Apparantly, popular perception of class is only limited to race while establishment policies of exploitation and ignorance continues to be perpetrated. Just like how an establishment man can get elected to be the presidential puppet even though he is black.
As Orwell wrote:
"A ruling
group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with
perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important,
provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same"
Forget black/white, yellow/brown, rather its haves and have-nots.
The UK's DCDC Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036 states:
"Globalization will result in critical interdependencies that will link members of a globalized society that includes a small super-rich elite and a substantial underclass of slum and subsistence dwellers, who will make up 20% of the world population in 2020."
At least its candid about the corporate elites and the ignorant slaves that make up society.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Actually we have 1 Malay, 2 Indian, 1 eurasian and 2 chinese presidents.
oh yah, my bad. always thought of nathan as the only prata man.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Are you suggesting that the US electorate consisting of 100 Million plus of different ethnic, racial, religious, aethiest, and a multitude of different interest groups, are a bunch of monolithic humans with sponge brains of similar quality to absorb whatever that is dished out by the print and broadcast medias ?Given the vast number of different TV that range from the red necked Fox Channel, to the moderate CNN, to the liberal CBS - these are three out of an army of 100 plus broadcasting stations, and a mileau of radio broadcasters on the airwaves - do you seriously expect anyone to believe that all can syncronise their thoughts in unison idealogue towards Obama despite their varied roles and agenda ?
The internet chat rooms and blog sites are the most uncontrolled media in cyberspace as in this Speaker's Corner where any meeting of the minds are subjected to intense debate and passionate arguments.
Can there be such a co-incident in the stars all being aligned in a straight line that the majority of the 100 Million Plus US Citizens would have given Barack Obama their votes to push the Electoral College system to cast identically their vote of confidence to Obama too ?
Surely you under-estimate the various built-in checks and balance mechanism that no single mass hysteria can suddenly sweep the entire country ?
In the history of the US Electoral System only on some very rare occassion of crisis that the cry for leadership will result in such overwhelmingly persuasive electoral results - as had occurred with the arrival of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
All of these three late presidents were similarly inpirational orators that focussed on hope in a period of crisis.
What does 100 or 200 TV channels matter when they're controlled by 5 corporations? Or didn't you get my heavily-loaded-with-scarcasm first paragraph?
Yes, I am saying that public opinion can be engineered to the extreme until almost majority of the people follow the same thought pattern even though they are allowed to diverge on unimportant issues, such as deciding who is elected to be the puppet president for four years.
In fact, public opinion has (must) been engineered from the beginning of its existence.
Edward Bernays, the person who coined the phrase "public opinion" wrote in Propaganda:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have ever heard of."
The media has done a great job in creating public consciousness (as to exactly how, this will explain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlr0qf0eTHU). Despite the enormous amount of information available on the Internet, access is still determined by the perceptions of a person, which can and is easily manipulated by the media.
That is why outsiders like me who puts forward unestablishment lines like government-sponsored terrorism are ignored (surely you cant have missed it) because people are conditioned to think what government is or isn't. Anything that challenges that perception is automatically dismissed or ridiculed. Please prove me otherwise. Dont ignore uncomfortable posts like the previous one just because it totally alienates a media-conditioned mind.
That is why outsiders like me who puts forward unestablishment lines like government-sponsored terrorism are ignored
Who ignored you?
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
Anything that challenges that perception is automatically dismissed or ridiculed.
But please no Illuminati or NWO bullshit.
That is too much already.
Apparently you're the second one to respond to that. Even though its true, the majority of people just prefers to exist within the engineered fraudulent norms. No one's talking about the NWO here except you, showing how you dismiss something. (I'll bid my time)
No one's talking about the NWO here except you, showing how you dismiss something. (I'll bid my time)
NWO is complete bullshit.
See:
No one was talking about it until you barged in with "NWO bullshit" which isnt even being contested or discussed. If you got nothing to say about my previous posts responding to Atobe, then dont post anything.
You can push your NWO theories on that forum.
It will be ruthlessly annihilated there.
Originally posted by freedomclub:What does 100 or 200 TV channels matter when they're controlled by 5 corporations? Or didn't you get my heavily-loaded-with-scarcasm first paragraph?
