Published On: Mon, Apr 30th, 2018

Archive: Suppressing Cameron’s global governance: not a big deal for people complicit in mass murder

Share This
Tags

First published at Luikkerland, 09 Nov 2011

Last week some of the more diligent citizen journalists and most alternative media subscribers noticed the delivery by David Cameron to the G20 summit of a paper that (as far as I understand it) proposes means to further the realisation of global governance. However, the event was grossly under reported in mainstream avenues, and the question arose as to why the British corporate media had deliberately suppressed the news.

The answer is the same to the question, why do the corporate media suppress any piece of news? – as readers will know too well, this is not the first time it has happened, nor will it be the last. To understand that there is precedence, one only has to look at the glaringly obvious fleeting coverage (3 or 4 pages on the whole internet from corporate sources; an improvement on a few years ago when it was entirely denied) of the incredibly significant summit for the global policy steering committee, the Bilderberg Group, which George Osborne attended [to do: add linked-to article to archive]  in the capacity of Chancellor. The answer to the question is this: because the corporate media, whether they are cajoled, or are perverse and do it with keen vigour, or are just scared of losing their jobs, are interested in the Progressive Establishment’s acquisition of total power – a pursuit that is criminal against millions of defrauded and stolen-from individual Britons, as well as treasonous on a national scale. In short, anything that can bring about public understanding of the ruling elite’s motives is not to be disseminated.

I have decided that there is nothing in the corporate media – by which I also include the guest-appearing and perennial subordinate blogosphere – that truly represents opposition to the Establishment. Yes, you will see “rogue” journalists who present as overtly hostile to Progressive orthodoxy on multiple issues, but they are like a handful of humans amongst a Borg crew – to use a Star Trek analogy -they are not seen as a threat. On the contrary, they are quite useful for giving the impression that the corporate media is a broad church and a SmörgÃ¥sbord board of free expression. Journalists in opposition from within the framework are useful because of certain tension in society that they can heap opinion towards in order to cause or exacerbate, and this can be manipulated by the powers-that-be.

Most corporate journalists, I figure, are paid off by riches, prestige, or job security – and you might find a few sheep in wolves’ clothing amidst that category. There is a trick in widespread use today – I guess it must be taught by Common Purpose or something – which Members of Parliament and other politicians use also. The suspect in question is extremely outspoken and contrary on one area of Establishment policy. On most other issues they adhere to the orthodoxy, but they garner support through the big contentious issue, and they lead their disciples ultimately into a political cul-de-sac. There are a few of these in positions of influence who are particularly dangerous. Some of us know who these are already, and we attack them out of urgent necessity. The time will relentlessly be nigh for others to be challenged.

The way that I treat all corporate media is as one looking at the signs to predict the weather. Reportage is runes to be deciphered so as to discover what the Establishment wants to achieve, and how it wants us to think. There is political motivation in every detail. The actual news event that is supposedly at the core of the reportage is often secondary. It is possible to get through the cloud of indoctrination and to the bottom of what real events actually mean and what processes were involved in their causation. This is where those aforementioned “rogue” journalists can help elucidate us the most – I didn’t say that their activity was in any way not to be valued.

Yet, the blockage that the corporate media presents to the acquisition of a free society is a blanket one. I suspect that media activity these past 50 years is the reason why people in Greece and Italy haven’t been educated about the sort of leaders they need to choose to represent them, and even on a more fundamental level, about what principles to uphold. What we see there, and which is coming soon in the UK, is the result of the central Marxist tenet regarding controlling information. The “centralisation of the means of communication“ is a Plank of Communism. In such a system, there cannot be holes to see through, or frayed edges to peer around so as to reveal any part of the reality that proves that the Establishment’s interface with the people it dictates is not relaying data accurately. “Conspiracy theorists” are people who see through the fabric of lies. They are ridiculed – as Cameron’s inspiration, Alinsky, prescribes in order to marginalise them. One day this won’t be enough, and the dictatorship will resort to shutting down the reports from beyond the peep-holes by force.

People are dreaming if they don’t think that we are on the verge of a very nasty totalitarian nightmare. I ask people to consider the fact that if a corporate media will be complicit in Libya towards the provocateuring of a war, and the covering up of atrocities by NATO against thousands of civilians (expect a report on these pages soon about war crimes charges being filed in multiple law suits against NATO and its leaders), and, worse of all, to act as a spy on the battle field (as now confirmed by NATO personnel), then there will be nothing that it will think is too awful for an innocent human to be subjected to by its accomplices in the enforcement arm of government in their shared pursuit of absolute power. There is nothing that it won’t cover up and ignore to the same ends.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.