The Paris Attacks, MU Protests and the Propaganda Machine

Saiko

Member
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/paris-attacks-missouri-u-protests/


“After catastrophic events, the propaganda machines start rolling. Opportunities abound. The goal is: use the disaster to boost a current agenda, when there really is no connection at all. It’s called a non-sequitur. It’s perfect food for dim minds.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Let’s look at how propaganda arising out of the Paris attacks will be deployed in the upcoming Climate Summit.

File this under: how much hay will global elites make from the Paris attacks?

Also file it under: the use of complete non-sequiturs as propaganda, to achieve desired results.

Let’s consider the Paris Climate Summit (COP21), scheduled to start on November 30 in Paris. No less than 120 nations will be represented by their heads of state, including Obama. Somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand credentialed representatives are going to attend.

That gives you some idea of the importance of the event. This is a big deal. Very big. As the Scientific American states in “Paris Attack Will Not Halt Global Climate Talks”:

“The two weeks of talks begin Nov. 30 and will take place at Le Bourget airfield on the outskirts of Paris. They are expected to culminate in a new international agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions and possibly put in place a system by which nearly 200 countries can regularly enact new and stronger climate targets.”

The Paris summit is the most ambitious effort yet to impose the pseudoscience of global warming on the planet. Lower CO2 emissions, carbon taxes, cap and trade, the whole works. Result? Reduce energy output and supplies for all nations, deepening poverty, increasing chaos.

Now, to sample the flavor of comments on the Climate Summit, in the wake of the Paris attacks, here are statements reported, again, by the Scientific American:

“Diplomats from New Zealand to the Maldives said they believe the vicious assaults on ordinary citizens are precisely the reason the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the U.N. climate convention must still convene as planned. U.S. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will be among nearly 120 heads of state attending.”

“’COP 21 has to take place; otherwise, it would mean being weak and scared by terrorism, which would be for them an additional victory,’ Pascal Canfin, France’s former minister of development, told ClimateWire.”

“Agreed Jeffrey Waheed, deputy permanent representative of the Maldives to the United Nations, ‘We cannot acquiesce to brutality. It is important that terror attacks don’t dissuade us from what’s most important to the international community.’”

Getting the picture?

Here comes the non-sequitur: “solidarity in the face of terrorism” among nations equals: “we must all agree on deeper enforcement of climate rules.” That’s the pitch, that’s the propaganda.

Logically, it makes no sense, it’s an idiot’s dance, but whoever said propaganda relies on logic?

You’re going to hear this kind of thing: “If we convene in Paris and can’t come up with hard agreements on climate enforcement, we’ll be dishonoring all those who died in the attacks…”

And this: “We have one chance now to show how determined we are to forge a global community, not just for climate agreements, but for all that is good, against the brutal killers who assaulted this great city…”

Connecting two ideas that don’t go together is one of the prime strategies of propagandists—and you can see it’s already being used in this case. Again, we’re not talking about some small attempt to forge climate rules. This is a huge piece of the Globalist agenda, because it drives all nations deeper into poverty and energy deficits, under the guise of “saving the planet.”

In the case of the University of Missouri student protests, where the accusations of horrendous racism on campus have, so far, proven to be largely a hoax, the propaganda was all about the “power of students to force change.” The president of the University, Tim Wolfe, was targeted, and he quickly resigned.

But the truth is, the University football team forced Wolfe out, and his instant capitulation had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with money. Thirty football players were ready to boycott the team’s next game with BYU, and if they refused to take the field, Missouri would have to pay BYU a million dollars. But that was only the beginning of the $$ problem.

Since 2012, the U of Missouri has been part of the vaunted SEC (Southeastern Conference), the most powerful college football consortium of teams in America. The SEC has 14 member teams in 10 states. In 2014-15, the SEC paid its members $455 million.

If the Missouri football boycott spread to other SEC teams, the whole system could collapse, and this would have repercussions far beyond the SEC. We’re talking television contracts, advertisers, student bodies addicted to football. We’re talking about a “national pastime,” future Bowl games, the whole national playoff system.