Yes, I am saying that public opinion can be engineered to the extreme until almost majority of the people follow the same thought pattern even though they are allowed to diverge on unimportant issues, such as deciding who is elected to be the puppet president for four years.
In fact, public opinion has (must) been engineered from the beginning of its existence.
Edward Bernays, the person who coined the phrase "public opinion" wrote in Propaganda:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have ever heard of."
The media has done a great job in creating public consciousness (as to exactly how, this will explain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlr0qf0eTHU). Despite the enormous amount of information available on the Internet, access is still determined by the perceptions of a person, which can and is easily manipulated by the media.
That is why outsiders like me who puts forward unestablishment lines like government-sponsored terrorism are ignored (surely you cant have missed it) because people are conditioned to think what government is or isn't. Anything that challenges that perception is automatically dismissed or ridiculed. Please prove me otherwise. Dont ignore uncomfortable posts like the previous one just because it totally alienates a media-conditioned mind.
Are you merely exercising Edward Bernays' power of propagandising by organising the 100 or 200 channels to be owned by only 5 corporations ?
Firstly, Edward Bernays' writing was dated in 1928 - how relevant is this in an open democratic society with new technologies that allow the common lay person to circumvent any influences of corporations or governments in this day and age ?
In this 21st Century, US citizens are living in a globalised world of like minded or near like minded countries interconnected by similar or near-similar tastes, consumerism, technologies, knowledge, and common standards of values towards fairness, family, friends, competition, wealth, security, peace progress, and hope.
Perceptions of the individuals are also determined by values formed by family up-bringing, friends, working colleagues, education, experiences, and intellectual capacities to discern the spectrum of colors generated by white.
Propaganda will work in a closed society disguised in democratic veneer.
Can propaganda work in a society that is open to debate, to unfettered search for the truth, where the absolute powers are not concentrated in ONE office, but separated and protected by independent institutions that checks and balance each other ?
In any case, even if there is any slim chance of truth in your improbable speculation - can five corporations have any meeting of the minds to merge or dove-tail their respective ego, commercial or political interests and place their bets on one individual ?
Are you suggesting that five heads of corporations can determine the political outcome of 100 million plus electorates ?
Have you taken too much of the red pill after indulging in some Sci-fi cartoons ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Are you merely exercising Edward Bernays' power of propagandising by organising the 100 or 200 channels to be owned by only 5 corporations ?
Firstly, Edward Bernays' writing was dated in 1928 - how relevant is this in an open democratic society with new technologies that allow the common lay person to circumvent any influences of corporations or governments ?
The citizens of the USA in this 21st Century are living in a globalised world of like minded or near like minded countries interconnected by similar or near-similar tastes, consumerism, technologies, knowledge, and values of fairness, family, friends, competition, wealth, security.
Perceptions of the individuals are also determined by his values formed by this family up-bringing, friends, working colleagues, education, experiences, and intellectual capacities to discern the spectrum of colors generated by white.
Propaganda will work in a closed society disguised in democratic veneer.
Can propaganda work in a society that is open to debate, to unfettered search for the truth, where the absolute powers are not concentrated in ONE office, but separated and protected by independent institutions that checks and balance each other ?
In any case, even if there is any slim chance of truth in your improbable speculation - can five corporations have any meeting of the minds to merge or dove-tail their respective ego, commercial or political interests and place their bets on one individual ?
Are you suggesting that five heads of corporations can determine the political outcome of 100 million plus electorates ?
Have you taken too much of the red pill after indulging in some Sci-fi cartoons ?
They may not be able to shape the political outcome (that certainly takes the blessing of the financial-corporate elite which interlocks with the media conglomerate). But they sure can engineer public perceptions.
You are right that Bernay wrote that in 1928, but I thought it fitting since he is the so-called father of public opinion. Although others have written on the more complex nature of our society. Paradoxically, it is in the 21st Century with widespread media bombardment that social engineering to achieve uniformity reaches its pinnacle (as you pointed out). Let me list the "5 corporations" which control the US MSM, in case you think its just another "conspiracy theory":
1. AOL/Time Warner 2. Viacom 3.Walt Disney 4.News Corp 5.Bertelsmann
Although you didnt respond to this:
"Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)"
Thats fine....
