False freedom of information

False Information, False Freedom, False Minds
Free, Healthy, Strong And Relevant Minds Require the Same From The Information Which Mold Them

What can freedom mean when one’s mind has been not just captured, but even fabricated, by one’s oppressor?

Indeed information, as its etymology indicates, creates the form, the form brains acquire, when exposed to it.

Examples of people’s minds owned by their overlord are not just abundant, they are the rule. Look at Algeria, ruled by just one party (and the military to which it is identified), the FNL, since so-called “independence” in 1962. Partisans of the FNL, and they were a majority of self-identified “intellectuals”, in France held, even as the FNL was killing hundreds of thousands of Algerians in 1960s, that Algeria had been liberated.

That general scheme holds for hundreds of regime changes through history. Actually many revolutions have to be extremely violent, because it takes a lot of energy to change minds which have been imprinted the wrong way.

It is a question of reaction equalling action. The imprinting of minds against their better interest is itself extremely violent: it goes against human ethology, it literally creates twisted minds, bent all over.
Hence Anima Sana a healthy soul and mind can be achieved only when the information which mold the mind is itself free, healthy, relevant and strong.

The Nazis did not just lose because they were overwhelmed by the production of planes and pilots of the “United Nations”, the breaking of their codes, and greater military GDP of the sane world.

(After the landing at the port of Anzio, Italy, just south of Rome, birthplace of Nero and Caligula, the Nazis counterattacked with greater, better equipped ground forces. However, the Nazis had less than 600 planes, whereas the “United Nations” fielded 12,000 planes, including fleet of strategic heavy bombers striking just 400 meters from Allied lines. Thus, by January 1944, the United Nations owned the skies, and top Nazi generals concluded that the war was lost, just from that.)

More fundamentally, the Nazis’ aggression against the world was overwhelmed because those self-glorifying supermen had wrong, bent, twisted, ill-informed minds. Those inferior minds made them weak. And this is why they found themselves engaged, on September 3, 1939, in a war that they could not win.

Thus, paradoxically, Nazi propaganda was the main engine of the Nazis’ undoing.

It goes without saying that a bent, twisted, shriveled, undergrown mind is hard to defend. Thus, worrying about false information, false freedom, and enslaved, Bonsai minds, is not just philosophically legitimate (as Socrates had it, with his “examined life”), or a question of esthetics, morality, or having a good life (or the search thereof).

Having bent, twisted, shriveled minds, from bent, twisted, shriveled information, including emotional in-formation, is also a defense issue. The greatest defense issue that there is.

And it is exactly why, so far, ultimately, higher civilization won all the wars which really mattered. Because more civilized minds are superior, and superior minds win wars. Especially the wars of survival, where one side gets eradicated (civilizationally, or literally).

Defense Issues

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.”

– David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

In United States, five large corporations control 90% of the media. This is a consequence of massive corporate mergers in 1980s and 1990s, which also handed over all US…

View original post 7,508 more words

Tags:

9 Responses to “False freedom of information”

  1. Red Says:

    Lot of wars were won by Muslims ~700-1500s AD. It’s not because their minds were well formed by their freedom. Most of it is due to absolute submission to their beliefs/mental-slavery. Mass propaganda of “brotherhood”. Opposite of freedom.

    I guess you are right now, looking at their remnants. But you would be utterly wrong , say in 1200AD. There is no such thing as superiority , due to free will an idiot can murder the best minded person in the world, and he would smart the next moment.

    • Picard578 Says:

      Wars are complex affairs; you are looking too narrow. Yes, indoctrination and absolute submission worked well for Muslims in wars of expansion. But as soon as Muslim states were stopped from expanding militarily, they started falling apart. The Caliphate, the Seljuk Empire, and the Ottoman Empire all fell to the same fate.

      Main reason for Muslim expansion was that their opponents were both weak, and did not understand them. Roman Empire in 7th century was a large multicultural entity that had just barely won a massive, mutually destructive war against the Persian Empire. Moreover, Romans did not understand threat that Islam presented – so they did not wipe it out when they had the chance. Roman provinces in Northern Africa and Middle East were not so much conquered as they surrendered willingly – most people in these provinces were heretics who were prosecuted by the Constantinople. Spain was a feudal society. Well-ordered, culturally and ethnically homogenous Frankish Empire and Roman Empire (once Africa and ME were lost) easily stopped them.

      Muslim expansion was fueled by the slave influx, as enslaved Christians and Zoroastrians were responsible for the entirety of “Muslim” economic, cultural and administrative achievements. Thus, it was not sustainable, and once it was stopped, they were easily pushed back. Had their opponents been as ruthless as Muslims themselves, Europe could have wiped Islam off the face of the Earth. But the Roman Empire, once it managed to stop military expansion, failed to stop Muslim immigration into Anatolia, and so eventually lost the area – which spelled the death for the Empire. Carolingian Empire did not have logistical capability for military expansion. Later, France – for its selfish reasons – prevented Austrians from liberating Balkans peninsula from the Ottoman Empire – Eugene of Savoy had managed to penetrate to Albania – and caused further centuries of Ottoman domination on Balkans.

