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.

 

David Icke To Launch 'The People's Voice'

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   


They are in fact, as you say, there to help us conform to their ideas


Fair enough but I will ask again....who's ideas.

Certainly you will agree that Fox has different ideas than CNN.

So how again are they exactly cooperating towards a common goal when they push different ideas?




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


Everyone of those links are from 2013.

The trouble started in 2011, the MSM has been forced to address some truth to try and remain some integrity.

Also, the Guardian is about the only MSM source I have respect for, they often stand up for the truth.

Here is what I'm talking about-



Shameful and incredibly blatant propaganda from CBS right there- creating sympathy for the 'rebels'- see the date on the video? Feb 2012- they push these ideas OVER AND OVER to mold public opinion.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest



They are in fact, as you say, there to help us conform to their ideas


Fair enough but I will ask again....who's ideas.

Certainly you will agree that Fox has different ideas than CNN.

So how again are they exactly cooperating towards a common goal when they push different ideas?


They differ in ideas the same as politics does. Democrats and Republicans differ in views on the surface, as do Conservatives and Labour, but they follow the same path deep down because they are both controlled by the same forces.

Do you think if the Conservatives where in charge in 2003, that the Iraq war would not have happened?

When it comes to foreign policy, mainstream media and politics on both sides push the same ideas.

Ask yourself, who is the MSM not allowed to criticise? There's your answer. Who does America send the most military aid to? That may also answer your question.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
a TV and Radio station
TV and Radio station on air
£100,000 isn't really a lot when one considers how much the UK collectively pays for their TV license



Somebody should really come up with a better name for this. Its not really "TV" or "radio" if you're just streaming out over the internet the same as any kid with a webcam could do.
Because thats all this is.



The People’s Voice would broadcast out of London...

The costs of setting up a studio in London are substantial. In order to make this happen we need to spend money on:...


And if you're just going to be streaming stuff onto the internet, please explain why you have to do it from one of the most expensive places on earth. Any place at all with half decent internet would do.

edit on 1-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


It's a little more complicated and costly than you imply alfa.

A kid with a webcam in his bedroom isn't going to produce a studio quality show, nor will he or she likely have multiple business communications lines to take callers into the show.

Have a look at what the BBC spends on it's website alone, and you'll get an idea of what a professional setup is like and costs...a lot more than a webcam is involved.

I too think this is a good idea.

We can never have too many alternative sources for news and information, especially as many don't completely trust what the more established agencies have to say, another source is another route to help clarify what we are being routinely told and what tptb would have us believe.

That doesn't mean for a moment that 'The People's Voice' is guaranteed to be any more or less accurate in their reporting and dissemination of information than anyone else, it doesn't...but it's another source with which to inform.

Good luck to them.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   



I think it is a great idea. People will call it a scam, but to launch a TV show does require money. £100,000 isn't really a lot when one considers how much the UK collectively pays for their TV license for the BBC or how much we all pay in cable bills etc.

I hope enough money is raised, because this would be a great platform to rival the MSM and help wake more and more people up worldwide.


Just have to ask, how much are you planning on donating?

Not sure one new internet show is going to "wake" many more people up that aren't already there. What does "wake them up" mean anyways? I never really understood the phrase. It's like, if you don't agree with something that a person says, then you haven't woken up. Is this man the one who is going to do something that many other internet broadcasts aren't capable of doing?

There are many out there that don't publicly ask for money for upstarting like this. Seems a bit sketchy to me.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baldryck



I think it is a great idea. People will call it a scam, but to launch a TV show does require money. £100,000 isn't really a lot when one considers how much the UK collectively pays for their TV license for the BBC or how much we all pay in cable bills etc.

I hope enough money is raised, because this would be a great platform to rival the MSM and help wake more and more people up worldwide.


Just have to ask, how much are you planning on donating?

Not sure one new internet show is going to "wake" many more people up that aren't already there. What does "wake them up" mean anyways? I never really understood the phrase. It's like, if you don't agree with something that a person says, then you haven't woken up. Is this man the one who is going to do something that many other internet broadcasts aren't capable of doing?

There are many out there that don't publicly ask for money for upstarting like this. Seems a bit sketchy to me.


It's not mate, the idea is to offer 'balance'. That's the game and dynamic of the situation.

People deserve the right to have balance in what they are given as information to make their own minds up. The MSM does not allow this as they collectively promote an agenda dictated to them by their controllers and funders.

Politicians no longer represent the people, they represent the lobbyists who pay the most $$$.

The people need balance in order to make their own minds up. 'The People's Voice' will offer this. It will join the likes of Info Wars etc, as they say, 'every little helps'.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
We can never have too many alternative sources for news and information, especially as many don't completely trust what the more established agencies have to say, another source is another route to help clarify what we are being routinely told and what tptb would have us believe.


But we need quality sources we can trust. Icke is not a quality source, and he's not trustworthy. He has his own agenda.

