If you wished to control the people of a nation, how would you do it? Under a Christian approach, we expect common decency. Much of this was written into the constitution of the USA by the founding fathers. It was also expected in ‘Western’ nations. But this is not necessarily the norm. So we need to look at various aspects of control systems. Jesus, himself, explicitly attacked those that had the controlling influence in Hebrew society. Jesus called the Pharisees ‘graves that men have painted white’. They looked good externally, whilst their lives were selfish and greedy. Jesus explained that the Pharisees taught God’s law, but they also needed to obey it. Their behaviour was the opposite of the procedures taught by Jesus. The Pharisees taught the law but did not practice many of the key parts of the law – justice, mercy, faithfulness to God. He believed that they were hard-hearted hypocrites and had murderous blood in their veins. He rips into the Pharisees with verbal violence that we see little of these days:
You are like snakes! You are like a collection of dangerous snakes! You will not escape God’s punishment in hell.
Jesus speaking as quoted by Matthew 23:33
Jesus was not the gentle mannered man we are lead to believe. He was a ‘firebrand’. The current trend to claim “You offended me.” had no truck with Jesus as in this ‘go to hell’ outburst:
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will go into the kingdom of heaven. Some people do what God wants. Those people will go in. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not speak on your behalf? Did we not send away demons on your behalf, and do many miracles”? Then I will tell them, “I never knew you. Go away, you wicked people!”
Jesus as quoted by Matthew 7:21-23
Problems occur when religion is mixed with politics. The Pharisees were not governing for the benefit of all but for their own benefit. A problem we have today.
Jesus warned the locals when he said to them:
“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Jesus (as quoted by Matthew 16:6)
We still have leaders who have ‘murderous blood in their veins’. They supply a constant stream of wars to keep their war buddies in business. During the ‘Cold War’ experiments with the effects of nuclear bombs on humans, this memo was issued by government:
It is desired that no documents be released which refers to experiments with humans and might have adverse effect on public opinion or result in legal suits. Documents covering such work field should be classified ‘secret.’
Atomic Energy Commission memo, 1947
We vote for them. They secretly endanger our lives. We blindly vote again for those that endanger our lives.
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law (Scribes) and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.”
Matthew 23:1-7
One of the procedures to control the people is to curb criticism. Government is never keen on criticism. Rather than reduce the items that might cause criticism, the illogical approach is to curb the criticism. This means ‘shutting down’ those that express descent. In this era of mass communication, communication has provided a problem and a solution. Freedom of expression is generally regarded as a key component of a modern democracy. Yet many governments have taken significant steps to curtail free speech on the internet. Various kinds of regulation might be available including provider self-regulation, conditions of use, and ‘acceptable use policies. Another approach is attack. Being the internet, the attack is with words by undermining the ideas or authors. The term ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is a demolisher of content. The term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ demolisher of authors. Surveillance of authors is becoming another tactic. ‘Hate Speech is a term that criminalizes the author and the content. Jesus would be condemned for ‘Hate Speech’. So ‘Hate Speech’ is unrelated to the truthfulness of the content. Author surveillance is now occurring. The term ‘Forbidden Website’ is attached to a site that is deemed ‘taboo’ irrespective of the truthfulness of the content.
The ‘Forbidden Websites’ are then monitored. A citizen who visits ‘Forbidden Websites’ is kept under surveillance. The government has never been supportive of critics. ‘Authorities’ can make the visitor’s life unpleasant. In China that might mean a visit to a ‘re-education camp’ and a ‘controlled’ job in a factory from which it is impossible to escape. The person is in a binding slave situation only missing the chains and grid-mesh. One’s personal internet history detects “forbidden” or “taboo” sites. The person is then placed on the list of ‘Political Thought Criminals’. Said ‘criminal’ is routinely stopped at airports and intimately questioned. Your internet history is distributed to interested parties such as your employer. In times of crisis, you would be the first to be moved to a FEMA camp, the New Gulag for our increasingly totalitarian state. 1984 was intended to be a warning – not a guide book.
Conspiracy is not confined to citizens against the state. The state runs conspiracies against the citizens. The following document exposes a conspiracy to start a war against Cuba. Military officials suggested staging phony terrorist attacks (False Flag) to justify war with Cuba.