Tim Wolfe took about five minutes to decide to resign, once he realized what was at stake. You can bet a few heavy hitters from the television networks and the SEC were on the phone to him, pronto.

Forget Wolfe’s public mea culpa. He was protecting the financial football establishment. He literally took one for the team.

The propaganda, and the ensuing college copycat protests at other schools, like Amherst, “showing solidarity” with the U of Missouri, all lead back to money. To football. To the billion-dollar bonanza industry that must not be derailed. As soon as Wolfe resigned, the Missouri student who was on a protest hunger strike (his father reportedly makes $8 million a year) started eating again. The football players went back on the field and got ready for their next game.

All the hoopla and propaganda about a moral victory against racism is a sham. It was a victory for football.

And you have to wonder: If the Missouri team was undefeated, on the verge of securing a spot in the national playoffs, instead of sporting a mediocre 5-4 record at the time, would 30 players have threatened to boycott their next game and risked taking themselves out of the championship picture? I doubt it.

Propaganda: it can be used in the aftermath of a disaster to promote an ongoing agenda, or it can be used to explain (wrongly) why something happened, in order to promote an ongoing agenda.

It works like magic when the target audience is uninformed and incurious.

Jon Rappoport
 
I agree, Jon. How do you stop it before it stops us all?

In light of the violence confronting the media drunk public, I've found myself annoyed by how nearly all sources of media on the Internet promote the feeling of primal hate? especially on Facebook.

Rappopport doesn't, as far as I know, use these forums. If you use the link you'll get to his blog where there's a comment section. He also has an email address listed.

I'll state that what he often expresses, and that I agree with, is that it's about the individual. The "Giant" is an illusion created because some individuals believe in, and act according to, a set narrative. In reclaiming one's own genuine individuality and mental freedom, then expanding into the larger expanse of self one sees the paper tiger for what it is.

Here's another post of his that you may find pertinent: https://outsidetherealitymachine.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/separating-yourself-from-doom-and-gloom/
 
Hi Saiko,

I'm new. Can you please tell me why should I be cautious of Jon Rappaport?

I wrote of a Giant, not Jon. That was me. Would you like to ask me why?

P.S. what did Jon do?

Okay you have me at a great disadvantage. To put it another way - I have no idea what you're on about.

In your initial post you stated. "I agree, Jon. How do you stop it before it stops us all?"
I explained that "Jon" isn't on these forums and then gave my version of what I've read from him about dealing with the situation that you term "Giant."
 
Its not uncommon that I've only given you riddles. It's probably better that way.

Whatever. I posted an article by Jon Rappoport. Then I gave you info on how to contact him. I have no interest in engaging with you and your "riddles."
 
Whatever. I posted an article by Jon Rappoport. Then I gave you info on how to contact him. I have no interest in engaging with you and your "riddles."

Haven't you noticed that the three new users that began posting this week all talk "in riddles"? The cheesy one tries to be poetic, the one talking to himself at the WSIW section is noisy and the hawk talks in Chinese proverbs. I bet that at least two of them are related.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Haven't you noticed that the three new users that began posting this week all talk "in riddles"? The cheesy one tries to be poetic, the one talking to himself at the WSIW section is noisy and the hawk talks in Chinese proverbs. I bet that at least two of them are related.
Omg, this reminds of a really strange poster that came here last year some time. The user name was something like r2r2 and every post was unadulterated word salad. When other members pointed this out, they would just get angry and call us all skeptics, like it was a dirty word.

The Internet- there's a whole lotta weirdos out there.
 
Yeah, but weirdos don't appear in bunches like this unless you suddenly stumble into a convention of furries. This is someone being amused by the poor saps that try to decode the nonsense.
 
