It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Welcome to 1984: Bill Clinton calls for a Ministry of Truth

page: 2
29
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The girl in the video asks

"...does this sound like a bad idea?"

Cut to Janky

"Why yes Cindy, this idea is #%^$$^% retarded!"




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed
Not that I agree with Clinton, but I can respectfully say that he was one of the better presidents in our modern times, blow job aside.

I personally think that News Organizations should not be Partisan, Biased or allowed to knowingly lie to their viewers. Opinion articles have their place, but when Fox News (for example) lies to their viewers not only are they doing a disservice to their viewers, but they are also assisting in the skewing of elections.

I think our freedoms are very important and I don't think that there should be an establishment, etc...but I think ALL news organizations have gone too far with their lack of facts, straight up lies and skewing their audience towards a left or right ideal.

I think as soon as you adopt a "News" moniker then you should be held to a certain level of integrity.

Rupert Murdoch went to court to prove that News does not equal fact. I wish there were laws in place that say otherwise.


as soon as you put those laws in place, no one will have the backbone to stand up and make bold statements. how can you differentiate between the people who make honest mistakes and report incorrect information and the people that do it deliberately? you can't.

the unfortunate truth is that it's up to the People to decide which news services they want to use, and usually it's based off of who tells them what they want to hear rather than who tells them the Truth. but as soon as you ask the government to tell us who we can trust and who we can't, then they will tell us to trust the pro-government news and condemn anyone that portrays the government in a less-than-favorable light.

people just need to be more vigilant, use multiple news sources to get different views on the same issue and call BS on your news-source of choice or move on to a better one when they mess around with the Truth. but asking the government for help only opens the door for more direct government manipulation of media.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mudbeed
 
From what the video says this applies to the whole internet, not just news outlets, and this is censorship no matter how you slice it. So, it's bad.

As far as the skewing of elections? I am 100% convinced that any candidate making it that far up the ladder is so entrenched in the corrupt government system that it doesn't matter the face, the name, or the party of the candidate, they will still be just a figure head and a horse in the race for whatever group who's really running things. There is no, "for the people by the people". That's a fairy tale. So, I really doubt elections are getting skewed...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Freedom of speech is harder and harder to justify because it's so easy for what we say to spread across the world. What we say is a lot more powerful these days. 200 years ago what we said mostly stayed put because of primitive technology. But nowadays it has the potential to circle the world. See the difference? That's why it can be dangerous if it's not moderated.

They don't want to tell lies or make bad good. This is about people being more responsible.

People who don't want moderation are the kind of people who don't want to be responsible.
edit on 19-5-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


Words only have the power YOU give them.

If you need to be moderated, go commit yourself. The marginally insane would subscribe to the idea that moderation of others' speech is responsible.

Take a gander at yourself. Fix your insecurity issues before trying to shut others up.

Or learn to make your own choices and not blame others for your own mistakes. (And you will inevitably ask how this statement is relevent - but I know your type.)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
as soon as you put those laws in place, no one will have the backbone to stand up and make bold statements. how can you differentiate between the people who make honest mistakes and report incorrect information and the people that do it deliberately? you can't.

the unfortunate truth is that it's up to the People to decide which news services they want to use, and usually it's based off of who tells them what they want to hear rather than who tells them the Truth. but as soon as you ask the government to tell us who we can trust and who we can't, then they will tell us to trust the pro-government news and condemn anyone that portrays the government in a less-than-favorable light.

people just need to be more vigilant, use multiple news sources to get different views on the same issue and call BS on your news-source of choice or move on to a better one when they mess around with the Truth. but asking the government for help only opens the door for more direct government manipulation of media.


I agree with you completely. That's why you fine a news organization based on the falsehood. If someone swears or shows a titty on accident, the company gets fined.

Perhaps a news anchor would actually do the job they are supposed to and research the facts before presenting an argument, epeically if they know that their screwup will cost said company X amount of dollars.

I just think if you have a Network with the name "News" in it, then partisanship and opinions should be left at the door.

Maybe companies would change their channel name "Fox Opinion Network" but at least they wont be passing off lies as facts.

This goes for MSNBC and CNN as well, I pick on Fox because they went to court to fight for the fact the News doesn't equal fact and ever since they "won" that argument they are the ones who seem to abuse it the most as well.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
 
From what the video says this applies to the whole internet, not just news outlets, and this is censorship no matter how you slice it. So, it's bad.