The great thing about the mainstream media is that it doesn't ask me to believe what it says and it doesn't ask me for money. Ick does both, and that's two reasons for not trusting him already.


It's not mate, the idea is to offer 'balance'.


'Watch out for the Queen of England, she's a reptilian extraterrestrial!' is not balance.
edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: added quote...



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by MysterX
We can never have too many alternative sources for news and information, especially as many don't completely trust what the more established agencies have to say, another source is another route to help clarify what we are being routinely told and what tptb would have us believe.


But we need quality sources we can trust. Icke is not a quality source, and he's not trustworthy. He has his own agenda.

The great thing about the mainstream media is that it doesn't ask me to believe what it says and it doesn't ask me for money. Ick does both, and that's two reasons for not trusting him already.


No, the MSM doesn't ask for money, it requires it it by law if you wish to own a TV!!!!!

Elsewhere they have advertising that subliminally controls the minds of the masses into buying stuff they don't need.

How can the MSM be considered reliable when it too follows an agenda?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by alfa1
Somebody should really come up with a better name for this. Its not really "TV" or "radio" if you're just streaming out over the internet the same as any kid with a webcam could do.
Because thats all this is.
And if you're just going to be streaming stuff onto the internet, please explain why you have to do it from one of the most expensive places on earth.


It's a little more complicated and costly than you imply alfa.

A kid with a webcam in his bedroom isn't going to produce a studio quality show, nor will he or she likely have multiple business communications lines to take callers into the show.



Didnt really address any of my points.

1. I never saids that a "kid with a webcam" could produce the same QUALITY. I was speaking about the terminology of "radio" and "TV", which this isnt.

2. You didnt address anything about why the studio had to be in London. You dont need to be there to get multiple business communications lines to take callers, and Icke doesnt even live in London. Any place guests could easily get to, would do fine. It would also leave more money left over for equipment.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
No, the MSM doesn't ask for money, it requires it it by law if you wish to own a TV!!!!!


No it doesn't. The TV licence doesn't go to the mainstream media, it goes to the government. The government requires this money by law, not the mainstream media.


Elsewhere they have advertising that subliminally controls the minds of the masses into buying stuff they don't need.


No it doesn't. At most, subliminal advertising can suggest ideas and influence decision-making. It cannot literally control.


How can the MSM be considered reliable when it too follows an agenda?


Did I say the mainstream media should be considered reliable? No I did not. However, in my experience the mainstream media has been more reliable than David Icke—although quite frankly, that's not a difficult achievement.
edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
No, the MSM doesn't ask for money, it requires it it by law if you wish to own a TV!!!!!


No it doesn't. The TV licence doesn't go to the mainstream media, it goes to the government. The government requires this money by law, not the mainstream media.


Elsewhere they have advertising that subliminally controls the minds of the masses into buying stuff they don't need.


No it doesn't. At most, subliminal advertising can suggest ideas and influence decision-making. It cannot literally control.


How can the MSM be considered reliable when it too follows an agenda?


Did I say the mainstream media should be considered reliable? No I did not. However, in my experience the mainstream media has been more reliable than David Icke—although quite frankly, that's not a difficult achievement.
edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...


Oh so th 'TV' license does not pay for the BBC? Oh...

So advertising does not work, they spend millions on advertising because it is not effective in making people consume?

ATS is so educational at times!
edit on 1-6-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
£500 for a video of David Icke saying "Thank You"
He must think people are crazier than he is.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
The mainstream media is Zionist owned. To imagine that they are impartial and have no agenda is naive in the extreme. I hope this project succeeds, I'll be supporting it.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoiter
The mainstream media is Zionist owned. To imagine that they are impartial and have no agenda is naive in the extreme. I hope this project succeeds, I'll be supporting it.


So are you trying to say that David Icke doesn't have his own agenda? Do you really think that opinions that disagree with him are going to be given much airtime on this site?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Oh so th 'TV' license does not pay for the BBC? Oh...


Of course it does. But it's paid to the government, not to some great big scary monster called 'the mainstream media.'


So advertising does not work, they spend millions on advertising because it is not effective in making people consume?


That is not what I said. It is in fact the complete opposite of what I said.


ATS is so educational at times!


Evidently it does not improve reading comprehension, because yours is abysmal.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary29

Originally posted by thoiter
The mainstream media is Zionist owned. To imagine that they are impartial and have no agenda is naive in the extreme. I hope this project succeeds, I'll be supporting it.


So are you trying to say that David Icke doesn't have his own agenda? Do you really think that opinions that disagree with him are going to be given much airtime on this site?


If he does have an agenda, it's to put an end to the tyranny which is engulfing the globe, and that's an agenda which I support.
Do I really think that opinions that disagree with him are going to be given much airtime on this site? Well that remains to be seen, I would hope so. But let's be honest, people that disagree with him are already given a voice in the all-encompassing MSM. This has to be more about countering the mainstream propaganda, and giving a voice to those who are essentially being gagged by TPTB
edit on 1-6-2013 by thoiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
If anyone trusts our mainstream media and thinks their reporting is impartial, honest and without an agenda already fixed then you don't know the British press at all!