Yeah, but weirdos don't appear in bunches like this unless you suddenly stumble into a convention of furries. This is someone being amused by the poor saps that try to decode the nonsense.
True. I really am not sure what to think of the Paris attack. Real or manufactured, the western powers will and are using it to its fullest potential. I knew two things right off the bat when I first heard of the attacks: 1) they would blame it on Muslims (likely ISIS since they are the kings of the boogeymen right now) and 2) they would try and almost immediately pass some kind of heightened surveillance legislation. And whatya know, they most certainly did both in pretty short order.

Whether it was a true terrorist attack or not, the shamelessness shown by the French government in not wasting this "good crisis" by exploiting the fear and pain the French are feeling is disgusting. Not that I'm surprised. I've come to expect such things from all western governments.

And if there are trolls reading this and having a laugh, go F--- yourself.
 
True. I really am not sure what to think of the Paris attack. Real or manufactured, the western powers will and are using it to its fullest potential. I knew two things right off the bat when I first heard of the attacks: 1) they would blame it on Muslims (likely ISIS since they are the kings of the boogeymen right now) and 2) they would try and almost immediately pass some kind of heightened surveillance legislation. And whatya know, they most certainly did both in pretty short order.

Whether it was a true terrorist attack or not, the shamelessness shown by the French government in not wasting this "good crisis" by exploiting the fear and pain the French are feeling is disgusting. Not that I'm surprised. I've come to expect such things from all western governments.

And if there are trolls reading this and having a laugh, go F--- yourself.
I used to be like Red (or at least take him to be): I fully believed 9/11 conspiracies were true but I wanted to distance myself as much as possible from all other conspiracies . . . which wasn't always overly difficult bc I tended to think the others (JFK excluded) were crazy. Now I default to assuming any terrorist attack or overblown media production is on some level fake.

I'm not particularly happy to be in the "thinks everything is a conspiracy" group, but this is where I've ended up.
 
Just yesterday we said that with the only French aircraft carrier already en route to Syria, meant to support a mission against Assad ISIS, France is oddly prepared for an all out attack to take out the Syrian president. Most importantly, it now has the outraged, incensed public’s blessing to do just that. Couldn’t have been planned better. MINA, Nov. 15, 2015

Bombing Syrian oil infrastructure, oil prices drop, oil is stolen and namely sold to Kurds at rock bottom prices who then sell it to the biggest beneficiary of all this: Israel -

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/20...il-infrastructure-while-israel-buys-isis-oil/
 
On the convenience of when and where ISIS decides to attack in relation to what the U.S. wants to do militarily:

As is the case with almost every single incident of supposed “ISIS™” terrorism, the Paris Attacks last night need to be considered in terms of current events in order to understand the objective they serve to achieve. Doing that, figuring out the most probable motive, usually points directly to the culprit. The real culprit.

“ISIS™”, if you recall, only came onto the scene back when the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries began their quest to retake their nation in the absence of US troops. These were mainly Ba’athist former Saddam loyalists from the military and a few other Sunni tribes from the north who were dead-set against allowing our occupation of their country to continue via the puppet regime we set up in the country before leaving.

In spite of all the weapons and intelligence services we provided for Maliki for him to use to keep the people from rising up against him, the GMCIR was winning big in their revolution, and making their way to the very outskirts of Baghdad.

President Obama, who had been touted as finally achieving one of his campaign promises, getting us out of Iraq, what he called “the wrong war” upon leaving, had to figure out a way to justify sending the military back into Iraq either as boots on the ground or with an air campaign. But he couldn’t do that against a secular popular uprising against our neoliberal puppet. Not to simply defend the corporate gains garnered under the Bush/Cheney regime. That would never do.

So “ISIS™” was born. And since that time, “ISIS™” has popped up everywhere President Obama needed a justification to attack anywhere on the globe.

Obama wanted to step up actions in Syria in order to assist the CIA’s terrorist regime change operators, so “ISIS™” was there.

Obama needed to help our puppet regime in Libya when they lost an election and looked like they were losing control of the country, so “ISIS™” showed up there.