However, corporate controlled government and the corporate controlled media ignores its conspiracies and drowns the anti-government criticism, with their ‘approved’ usage. The ‘approved’ definition of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ tend to have this wording:
“a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.”
Yet, independent sources such as ‘Urban Dictionary’ use this wording:
1) Designation assigned by corporate media to any idea divergent of government script.
2) Results from careful and unbiased analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding a high profile event, proving an agenda is/was in motion.
A hint of official intolerance of independent analysis is suggested in a quote by George W. Bush:
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the attacks of September 11”
President George W. Bush, at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001, New York
The hint is that nobody is allowed to differ from the ‘official’ version of events as issued by government and propagated by the Corporate Media.
One commenter explains:
A label that can be affixed to any argument or point that one doesn’t like to avoid having to provide a valid response to it. Much like “that’s just your opinion”, “I don’t actually care” and “I was joking”, this card is frequently played by the debater who has been outwitted and defeated, but thinks if he doesn’t directly admit it, he still might be seen as the overall winner. This remains a powerful tactic though, due to the extremely negative connotation of the term “conspiracy theory”, given to it by people who think it’s impossible that anyone would ever do something that’s not good for us then cover it up, so insisting something is a conspiracy theory is still an alarmingly effective way of getting people to side with the person without a point, regardless of how little sense calling it a conspiracy theory actually makes. Remember, labels are powerful things and can easily affect what people perceive something as actually being.
Utix
Even the heavily edited and controlled Wikipedia proudly discusses a conspiracy that is considered ‘Truth’.
The Pazzi Conspiracy was a plot by members of the Pazzi family and others to displace the de’ Medici family as rulers of Renaissance Florence. On 26 April 1478 there was an attempt to assassinate Lorenzo de’ Medici and his brother Giuliano de’ Medici. Lorenzo was wounded but survived; Giuliano was killed. The failure of the plot served to strengthen the position of the de’ Medici.
A conspiracy is thus accepted if our controllers consider it appropriate to describe the event as a conspiracy but is not a valid conspiracy if deemed displeasing to the controllers. One pundit has a neat definition:
Conspiracy Theory
O_O
Two words which are uttered whenever anyone is getting too close to the truth.
He claims that this renders said person ‘null and void’ and gives said person the appearance of a ‘paranoid twat’, regardless of the existence of facts, evidence, and proof. Thus, the truth about the matter does not influence the judgement of the declaration of ‘Conspiracy Theory’. The truth becomes irrelevant. My observation is that the declaration of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is more effective if no rebuttal of the facts is attempted. Something is declared a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ without the decency of analysis. A person is ‘guilty’ of being a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ by accusation alone. Proof of falseness is not required. The same treatment works well with accusations against men. The male is guilty by ‘accusation’ and goes straight to jail.
Such is the fight against anybody going against the Corporate Media line that the person gets called a: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ with the implication that they are a ‘deluded person who falls for every satire article’. I personally don’t accept the reasons for going to World War One nor the reasons for going to World War Three. I don’t accept that we should invade other nations described as ‘bad people’ by corporate controlled media. I reserve my right to decide for myself who I believe and I am very wary of believing anything form a source that is prone to bias because it relies on corporate money to survive. Lobbyists are a serious concern. Lobbying should be a crime. One lobbyist has more power than all the voters combined. Lobbyists have rapidly conquered democracy. The voting is kept in place for visual effect. According to the Atlantic:
Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.
The Atlantic also reports that the biggest companies have upwards of one hundred lobbyists representing them. This puts the corporations in an immensely dominant political position. Political representation is heavily tilted towards the well-off. This is always common as the well-have assets to protect and tend to have more political nous. It suggests that bribery has been renamed to lobbying to give it a veneer of legality. The lobbyist has more power than you as a voter. In fact, the lobbyist has more power than all the voters put together. Money buys laws.
Similarly with history books. They are considered true until someone finds something in them that is not in the realm of ‘official’ truths. So “The Nameless War” by Archibald Ramsey is not in the bookshops.
But we need some inspiration to seek the ‘Truth’. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. … In end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Tyranny desires a mass apathy to match marshaling of dangerous forces dressed in sheep’s clothing.