As far as the skewing of elections? I am 100% convinced that any candidate making it that far up the ladder is so entrenched in the corrupt government system that it doesn't matter the face, the name, or the party of the candidate, they will still be just a figure head and a horse in the race for whatever group who's really running things. There is no, "for the people by the people". That's a fairy tale. So, I really doubt elections are getting skewed...



Well if you believe what you just wrote then it really doesn't matter if this gets implemented at all. I like to hope that we currently choose our elected officials. If I am wrong (which is possible) then I would not see a reason to give a crap about anything anymore.

"Whatever will be, will be" rather than "I can make a difference"

I like to think the latter of the two.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Well why not we all ready have new speak, memory holes and double think.
It won't be long before we have the ministry of love.
Remember people 2+2=5 And don't forget to love big brother.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mudbeed
 

I not only believe it, but I also believe I am 100% right. It does not matter who becomes president, the only agenda that gets served is that of the politicians and the corporations and special interest groups that can afford the lobbyists.

Your idea of censoring the news... Who would regulate that? Doesn't matter the answer, they would do a bad job. It's a bad idea.

...And keep giving a crap, so that maybe, (though unlikely) we can fix it.
edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Roguesheep
 

That book is so profound... I read it when I was a teenager and have never looked at the world in the same light since.

edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
 
From what the video says this applies to the whole internet, not just news outlets, and this is censorship no matter how you slice it. So, it's bad.

As far as the skewing of elections? I am 100% convinced that any candidate making it that far up the ladder is so entrenched in the corrupt government system that it doesn't matter the face, the name, or the party of the candidate, they will still be just a figure head and a horse in the race for whatever group who's really running things. There is no, "for the people by the people". That's a fairy tale. So, I really doubt elections are getting skewed...



I think your right it doesn't matter to the working man who is in power they will always stay in the same position in life.

Here's a quote from 1984 that explains it better
Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibnum, however far it is pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

George Orwell 1984.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Roguesheep
 

That book is so profound... I read it when I was a teenager and have never looked at the world in the same light since.

edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)


I've just finished reading it 2 days ago and I had keep reminding myself that it was written in 1948.
Their are so many things in the book that are happening today.
If this book is a prediction for the future then I fear for us all.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roguesheep

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Roguesheep
 

That book is so profound... I read it when I was a teenager and have never looked at the world in the same light since.

edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)


I've just finished reading it 2 days ago and I had keep reminding myself that it was written in 1948.
Their are so many things in the book that are happening today.
If this book is a prediction for the future then I fear for us all.


Yeah, but he wasn't a prophet. Think about it. By 1948, Germany and Russia had already gone through similar things. "Papers?" North Korea has been ever since.

China pretty much as well.

The book is good because it provides the proper imagery to make these events truly scary for us because just reading the realities of these things work isn't enough to scare people. I refer you to general public today...

They just don't understand why the things happening around them are bad. They don't get it! And the USA certainly wouldn't understand the intricacies in the 40's... especially since IT WAS ALREADY HAPPENING THEN. It was just more benign.

Yes, but benign tumors always have that possibility of becoming malignant.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I agree I don't think he was a prophet and in 1948 when he wrote the book the war would have been fresh in his mind.
But if you look at the similarities between what Orwell wrote about like newspeak, thought crime and double think all
exist today although subtle they do exist remember enhanced interrogation (torture) or quantative easing (print more money) and then there's hate crime (not that anyone assault someone out of love) could be construed as thought crime to some people.
Although he was not a prophet and could not know how the future would turn out he must of realised history has a nasty habit of repeating itself and I think a version of 1984 could well come true.

edit on 19-5-2011 by Roguesheep because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
 

I not only believe it, but I also believe I am 100% right. It does not matter who becomes president, the only agenda that gets served is that of the politicians and the corporations and special interest groups that can afford the lobbyists.

Your idea of censoring the news... Who would regulate that? Doesn't matter the answer, they would do a bad job. It's a bad idea.

...And keep giving a crap, so that maybe, (though unlikely) we can fix it.
edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)


Ouch I hate the thought of censoring anything, to be honest.

If anything it would be the same people who do that already which would be FCC.

I would just like to hold news networks responsible for lying about facts.

People watch the news to get information and they end up being spoon fed agenda.

Yeah in America we have the right to change the channel, so I definately agree with you, but at the same time when a organization claims to be news worthy they get freedom of the press rights. With those rights should come responsibility rather than partisan brainwashing.

