home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0
/
Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO
/
tezcat
/
Mind_Control
/
News_Media.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-07-08
|
6KB
|
127 lines
From the Radio Free Michigan archives
ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot
If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.
------------------------------------------------
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 21
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
Editorial by Brian Francis Redman
Editor-in-chief, Conspiracy Nation
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Suppose that the mainstream media outlets were withholding
information from you. Would you know that information was being
withheld?
Suppose, for example, that the major networks and the major
newspapers knew that Fort Knox was empty, that the gold had long
since been removed. If they didn't tell you about it, how would
you know? And what is more -- and here is the point -- you
wouldn't know that you didn't know.
For all we know, when we turn on the alleged "news" at night, we
are being given the *whole* truth. But do we really know this?
How can we know for sure that we are being given the *whole*
truth? Might not the major media outlets, for whatever reason,
routinely "kill" certain stories?
We know of course that stories are in fact routinely "killed".
For example, a story might be deemed not interesting or redundant
or not credible, and for that reason it will be "killed". But
what if stories were being "killed" for more sinister reasons? In
theory at least there could well be a whole realm of news that we
are routinely not being told.
Can you see how this would be easy for the major media outlets to
both do and get away with? If, for example, news that dealt with
corporate and governmental crime were routinely suppressed --
well if they don't tell us about it, then how are we going to
know that we're not being told?
Of course, corporate and governmental crime *is* regularly
reported in our mainstream media. But how do we know that there's
not a great deal more in this area of which we are not being
told? Suppose that the "elite crime" that we *do* know about is
just a sort of "limited hangout". Suppose that the "news"
conglomerate parcels out such information only to the extent that
they must in order to maintain a supposed credibility. Suppose
that, yes, we are told from time to time about Charles Keating
and Leona Helmsly -- but only sparingly, only due to the fact
that if *no* "elite crime" was reported then it would be too
obvious that information was being withheld.
Just as the U.S. government, under the pretext of "national
security", now routinely withholds ever greater amounts of
information from the public, so too we seem to now have a "double
filter" situation in which the mainstream media takes the
information doled out to them and, in turn, doles that
information sparingly out to us.
And yet, in our political discourse we, as a people, routinely
argue about what ought to be done regarding the great issues of
the day. We argue about crime and the "war on drugs" as if we are
generals possessing full knowledge of the situation. But what if
there are key aspects of the situation which we know nothing
about? When we discuss these issues, we assume we have all the
needed information available to us on which to base our decision.
What if we have not been told, for example, that the U.S.
government is one of the major importers of illegal narcotics
into the United States? If they don't tell you that, then how are
you going to know that you do not know?
Without the knowledge of this one key factor, that the U.S.
government is itself one of the major importers of illegal
narcotics (First the government declares them illegal, then
demand rises, then prices rise, then the government imports the
"illegal" narcotics for a whopping cash bonanza! And we always
thought the government was stupid!) into the United States,
public discussion about what to do about crime and the "war on
drugs" is going to miss a key aspect of the problem. By missing a
key aspect of the problem, the wrong solution will be arrived at.
And this wrong solution, which will take the form of public
opinion, will have occurred because crucial information had been
withheld.
But nobody would *know* that crucial information had been
withheld.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name"
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
Brian Francis Redman bigxc@prairienet.org "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.
All files are ZIP archives for fast download.
E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)