You seem to have a mistaken perception of the term "propaganda". Perhaps I can clarify. Propaganda merely refers to an organised effort to promote a particular belief. It is technical, though over the years, people accord a negative connotation to it. The tenets of modern society- consumerism and materialism- have been so indoctrinated by the media that even if small groups oppose it, the masses still continue in their self-paralysing worship of corporations. Today, a single ideology pervades society, which brings in consumerism and materialism, and pits individuals among each other to see how such they can raise their self-worth across all aspects of society. I attribute this culture to the MSM's influence.
You are right when you talk about democratic society, separation of powers etc. All good. But is this the state of our society? Can you really say that SG's judicial and legislature are separate from the executive? In the US, I brought out that example of the Pentagon infiltrating the media. In the US, shared power has been destroyed. Bush has taken to signing executive orders, which could double as royal degrees, although he merely continues the tyrannical trend in executive powers throughout the Cold War. The Justice Dept. under former Attorney-General Gonzales fired 9 attorneys because of political reasons (anti-Bush stance). Democrat or Republican-controlled congress just results in the same thing. Both continued lie-bought Iraq War and continued assault on Americans' liberties by telecom companies (FAA). Reality really has a way of shreading such idealistic ideas.
Today's world reek of monopolised politics, monopolised economy and as a subset, monopolised media (to maintain the above status quo).
I admit I have taken the red pill and I behold the vast fields of human batteries, batteries that prop up the unhumane status quo. Would you like to take one? Or remain blissfully ignorant?
P.S In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.
In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.
What you want to debate?
Which government sponsored which group?
You are talking about Singapore, a depoliticised country my friend.
The tenets of modern society- consumerism and materialism- have been so indoctrinated by the media that even if small groups oppose it, the masses still continue in their self-paralysing worship of corporations. Today, a single ideology pervades society, which brings in consumerism and materialism, and pits individuals among each other to see how such they can raise their self-worth across all aspects of society. I attribute this culture to the MSM's influence.
I agree.
But only in capitalist, industrial societies.
*sigh*
Original topic totally forgotten as the usual suspects have hijacked it with the usual long winded abuse of each other.
*close topic*
Originally posted by freedomclub:They may not be able to shape the political outcome (that certainly takes the blessing of the financial-corporate elite which interlocks with the media conglomerate). But they sure can engineer public perceptions.
You are right that Bernay wrote that in 1928, but I thought it fitting since he is the so-called father of public opinion. Although others have written on the more complex nature of our society. Paradoxically, it is in the 21st Century with widespread media bombardment that social engineering to achieve uniformity reaches its pinnacle (as you pointed out). Let me list the "5 corporations" which control the US MSM, in case you think its just another "conspiracy theory":
1. AOL/Time Warner 2. Viacom 3.Walt Disney 4.News Corp 5.Bertelsmann
Although you didnt respond to this:
"Of course, the US MSM isn't owned by only 5 corporations. And they sure didn't beat the war drum for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of WMDs, which were found (according to Rumsfield). And the Pentagon didn't wage a PR campaign for war by sending former military personnel to act as objective commentators for the MSM in covering the War on Terror (how do you defeat a tactic?)"
Thats fine....
You seem to have a mistaken perception of the term "propaganda". Perhaps I can clarify. Propaganda merely refers to an organised effort to promote a particular belief. It is technical, though over the years, people accord a negative connotation to it. The tenets of modern society- consumerism and materialism- have been so indoctrinated by the media that even if small groups oppose it, the masses still continue in their self-paralysing worship of corporations. Today, a single ideology pervades society, which brings in consumerism and materialism, and pits individuals among each other to see how such they can raise their self-worth across all aspects of society. I attribute this culture to the MSM's influence.
You are right when you talk about democratic society, separation of powers etc. All good. But is this the state of our society? Can you really say that SG's judicial and legislature are separate from the executive? In the US, I brought out that example of the Pentagon infiltrating the media. In the US, shared power has been destroyed. Bush has taken to signing executive orders, which could double as royal degrees, although he merely continues the tyrannical trend in executive powers throughout the Cold War. The Justice Dept. under former Attorney-General Gonzales fired 9 attorneys because of political reasons (anti-Bush stance). Democrat or Republican-controlled congress just results in the same thing. Both continued lie-bought Iraq War and continued assault on Americans' liberties by telecom companies (FAA). Reality really has a way of shreading such idealistic ideas.