Obama had to justify helping Saudi Arabia bomb the people of Yemen after a revolution in that country kicked out our longtime dictator in that country and threatened Hunt Oil profits, so “ISIS™” was exported to that country as well.

Obama’s new puppet dictator in Egypt was having a hard time quelling the legitimate uprising in Sinai, so we called them “ISIS™” and the drones started flying.

And along with each and every one of these new venues for the “ISIS™” traveling road show to play, there was always a Rita Katz video production produced at the beginning of the tour. A little teaser of propaganda to get the people behind the new campaign.

From Japan to Canada to Australia to France, “ISIS™” has always shown up right on time to help their government’s promote a new, fascist agenda which would normally be opposed by the vast majority of the general population. And as I have shown with regards to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the same holds true with the United States.

One would have to be blind not too see the pattern developing here. Like PNAC calling for a “New Pearl Harbor type event” to help them promote their program for the New American Century of total, endless unilateral warfare exactly one year before 9/11, it takes work to ignore coincidences like these.

At this point one has to work hard to achieve that level of blindness.

Current Events Hold the Key
The history of convenient violence associated with this thing called “ISIS™” is unmistakable from it’s inception to last night’s attacks in Paris. They always serve a purpose. They always serve a greater good which is quite often standing in direct contrast to what the casual onlooker might consider to be their own ideological interests.

Doesn’t it seem odd that when peace is at handand a new plan to back out of Syria is taking shape in Vienna, “ISIS™” would strike a diabolical blow to the heart of the very antiwar crowd in France that has been calling for an end to Hollande’s involvement in the country? Why would they target the middle class antiwar faction of Paris?

This is the land of hipster socialists. These neighborhoods recently elected a female socialist mayor, as well as a slew of Green Party candidates, even as the rest of the country voted for the more conservative and anti-immigration parties on the Right.

The attackers, whomever they may be and whatever their motives, went after the heart of progressive Paris. They did not attack the more touristy Champs-Elysées or Notre Dame, or the more bourgeois and conservative left bank, where most of the government ministries are located. Fusion.net

You could argue these attacks were made to look like an “ISIS™” operation while in fact they were conducted by a neo-Nazi fascist stay-behind force like Gladio or perhaps the nationalists from Ukraine. Far right fascism is on the rise in France and all across Europe there is a growing hatred and fear of the refugees flooding into the country.

Either that or they could have been staged by far-right fascist elements in our collective intelligence services who saw a possible end to the gravy train they’ve been riding for so long since 9/11.

Of course, the Mossad is always a consideration when it comes to acts of terrorism for political gain. Israel is a huge supporter of the Greater Kurdistan project, they want to bust off a piece of Syria now that they have found oil in the Golan Heights and of course, they have a recent bone to pick with the EU now that they have passed regulations saying products produced in the occupied West Bank have to be labeled as such.

However you choose to look at it, at this early stage in the investigation, the only thing we have to go by when evaluating what happened is the history of these “ISIS™” operations, when they took place and what purpose they ultimately served.

Was it staged? Was it real? Were there victims? Was it another Hebdo theater production? Another fake beheading video played out live on the streets of Paris? These are certainly important questions which I’m sure will be examined at length in the future. At this point, that’s impossible to accomplish.

Right now all we can look at and evaluate is the history of convenient violence of this thing called “ISIS™” and to me, that history denotes a pattern. A distinct, unmistakable pattern much like a fingerprint left on the history of mankind. And for once, I agree with President Obama….

“This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share”
Damn right it is. The question is… who did it and why.

From here, (and there's more in the article that I didn't quote):

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/20...convenient-violence-of-the-thing-called-isis/
 
I used to be like Red (or at least take him to be): I fully believed 9/11 conspiracies were true but I wanted to distance myself as much as possible from all other conspiracies . . . which wasn't always overly difficult bc I tended to think the others (JFK excluded) were crazy. Now I default to assuming any terrorist attack or overblown media production is on some level fake.

