If the large mainstream media channels are, for the most part, owned by large corporate and financial interests and these large corporate and
financial interests also "own" much of the government and the main concern of these interests is control of ideas, concepts, world events, politics,
populations, etc, then do we really believe that they would let just anyone appear in their media?
I believe John Judge said something that is very true "if you have heard of someone, it usually means they're no good" and from I have experienced in
the last couple of years, I find that to be very true.
The reason why is that before the proliferation of the Internet, most information flowed in one direction from the media to the population. From a few
radio and television broadcast towers to millions of radio and TV sets, from a few news papers publishers to millions of readers, from a few news
gathering organizations to the network and then to the millions if not billions of people around the world. So the few corporations and/or financial
interests that own these news gathering organization can manipulate, guide, and control the public simply by controlling or more accurately framing,
in the appropriate manner, all the news, entertainment, and education released to the public.
This implies that they must have some type of control of any idea, any concept, any movement, any person that is given significant exposure on their
channels. This also implies that any person who is given significant exposure on their media channels most likely is under the influence or control of
some large interest, a secret society, an intelligence agency, a banking interest, a large corporation, etc. Much of the time this has proven true,
for anyone who is given significant amounts of exposure in the mainstream media.
One such person that has been given significant amount of mainstream media attention, though often portrayed as an extremist is Louis Farrakhan:
Now why would I focus on such a figure, well he was given significant mainstream exposure in the mid 90s with the million man march:
To be allowed to rise to the position of influence that could organize approximately 800,000 people and to be given that much media exposure and to
never be subject to intense harassment by the government or it's agencies, should tell us something.
It also appears as if there is an attempt by someone, some entity to try to ensure that certain people are not given credit for significant ideas or
inventions, and/or their ideas are dismissed as being derivative. This was very common with women, African American men, and races in the U.S. and
possibly around the world before the 1960s. Innovative ideas were downplayed and dismissed and in many cases these people were sabotaged to make,
other people feel
better about their lives, if you can believe that!!! Often members of the aforementioned communities were given exposure in
the entertainment industry like music, theater, acting, movies, and even then it was all contingent on how certain people feel. Though entertainment
is important, accomplishments in other fields are often seen to be more important or at least important in ways that confer a different more
prestigious level of publicity.
It's all about how their feelings, so lets sabotage people, take their ideas and make myself feel good about stealing and denying people
Well it looks as if this has come full circle, for it appears as if not only are my ideas stolen and given to people the power elite think deserve to
be given public credit, most often white males (often a little hickish and believe in the ole 88), it also appears as if there is a contingent of
African American people who also want to sabotage a person or people of a certain race, so that the general public will view this race as being on the
same level as themselves. So, even though they are not given the ideas or cannot take credit for them, they rest assured that the another race is also
not given credit.
This appears to be not only restricted to African Americans but also to people of different racial background around the world. Their reasoning is
something like, if this race can't get their act together, what business do "they" have telling us what to do. So most governmental organizations opt
to present a European person to tell other countries what to do, because other countries who have had a history of colonialism are used to having
Europeans, mostly males, tell them what to do. They see a brown face and they get sharp pains down the left arm, sweats, heart palpitations, they get
the taste of copper in their mouths, they reach for their prescriptions drugs, they immediately think, what does this person know, why don't they fix
the problems in their own country, why don't you get a white guy who obviously knows what he is talking about.
So ideas are given to someone of a race that most people around the world would consider to be worthy of having the ideas and receiving credit for the
edit on 18-5-2017 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)