Today's world reek of monopolised politics, monopolised economy and as a subset, monopolised media (to maintain the above status quo).
I admit I have taken the red pill and I behold the vast fields of human batteries, batteries that prop up the unhumane status quo. Would you like to take one? Or remain blissfully ignorant?
P.S In this democratic society, would you like a debate on government-sponsored terrorism throughout history? Nobody seems to care, or notice.
Did you find out that Edward Bernays was a nephew of the controversial Sigmond Freud ? I wonder how much of his work has been influenced by his uncle.
If information from the web can be depended on, it showed that there is a list of 50 odd TV companies and approximately 148 independent radio broadcast operators - can all these be owned by five major corporations ?
Even when there were many main stream medias that were owned by the influential supporters of George Bush and Dick Cheney's Iraqi military adventures, there were as many print and broadcast medias that provided contradicting and opposing views to that opposed the wars.
It is to the credit of the US democratic system and mature political leaderships that tolerated the dissenting and conflicting broadcasts that did not support nor give any credence to the Administration's agenda.
With the continued existence of these alternative broadcasts to the main core despite the differences in their opinions, it spelled hope in the diversity of robust opinions.
It remains a fact that no single group of propaganda can possibly hold sway the attention of a population of 100 million, and can so cleverly mould public opinion.
George Bush and Dick Cheney was able to sneek in their agenda to open a new war against Sadam Hussein's Iraq, as both were fortunate to have Rumsfeld success in Afghanistan war against Osama and the Talibans with so little manpower and cost.
They thought they could do the same in Iraq, but failed miserably in understanding the history of Iraq and its different social and communal background.
Both were proven to have little understanding or even any clue as to what was to be their next step after deposing Saddam.
Seriously, George Bush and Dick Cheney were almost on the edge of being purged by the US Congress, which they were both fortunate to have slipped away from, as the country was at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Republicans held the majority seats in Congress and in a balanced Senate.
Both were fortunate that the US political system could not tolerate another exhausting impeachment exercise after the last drawn-out dogged attempt at Bill Clinton resulted with his fore-skin getting scraped.
Can the monopoly take on a globalised World with a competing cyber-world that remains scattered and independent ?
I am basically at peace with the directions of where I am heading and prefer not to be influenced by any colored pills that color my appreciation in the full spectrum of white.
Without the assistance of any pills, I can agree with you on state-sponsored terrorism as seen in the Singapore Government sponsored terrorism towards any qualified and credible Singaporean who will dare stand up against LKY and his PAP.
See my post on the thread "Chee Soon Juan cheated Wall Street Journal" - in which a Canadian Legal Group has taken up CSJ's position against the State sponsored terrorism towards opposition politicians.
Originally posted by Atobe:Did you find out that Edward Bernays was a nephew of the controversial Sigmond Freud ? I wonder how much of his work has been influenced by his uncle.
If information from the web can be depended on, it showed that there is a list of 50 odd TV companies and approximately 148 independent radio broadcast operators - can all these be owned by five major corporations ?
Even when there were many main stream medias that were owned by the influential supporters of George Bush and Dick Cheney's Iraqi military adventures, there were as many print and broadcast medias that provided contradicting and opposing views to that opposed the wars.
It is to the credit of the US democratic system and mature political leaderships that tolerated the dissenting and conflicting broadcasts that did not support nor give any credence to the Administration's agenda.
With the continued existence of these alternative broadcasts to the main core despite the differences in their opinions, it spelled hope in the diversity of robust opinions.
It remains a fact that no single group of propaganda can possibly hold sway the attention of a population of 100 million, and can so cleverly mould public opinion.
George Bush and Dick Cheney was able to sneek in their agenda to open a new war against Sadam Hussein's Iraq, as both were fortunate to have Rumsfeld success in Afghanistan war against Osama and the Talibans with so little manpower and cost.
They thought they could do the same in Iraq, but failed miserably in understanding the history of Iraq and its different social and communal background.
Both were proven to have little understanding or even any clue as to what was to be their next step after deposing Saddam.
