there are still more of us than there are of them!

Pandora's info and media boxes have exploded: now we know about Skull and Bones Secret Society - the plutocracy instead of meritocracy it has manipulated; nefarious CIA - drugs and Security Exchange Commission connections; Dept. of Agriculture high level staff working for Monsanto; ag schools being dominated by industries conducting Machiavellian seed and Genetically Modified food manipulation; suppressed above unity, zero point energy & anti-gravitational devices.

We know partly because of courageous independent publishers like TrineDay.com

See Nick Bryant's new book coming April 09 - The Franklin Scandal, A Story of Power Brokers, Child Abuse and Betrayal - pedophilism by the elite and wealthy.
(Buy one now – preorders needed.)

BIG Q: with the info genie released, will we free human genius to save us from ourselves?

Or repress it and capitulate to fascism too dim witted and lackadaisical to recognize the goose steps?

I attended the Seattle WTO protest and saw them practicing in riot gear.

"I attended the Seattle WTO protest and saw them practicing in riot gear."

Is the "them" of that sentence the protesters or the cops?

I've actually steeled myself and examined the site a little more closely. I've started by listening to a sample MP3 of the site, an interview called "CIA Fakes: the Inside Story".

It starts with the interviewer saying, well, this is going to be a tough interview: well, that's the first lie, because as soon as she asks him, "who is Fintan Dunne?", it turns out that they both work together on the website.

So... no, it's far from adversarial.

She asks him what he does full-time... and, well, it seems that this is what he does full time. Any alarm bells ringing for anyone else here?

The listeners to his radio show have. apparently, been very supportive.

On a personal note - my parents were Irish and it's quite distressing for me to hear these people speak with an accent I know and love.

Anyway, back to the "interview"... how does Dunne judge websites to be CIA controlled? It's because of "the generality of the information they put out: if I feel that what they put out, is what the CIA wants to achieve, then I feel I have to warn people about that."

No different from the criteria I'm using here, then. Of course, he wouldn't be using any inside sources.

Any disinfo in the interview? Well, he does say that 9/11 was NOT the work of a rogue group within the USG: in fact, the G8 are at least complicit in this. He's therefore either ignorant of Webster Tarpley's research, or he wants to put out an alternative view.

"So... would you care to explain how the sites get on your list?"

"What I'd rather do is look at the big picture..."

I'm sure. Funnily enough, we never seem to get a proper answer to the question, which is interesting.

As the interview goes on, he refers to this article: rise of the G8 NWO, which does make some good points. I'm starting to think, ok, maybe he's just a bit injudicious about whom he condemns out of hand... but then I noticed that while he said a lot of stuff with which I agree, he didn't provide any evidence to back up his assertions. Now that evidence is available, but without it, a lot of reasonable people are going to just write off Dunne's writing as BS.

But then he starts on Alex Jones. Now, let me be clear about this, again: I think AJ is a dreadful blowhard at times but he gets some good info out there. When he starts screaming I just want to curl into a ball with embarrassment or cool him off with a SuperSoaker. But my opinion is that the guy is sincere, I think he's attracting a lot of attention, and I think he genuinely is feeling (and being) threatened, lately.

So Dunne's first argument is that there are a lot of people on the US left who hate AJ for being tabloid.

Well, duh. He is, but this is a sad reflection of the state of the US in general. Who are the popular people? It's the Rushes and O'Reillys who get the attention, it's the whole shock-jock thing. The US is, to a great extent, a tabloid society. AJ is simply going along that path, but with his own agenda. And I really don't think that he cares about the left - my impression is that he's kind of a right-wing libertarian. But the problem with him is, (as far as the PTB are concerned) he's starting to get some traction. That makes him a threat.

Now, for me, the sensible thing to do is celebrate that traction while at the same time trying to be more considered in my approach. AJ is a bull in a china shop, bless him, and he's said a few things I think are just windbaggery. So, ignore those things, just let 'em go, and concentrate on the fact that he's building a non partisan power base, and that's something he's conscious of doing.

So... it's also interesting to note at this point that his friend/interviewer says to him, "you were actually friendly with Alex Jones at one point, weren't you?" Now, it's not like you can't tell what AJ is like from a fairly brief acquaintance with his style... why cosy up to someone you must have already written off as a windbag, if you're being sincere in your analysis?

His main criticism of AJ is that he promotes fear. Dunne says that by mentioning the FEMA camps, which he calls BS, AJ is just intimidating people. This is either disingenuous or he doesn't understand the nature of US culture very well. I've been in the US enough, and hung out on these boards enough, to know that, while some will be intimidated, many will simply prepare themselves. There have been a few more shooting incidents lately, and I'm actually finding myself starting to wonder about MK-ULTRA style shenanigans involved. The agenda is obvious.

Once you start out down the rabbit hole it's hard to know where it ends.

Back to Dunne. What bothers me is the level of hypocrisy involved, in that he espouses certain values and then attacks sites that live by those values. For example, he talks about people getting together to work out stuff for themselves and then lists co-operative research. He talks about people making independent efforts and then attacks information clearing house. It just doesn't sit right.

I'd strongly encourage people to look at all the sites and people he names. I've already mentioned a few that I know and trust,