I can see how my assessment is unpopular. I am not the type to be for censorship. I just feel like lies are the downfall of the dumb. We have news organizations sticking up for oil companies, for example, and common people actually believe and start to feel that way. Keep in mind most people think the MSM is always right. That's pretty messed up. They take the information and never look into it. They expect journalists to do this job and I personally don't blame them.

More than any time before in my lifetime are politics bought, News is bought, People are sueded, it just keeps going on and on.

Making up truths and knowingly lying to the people you are supposed to be servicing should not be allowed in my opinion.

News should be fact, opinion should be opinion. They should not mix.
edit on 19-5-2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by mudbeed
 

I not only believe it, but I also believe I am 100% right. It does not matter who becomes president, the only agenda that gets served is that of the politicians and the corporations and special interest groups that can afford the lobbyists.

Your idea of censoring the news... Who would regulate that? Doesn't matter the answer, they would do a bad job. It's a bad idea.

...And keep giving a crap, so that maybe, (though unlikely) we can fix it.
edit on 19-5-2011 by binkbonk because: (no reason given)


Most of Obama's money came from average joes like you and I, but I see your point.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Freedom of speech is harder and harder to justify

Hold it right there; the principle of "free speech" requires NO justification.The end. don't even go there;don't give them a millimeter to stick a regulatory wedge into!

"impartial" right... which "stories/lies would they be focusing on removing?The ones that pissed off the highest "ranked" individuals in our:" for the people/by the people" govt. That ONLY serves To keep the powerful in power.

No room for "partisanship" there at all.ever heard of "pravda"???? ALL THE NEWS : ALL THE TIME ALL AUTHORIZED BY THE"PARTY BOSSSES" .its a way to feed the "proles"only the information the state wants out there!



If it even needs to be said at all: F. u. Bill Clinton.( "Herr schleickmeister").


.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
because it's so easy for what we say to spread across the world. What we say is a lot more powerful these days. 200 years ago what we said mostly stayed put because of primitive technology. But nowadays it has the potential to circle the world. See the difference?


NO! . Oh wait I get it our "old" Ideas of "liberty"are out dated because: Guns are more powerful ; Words are more powerful, my horse is more powerful ?????????????????
Go get in the "tyrants line" with Clinton:" f.u." also.


Originally posted by jonnywhite

That's why it can be dangerous if it's not moderated.

They don't want to tell lies or make bad good. This is about people being more responsible.

People who don't want moderation are the kind of people who don't want to be responsible.

Thanks~buuuut NO THANKS! I neither want nor trust YOU (i.e the govt.)to "be responsible" " FOR ME"..



Originally posted by jonnywhite





edit on 19-5-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


There is a line there. Don't cross it. It will start off as that, then they will put the clamps on. I do not want the clamps put on.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
it's amazing how that book portrayed things that are being pushed for these days...damn freedom haters



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I think that the concern for information spreading on the internet has to do with a great threat spreading that democratic government wouldn't dare speak about out of fear of the panic, outcry, and anamosity it would create or allow to be created by the possibilities of misperceptions that can arise. Democracy is dealing with a crisis that has only been getting worst and worst. History is full of violations of treaties, deceit, and relentless drive for power of European monarchies. While some might have thought the European Monarchies have put aside their blood lust for power and authority in exchange for settlements, peace making treaties, and their survival, history has soon they always keep scheming for more and more power. Their libraries and archives of deceite, subversion, manipulation, and studies of the advantages in not having any ethnics or morals against those who do, dont go unoccupied. A quick look at the history of Monarchs' signing concessions only to violate them immediately or even many years laters is consistant with whats facing democracies.

In their push to create a Christian World Order with their capital in Jerusalem, they have taken whatever steps to necessary to reinstate the unity between church and state, with a preference for the most ruthless, savage, and ethics free approach. In this enormas Project of the Monarchs', under the leadership of the leader of the British church, to restore their dark-age glory, is a massive propaganda operation they have been funding.
Their massive propaganda operations are flooding the internet and society with distrust, suspicion, fear, hostility, anamosity, and antagonism with the democratic governments. From my experience I can tell you they hire PhD. professions, even professors, to write believable and convincing conspiracy theories to incite fear, hatred, anger, dissatisfaction, and other negative reactions to the democracies. I have met these PhD.s in political science, economics, psychology, and political-psychology who were assigned to me to indoctrinate me in custom-made conspiracy theories for the purposes of psychological conditioning, ego building and megalomania. These are people who create whatever lies and delusionment for the purposes of creating a persons destiny. These are writers who know which ideas, emphasis or which facts, in which particular ways information can be presented that will determine all the preferences that control a persons. Like implanting a virus into a person that takes over and runs their life and influences many of the important choices a person makes in their life.