Seriously, George Bush and Dick Cheney were almost on the edge of being purged by the US Congress, which they were both fortunate to have slipped away from, as the country was at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Republicans held the majority seats in Congress and in a balanced Senate.
Both were fortunate that the US political system could not tolerate another exhausting impeachment exercise after the last drawn-out dogged attempt at Bill Clinton resulted with his fore-skin getting scraped.
Can the monopoly take on a globalised World with a competing cyber-world that remains scattered and independent ?
I am basically at peace with the directions of where I am heading and prefer not to be influenced by any colored pills that color my appreciation in the full spectrum of white.
Without the assistance of any pills, I can agree with you on state-sponsored terrorism as seen in the Singapore Government sponsored terrorism towards any qualified and credible Singaporean who will dare stand up against LKY and his PAP.
See my post on the thread "Chee Soon Juan cheated Wall Street Journal" - in which a Canadian Legal Group has taken up CSJ's position against the State sponsored terrorism towards opposition politicians.
* Sorry for the late reply, other worldly affairs call.
Evidently, yes, five corporations own the MSM in the US although there seems to be a huge variety of cable news channels.
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart
Yes, I knew Bernays was the nephew of Freud. But his first foray into shaping public opinion was not influenced by him (though psychoanalysis played a part), because Freud was in Vienna. The event I'm referring to is his work for the tabacco lobby in the US where he helped them break into the women's market (then, a taboo for women to smoke) by associating cigarettes with torches of liberty. Interesting trivia to lighten the mood.
I admit there were dissenting opinions during the lead-up to the Iraq War, but I dont think they were able to overshadow the war drums played out by Faux News etc, especially with Bill O "shut up" Reilly on the airwaves. In the end, we know that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the MSM was wrong in parading that lie. Equally damning is the Downing Street memo where Bush and Blair discussed how to manuever Saddam into firing the first shot. I'm sure the MSM cover that one right?
Launched 2 years before Iraq, I dont see how you can say that Afghanistan was a success, or even justified. The invasion had already been planned before 9/11 (energy politics) and after that, the MSM played the lie that Bin Laden=9/11=Invasion of Afghanistan. On hindsight, thanks, that helped me see how the MSM is able to influence public opinion to absurd extents, beyond reason. Even today, Afghanistan is on the brink, with the nationalist (not terrorist) Taliban gaining on NATO/US troops. C'mon, learn from history. The British sent 25,000 troops into Afghanistan in the 19th Century and 2 (not 2 thousand) survived.
Again, "US democracy" is a complete sham unless you mean "fake US democracy". After all, in 2007, Bush signed NSPD 51/HSPD 20 that states in the event of a "catastrophic emergency" defined as:
"any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions"
....there would be "enduring Constitutional Government" defined as "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President".
Orwellian doublespeak aside, it is simply a declared plan for total dictatorship by the executive branch in the event of any (staged) emergency, planned for the future. Expanding executive powers (C[old] War stuff, just that it became prominent since 9/11) Remember Hitler? He burnt down his own parliament to become dictator of Germany.
And thats not even considering the illegal torturing, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and FBI, the breaches of civil liberties in an emerging Big Brother state. "Democracy"? Its too tragic to even laugh.
Now, as the media influence on public opinion, it is only through media cover-ups and influence that the status quo can be preserved where the public does not challenge conventions. In other words, the MSM serves to maintain the establishment. One BIG example, the Bilderberg group. Every year, 125 of the world's most powerful corporate and political elite meet up in a 5-star hotel, in secret (not mentioned by the MSM) and under armed guard. These people include governmental officials, CEOs of prominent corporations, NATO sec-generals and academia. Now, where is the "democratic" element in this? And why has the MSM totally maintained a media blackout on this? Ask the average person, or even the informed person like you, What is Bilderberg (and observe)? (I'll tell you why, because the MSM is also in this crap game, I mean, they also take part in it.) What you dont know cant harm them. What about the Internet? Well, its because of the Internet (the alternative, not corporate-bought MSM) that social outsiders like me have the opportunity to study about these and tell you this. But otherwise, to people still under the sway of the MSM, its business as usual, in a Matrix designed to blind them from the truth (that corporate elites dictate policy, not elected officials).