We did once have a truly great press, however it was always subject to a D notice or some kind of silencer on certain topics the government doesn't want discussed. My Stepfather was a reporter in the London office of the New York Times and the information we use to get around the dinner table was astounding.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by alfa1
Somebody should really come up with a better name for this. Its not really "TV" or "radio" if you're just streaming out over the internet the same as any kid with a webcam could do.
Because thats all this is.
And if you're just going to be streaming stuff onto the internet, please explain why you have to do it from one of the most expensive places on earth.


It's a little more complicated and costly than you imply alfa.

A kid with a webcam in his bedroom isn't going to produce a studio quality show, nor will he or she likely have multiple business communications lines to take callers into the show.



Didnt really address any of my points.

1. I never saids that a "kid with a webcam" could produce the same QUALITY. I was speaking about the terminology of "radio" and "TV", which this isnt.

2. You didnt address anything about why the studio had to be in London. You dont need to be there to get multiple business communications lines to take callers, and Icke doesnt even live in London. Any place guests could easily get to, would do fine. It would also leave more money left over for equipment.



If you don't want to be missunderstood, you really ought to try and be more specific mate.

What you said here..




Somebody should really come up with a better name for this. Its not really "TV" or "radio" if you're just streaming out over the internet the same as any kid with a webcam could do. Because thats all this is.


Is *exactly* the same as implying Icke's setup is some kind of ruse to elicit money using the excuse of setting up an online TV/Radio studio which is in your own words '...*the same as a kid with a webcam..because that's all this is*'

What am i not addressing, when i address your own point in your own words mate?

I suppose BBC's Iplayer and ITV's service isn't TV or radio in your view either? Even when they are universally known as catch up *TV* and internet *TV* services.

And you never mentioned the word quality in your post by the way...if you meant quality, it would have been easy to have said so originally no?

Besides, if you want a quality broadcast, terrestrial or internet...it costs.

Quality is expensive...a kid with a webcam can broadcast, but the quality will not be a similar broadcast standard
to established sources...so really, you have answered your own point as to why a *quality, a studio quality setup would require funding, and is not, absolutely not the same thing as a kid with a webcam or the quality of a kid with a webcam.

As for why London...i didn't address that part of your post, becuase frankly i had considered that it doesn't take a genius to work out that the entire purpose of 'The People's Voice' is to be in direct competition with other mainstream news sources...the BBC is the obvious one, who also happens to be in London...among others who have their HQ's there.

If you ask why Icke should be in London (and hence require money to pay for the prime position), you should also be asking why the BBC and others should be wasting taxpayers money on similar prime locations...London is obviously central to and well connected to travel links, hotels and hospitality for the guests you mention...come on, it's a capital city so there's also a prestige value to having a venue there.

The multiple telephone lines, required communications switching system (probably a 'suitcase' DMS type switch)
can be anywhere there is modern infrastructure...it was mentioned not to highlight London or any location in particular, but more to highlight that susch a setup costs a lot of money! (and costs more than a kid with a webcam and a home landline)

So no mate...this isn't 'what this is' at all.














edit on 1-6-2013 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


Would like to have been a fly on the wall.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
They differ in ideas the same as politics does. Democrats and Republicans differ in views on the surface, as do Conservatives and Labour, but they follow the same path deep down because they are both controlled by the same forces.


Pray tell. Who and what are the controlling forces. Is MSM just English language, or should we chuck in every major media outlet? Is the Russian State controlled RT.com, often cited as factual by many people on ATS just more MSM? What about the Syrian Arab News Agency?

IMHO people distrust MSM because:

1. MSM reports and interpret news in the way the listener does not agree with or wants to hear. If someone’s worldview is fixated on the Zionist conspiracy, for example, then news would always have to have a Zionist leaning, or else would be wrong. The fact that the banking crisis ignored the role of Zionists proves the point that MSM is covering it all up, even though no links to Zionists can be found. Of course the reason why no links to Zionists can be found is because (as we know) the Zionists are very clever.

2. There is just so much news that MSM cannot report it all. The fact that a farmer in Nebraska was shouting that he was anally probed by an alien is just not worthy of being reported. Some people would take this as proof that there is a cover up and MSM is complicit, because (as we know) MSM is controlled by aliens who are partial to probing Nebraskan farmers.

The fact that Icke’s theories are unreported by MSM is because they are stupid and most intelligent people would complain that real news was being sullied. Icke has his niche, but if exposed to full public scrutiny he would be rightly ridiculed. At the moment he is tolerated as a harmless quack. Just because MSM ignore self-serving publicists with ridiculous and improvable theories, does not make what they say true or credible.

Regards



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join