The misinformation being propagated on the internet is to a massive extent a coordinated propaganda operation against Democracy

Though I oppose this darkage revolution with my life, I admit that I think they will have momentary success that will mean many catastrophic disasters. I also think that like history has shown that if you consider theoretically their victory for a World Order it will only decay into churches constantly at war with each other fighting each other.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManchurianDisclosure
I think that the concern for information spreading on the internet has to do with a great threat spreading that democratic government wouldn't dare speak about out of fear of the panic, outcry, and anamosity it would create or allow to be created by the possibilities of misperceptions that can arise. Democracy is dealing with a crisis that has only been getting worst and worst. History is full of violations of treaties, deceit, and relentless drive for power of European monarchies. While some might have thought the European Monarchies have put aside their blood lust for power and authority in exchange for settlements, peace making treaties, and their survival, history has soon they always keep scheming for more and more power. Their libraries and archives of deceite, subversion, manipulation, and studies of the advantages in not having any ethnics or morals against those who do, dont go unoccupied. A quick look at the history of Monarchs' signing concessions only to violate them immediately or even many years laters is consistant with whats facing democracies.

In their push to create a Christian World Order with their capital in Jerusalem, they have taken whatever steps to necessary to reinstate the unity between church and state, with a preference for the most ruthless, savage, and ethics free approach. In this enormas Project of the Monarchs', under the leadership of the leader of the British church, to restore their dark-age glory, is a massive propaganda operation they have been funding.
Their massive propaganda operations are flooding the internet and society with distrust, suspicion, fear, hostility, anamosity, and antagonism with the democratic governments. From my experience I can tell you they hire PhD. professions, even professors, to write believable and convincing conspiracy theories to incite fear, hatred, anger, dissatisfaction, and other negative reactions to the democracies. I have met these PhD.s in political science, economics, psychology, and political-psychology who were assigned to me to indoctrinate me in custom-made conspiracy theories for the purposes of psychological conditioning, ego building and megalomania. These are people who create whatever lies and delusionment for the purposes of creating a persons destiny. These are writers who know which ideas, emphasis or which facts, in which particular ways information can be presented that will determine all the preferences that control a persons. Like implanting a virus into a person that takes over and runs their life and influences many of the important choices a person makes in their life.

The misinformation being propagated on the internet is to a massive extent a coordinated propaganda operation against Democracy

Though I oppose this darkage revolution with my life, I admit that I think they will have momentary success that will mean many catastrophic disasters. I also think that like history has shown that if you consider theoretically their victory for a World Order it will only decay into churches constantly at war with each other fighting each other.


I'm amazed that Bill Clinton thinks he can call for a Ministry of Truth in fact LOLs with his record of lying.

I do think we have to be very clear about our right of freedom on speech and never to sound in any way as though its OK for it to be slyly taken away from us. Any hint of the attitude "Oh well it will come in whether we like it or not." is dangerous, because it gives TPTB the red light to take it away if they think they can get away with it or that we won't fight for our right to say what we think.

I don't agree with you about the European Monarchy's blood lust for power they ran out of thirst - yes some of them still exist and they will fight to stay in their elite bubbles but their day of rule died years ago, they are merely the front you see today. they are not who runs the world today. They are the people who bought Jerusalem. If you take the Queen of England, her wealth is run by the Rothschilds. Although earlier posters said that Obama got in through the backing of the ordinary people, Google are major supporters of his. Their partners were Sun /Orion whose largest fund provider is Barclays Investments, whose MD is married to a Rothschild.

I am very surprised you think that there will be a Christian World Order. I know its big in the USA but do people really believe one religion will overtake all other beliefs. The English Church is in a state of flux and has been declining since the last war when it was extraordinarily busy. I suspect people can read through much of the propoganda put out. Once I realised that my government did things that clearly made no sense at all I realised it was time to look behind the scenes at who was pulling the strings.

Once you realise that banks give out loads of money then force a crash pick up a whole load of assets for next to nothing then start the same cycle again, you wise up.




top topics



 
29
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join