Lastly (phew, this is tiring), if governments have carried out terrorist attacks (not the SG-type you refer to, but the major ones in past years), then why is the MSM parading the lie that Islamic extremists are behind it, even though the CIA/MI6/Mossad have a rich history of doing this kind of thing? What are the implications for public opinion (public opinion= fraudulent perception that terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists)? Why do the MSM perpetrate the lie that 19 hijackers (some of whom were haboured by the CIA/FBI) crashed 2 planes into WTC 1 and 2, collapsing them (conveniently leaving out WTC 7) when some of those 19 hijackers have been reported alive?
If anything I mentioned is strange to you, praise the MSM. Thats their magic! Pristine, sanitised news that exists only in the spectrum of white.
Originally posted by OneWithTheForce:*sigh*
Original topic totally forgotten as the usual suspects have hijacked it with the usual long winded abuse of each other.
*close topic*
Usual suspects? We have a list already? I dont see any "abuse" taking place. Only civilised dialogue, which I greatly appreciate and enjoy (Thanks Atobe). And this is on-topic, its a lesson for Singapore (media manipulation) which citizens (like you) would do well to learn about.
Evidently, yes, five corporations own the MSM in the US although there seems to be a huge variety of cable news channels....
...If anything I mentioned is strange to you, praise the MSM. Thats their magic! Pristine, sanitised news that exists only in the spectrum of white...
So what is the point you are trying to make freedomclub?
What is your point?
I'm trying to prove that public opinion is engineered by the MSM. And I'm not saying whether that is good or bad, but the common perceptions that they perpetrate is simply fraudulent and inconsistent with the facts.
Because of such social engineering, the majority of society is oblivious to the true nature of society and blissfully support the fraudulent system that the MSM portrays.
I'm trying to prove that public opinion is engineered by the MSM.
But that is common knowledge here in this forum.
I won't say engineer, I would say influence.
The Media
The Media Enthralled: Singapore Revisited
Lee's Law: How Singapore Crushes Dissent
http://www.amazon.com/Lees-Law-Singapore
Publish and Perish: The Censorship of Opposition Party Publications in Singapore
I can understand your feeling quite well.
You feel isolated and frustrated because you see our mainstream media as completely worthless and only as a propaganda tool of the PAP regime.
My advice is to stop exposing yourself to our state media.
Due to internet, your level of political awareness and knowledge has increased to a point where you can see through the propaganda in the state media.
Once this point is reached, there is no point in following state media already.
You should do the logical thing and stop following state media.
But the extent to which people know it is different.
They may reject any PAP rationalisation to impose higher GST as crap while the MSM tries to engineer consent.
But on another issue, when we're talking about government-sponsored terrorism for instance, everyone is enslaved by the perception put out by the MSM that terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists who have nothing to do with western intelligence agencies.
Or but the perception that elected officials are there to serve the interest of the people even though the predecessors have proven otherwise. People are not aware of establishment and anti-establishment. Rather they prefer to haggle over trivial issues like race, which is accepted by society as a divide when at the top, its simply a matter of perpetrating the system.
It is this "common knowledge" that you take for granted. Common knowledge to me may be different from what is common knowledge to you. Thats why forums exist, to allow dialogue between people so that knowledge is shared.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I can understand your feeling quite well.
You feel isolated and frustrated because you see our mainstream media as completely worthless and only as a propaganda tool of the PAP regime.
My advice is to stop exposing yourself to our state media.
Due to internet, your level of political awareness and knowledge has increased to a point where you can see through the propaganda in the state media.
Once this point is reached, there is no point in following state media already.
You should do the logical thing and stop following state media.
Where do you get the impression that I follow state media?
"Exposing yourself to our state media"? What do you mean?
Its not only confined to local media, but the problem is global; people are unable to perceive the true nature of society. Perhaps one may feel isolated and frustrating, but I would rather turn it into enthusiasm in telling the truth to others.
But on another issue, when we're talking about government-sponsored terrorism for instance, everyone is enslaved by the perception put out by the MSM that terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists
That depend on where you are.
In other countries, this type of opinion is in the mainstream media.
In Singapore, being a depoliticised state, this type of view is not propagated.
people are unable to perceive the true nature of society.
What is true nature of society in your opinion?