I'm not particularly happy to be in the "thinks everything is a conspiracy" group, but this is where I've ended up.

Perhaps not every 'connection' is a conspiracy. Some may be spurious, other mutually beneficial, some others coincidental.

Sometimes the devil in the detail is actually the disregarding of the 'big picture", and sometimes the devil really is in the details. Not every case is the same.
 
Perhaps not every 'connection' is a conspiracy. Some may be spurious, other mutually beneficial, some others coincidental.

Sometimes the devil in the detail is actually the disregarding of the 'big picture", and sometimes the devil really is in the details. Not every case is the same.
Yeah, I was thinking about something along the same lines yesterday. The "conspiratorial angle" is fine and has its use but it should be rounded out by other considerations. There's some kind of logical flaw in looking at an event X and then trying to figure out who it benefits most (Y), and then concluding from there that Y must have caused X.
 
There's some kind of logical flaw in looking at an event X and then trying to figure out who it benefits most (Y), and then concluding from there that Y must have caused X.

As you have specifically put it - yes. A flaw that, in other versions, is also common in mainstream science. However it is even more of a fail to leave out the "who benefits" assessment. The term conspiracy is both loaded and misapplied I'd like to see terms that more accurately describe what is being claimed

All that aside, for me the point is not to conclude one knows what transpired but to be aware that the officially sanctioned narrative might not be all of, or at times any of, the truth.

BTW it's also a logic flaw to assume that the truth can always be arrived at via logic.
 
The term conspiracy is both loaded and misapplied I'd like to see terms that more accurately describe what is being claimed

Absolutely. Many important issues or events are ignored by all but the tabloids or youtube, (I'm thinking mainly of the UFO phenomenon), or they are flooded with misinformation leaving confusion and undermining important truths.

All that aside, for me the point is not to conclude one knows what transpired but to be aware that the officially sanctioned narrative might not be all of, or at times any of, the truth.

Agreed. The first filter defines what makes it onto the news, the second layer is to obscure the circumstances and covert influences around the event [/quote]
 
Yeah, but weirdos don't appear in bunches like this unless you suddenly stumble into a convention of furries. This is someone being amused by the poor saps that try to decode the nonsense.
Everyone - if you think a post is crazy or pointless, report it. I may not act on just one such incident - we all write rubbish sometimes - but if it turns out that the user in question is making a habit of writing rubbish, I'll chuck him out!
David
 
Absolutely. Many important issues or events are ignored by all but the tabloids or youtube, (I'm thinking mainly of the UFO phenomenon), or they are flooded with misinformation leaving confusion and undermining important truths

I think you get a generally clearer picture of the news by reading the non-gossip parts of the Daily Mail online, than you do from 'quality' papers!

David
 
I think you get a generally clearer picture of the news by reading the non-gossip parts of the Daily Mail online, than you do from 'quality' papers!

David

I would agree to the extent that "fringe science" and strange phenomena will be reported in the tabloids because people are fascinated whether they believe it or not. But when when it comes to politics....well, let's just say the Daily Mail online is not neutral, and often has its own agenda.
 
I would agree to the extent that "fringe science" and strange phenomena will be reported in the tabloids because people are fascinated whether they believe it or not. But when when it comes to politics....well, let's just say the Daily Mail online is not neutral, and often has its own agenda.
Well it doesn't push its own agenda half as much as the BBC does. For example, it prints articles on both sides of the 'climate change' debate, and it tells its readers far more about the turmoil in Europe created out of the influx of migrants.

The modern BBC is keen to censor inconvenient news :(

In the case of UFO's and paranormal phenomena - well they are sensational. It is up to the reader to decide how much credence to put in them.

This is a sorry state of affairs, because the BBC and quality newspapers used to keep any political views to the editorial, and print the whole truth - or at least something more like it.

David
 
I guess we all tend to lean toward the source that most supports our own biases.

Regardless of the failings of the BBC, I still have more faith in them than I do the Daily Mail online.
 
Back
Top