      But I should note here that none of the Muslim entities mentioned above – the Caliphate, the Seljuk Empire, the Ottoman Empire – were actually “Islamic” countries, like ISIL, Iran or Saudi Arabia. They willingly violated portions of Koran that would have prevented them from being successful. It was combination of religious fanaticism and earthly pragmatism that made them so successful.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Muhammad wanted to destroy Rome, viewed as following the Bible (“The Book”) poorly. Although the Roman army was annihilated in Syria, and all the men in age of carrying arms were killed in an holocaust throughout the Middle East. As a result the Middle East, and Egypt, fell to the Sunni Muslim Arab Caliphate. However, it failed below the walls of Constantinople, due to Roman naval superiority.

      The next plan was to take Constantinople from behind, and all of North Africa, and then Spain fell. However, in 721 CE at Toulouse the Arab-Berber Muslim army was annihilated. Two more annihilation defeats at the hands of the Franks brought the collapse of the ARAB Caliphate (never to be seen again! After that it was nominally Abbasid, practically Iranian…)

      So, in a way, the original Muslim Arabs lost and disappeared in 750 CE….

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Mongol general who destroyed Baghdad, at the head of his Mongol, Armenian, Georgian, and Frankish armies, in a massive war crime, made a whole discourse about the plutocratic nature of the Caliph (shortly before executing him, and his family below a carpet…) and how it caused the downfall of Persian centered Muslim empire…

  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Sinon, rigolo : http://www.lemonde.fr/panama-papers/article/2016/04/03/chefs-d-etat-sportifs-milliardaires-premieres-revelations-des-panama-papers-sur-le-systeme-offshore-mondial_4894816_4890278.html

    A noter qu’un tweet de Mark Ames, toujours assez critique/méfiant vis à vis des libertariens “leakers”, philanthropes milliardaires progressifs – l’éducation publique du Libéria vient par exemple de passer entièrement sous contrôle de fondations privées US de ce type, un gentil galop d’essai à échelle réduite j’imagine – et autres “good guys”, fait mention du rôle actif de George Soros derrière cette investigation.
    Attention quand même aux manips, donc.

    • dominique deux Says:

      Fairly interesting indeed, the next days will be even more interesting. What, Platini? Soo funny, after the patriotic mobilization about the guy.

      About Soros – there is a long historical record of competent poachers turned competent wardens, and taking their new jobs seriously, from Sir Henry Morgan to Vidocq. Today there are a few candidates to the title, among them Soros and Juncker. Of course, most leopards don’t change their spots overnight, and those need watching. But one should not look roo closely at the teeth of a gift horse.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Putin is screaming shrilly that this Panama revelation is all a CIA plot… He has a point, but only so far… US Plutos don’t need Panama… They have everything at home.

  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    “What can freedom mean when one’s mind has been not just captured, but even fabricated, by one’s oppressor?”

    Ah, quand ces rats de la grande messe du JT de de 20 heures sur la 2 veulent illustrer le “français” pour une de leurs infographies pourries, ils utilisent… l’onion Johnny, tels de vulgaires animateurs de rue néozélandais accueillant des supporteurs de rugby français (un peu comme s’ils accueillaient des noirs avec des “black faces”, sauf que là, les sous-hommes ne se rendent même pas compte du mépris implicite).
    Tout ça pour dire que l’esprit français n’est plus qu’une extension anglo, que vous appelez “civilisation”, phagocyté qu’il est par cette culture de masse, qui lui est de plus intrinsèquement hostile (le français peut croire être de la même culture, avec les mêmes codes, etc, l’anglo lui sait parfaitement qu’il n’est pas français, c’est même ce qui le définit, au fond).

    Donc, c’est pas gagné. Remarquez, il parait qu’on se débarrasse plus facilement d’un mac do que d’une mosquée. Peut-être, sauf que les deux vont de pair, en réalité, la deuxième étant non seulement soluble dans le premier, mais à son service, en réalité.

    Bon, je sais que je tourne en rond dans mes petites obsessions masturbatoires (vous ne me verrez pas commenter sur des sujets de physique, hein), mais je suis amusé/frustré après lecture d’un échange FB entre l’animateur du site phare de la “fachosphère” et une “française”, guillemets appropriés, maghrébine, qui traine la France dans la boue, en la féminisant de manière sexuelle (classique, et autre point commun entre les “arabes” et les anglos pour dévaluer l’Autre), mais surtout en reprenant le catéchisme de la France-peuple-de-perdants-nuls-militairement-par-excellence-jamais-gagné-une-seule-guerre, qui est l’image par défaut imposée au 21ème siècle par cette “civilisation globale”.
    Un peu marre, donc, d’être effacé par le haut, trahi par mes Elites, et rongé par le bas, sans espoir de retour de ce rien.Tout ça, pour ça? Merdre, alors.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Bernie Sanders’ advocacy of REVOLUTION strikes me as very French…

      My other point is that Britain succeeded because it was so revolutionary French, right from the start (1066 CE).

      The taken over by the “West Country Men” happened (in Eire first) under Elizabeth 1… And then there was the taken-over by the Dutch who were very anti-Louis XIV, legitimately so, resulting in an anti-French attitude ever since, though… So the Franco-British history is that of a civil war between plutocrats, which is not quite finished, as long as my point of view is not more widely known… ;-)!

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: