Alex Jones (InfoWars) van internet verwijderd, who's next?

quote:

Op woensdag 17 oktober 2018 07:37 schreef controlaltdelete het volgende:
Al die aandacht voor AJ en het zogenaamde opgelegde censuur. It's all a part of the show en AJ boert goed met zijn rol, die is binnen voor de rest van zijn leven. Ik kan nog wel een paar truthers-channels opnoemen die keer op keer door YT gebanned werden daar hoor je niemand over.

Inderdaad. Alex Jones is voor mij al heel lang geleden zwaar door de mand gevallen. Deze "gestoorde" schreeuwlelijk is hét gezicht van alle maffe aluhoedjes wereldwijd, maar is feitelijk 'controlled opposition'. Wijkt je mening af van de status quo en stel je lastige vragen, dan word je haast automatisch geassocieerd met Jones en in het hokje van de dwaze conspiracy-gekkies geplaatst. So far he did an excellent job!

Beetje zoals de CIA wilde dat er gekeken werd naar mensen die kritisch waren op het Warren rapport.



Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report

The Central Intelligence Agency has often argued that its worldwide propaganda efforts are intended only to alter the climate of public opinion in other countries and that any “fallout” reaching the eyes and cars of Americans is both unavoidable and unintentional.

But a C.I.A. document, recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, provides a detailed account of at least one instance in which the agency mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.

This was the conclusion of the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald alone was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

In a cable sent to some of its overseas stations and bases on April 1, 1967, C.I.A. headquarters began by recalling that “from the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.”

Such speculation, the cable said, was “stemmed for a time” by the release cf the Warren Commission's report in early 1964. But, the cable noted: “Various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings.”
Continue reading the main story

“This trend of opinion Is a matter of concern to the U.S. Government, ineluding our organization,” the C.I.A. said, adding that the agency was “directly involved” in the matter because “among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.”

“Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”

The C.I.A. was careful to caution its stations overseas not to initiate a discussion “of the assassination question” where such a discussion was “not already taking place.” But where such discussions were under way, C.I.A. officers abroad were directed to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors,” and to “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.”

“Book reviews and feature articles,” the cable said, “are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

Among the arguments that the agency suggested were that the Warren Commission had conducted “as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.”

“Point out also,” the cable directed, “that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.”

Two of the strongest critics of the Warren Commission, Edward Jay Ep

stein and Mark Lane, were singled out for attack. “Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where contested by knowledgeable critics,” the cable said, in a reference to Mr. Lane's book, ‘Rush to Judgment,’ it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.”

These critics and others, the C.I.A. said, should be depicted as “wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in,” politically or financially “interested” in disproving the commission's conclusion, “hasty or inaccurate in their research, or infatuated with their own theories.”

Such critics, the cable advised, “have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: They light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

“Actually, the makeup of the commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against overcoinmitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.”

In what was perhaps a burst of professional pride, C.I.A. headquarters asked that it also be pointed out that “Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator—he was a ‘loner,’ mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1(...)f-warren-report.html
-----------------------------

Hier dan de volledige inhoud van de dispatch:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.

***

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

***

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.

***

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …

***

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

***

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

***

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

--------------------------------

De kanalen die de fakery in voornamelijk de MSM op een pijnlijke en vaak zeer humoristische manier blootlegden, zijn allemaal vernietigd door YouTube. Ik vermoed dat dit gedaan is omdat het uit de hand begon te lopen. Je zag een haast exponentiële groei van personen die de bullshit niet meer slikten en de kanalen die de phoney fake show blootlegden schoten als paddenstoelen uit de grond. Dit moest natuurlijk gestopt worden omdat de waarheid besmettelijk blijkt te zijn.

YouTube gebruikt een nieuw algoritme om bepaalde onderwerpen en text er uit te filteren en hier op te acteren. De kanalen die nu nog enig bestaansrecht hebben op YT beschouw ik allemaal als half-truth en/of controlled opposition. De goede channels zijn zo weer verdwenen.

Edit:

Volgens mij is het grote vegen door YouTube zo'n beetje na onderstaande video begonnen.


Zet voor de grap eens de commentaren op 'Nieuwste eerst', pak een zak popcorn en ga eens lekker door die commentaren heen. Amusement.

[ Bericht 6% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 17-10-2018 16:06:00 ]