Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Finance

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-01-2011, 07:54 PM   #1
wake_up_bomb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default 9/11 and the Coming Financial Collapse

9/11 isn’t important. It seemed important at the time. But it actually isn’t that important an event in terms of magnitude. Very few people were directly effected by it, save for the poor souls in the buildings, the people on the planes, and anyone that knew them. By contrast, take for example the complete control that someone like Monsanto has over food production and distribution, or the grotesque level of financial fraud that takes place on a daily basis. This effects all of us, yet it is distinct from 9/11 in some important ways.

What is the significance of 9/11? There are only two significant things about it. Firstly, it justified a widespread and multifarious reaction that would have been impossible, or at the very least seemed completely irrational and unjustified without the ‘terrorist’ attacks. Secondly, and more importantly, it was an event that was communicated to people almost entirely through television. This worked on multiple levels. The story broke on TV. Virtually no-one read anything about this event until they’d seen the TV coverage, usually at great length. This was not an event that impacted directly on people’s lives, almost our entire relationship to it was defined by television. It was not an issue that should have directly effected all Americans, let alone anyone outside America, yet when people remember this day, it is almost always with a traumatic recollection. This could not have been achieved through radio or print media or objective argument, it had to be done through the powerful, brainwashing medium that is television.

This is the point about 9/11, the only reason it was on TV, was because the proles needed to hear about it in order for the reaction to it to seem justified. If the proles didn’t need to hear about it, it wouldn’t have been on TV. By devoting so much time and coverage to it, the response to the hawkish and fascistic policies that were put in place after it were diluted considerably by, to borrow an American phrase, ‘shock and awe’.

Have most people witnessed a terrorist attack in person? No. Have most people been directly effected by a terrorist attack? No. Have people largely absorbed the notion that terrorists are a threat, and there needs to be responses to this threat that inconveniences them? Almost without exception, yes.

How does this relate to the coming financial crisis? I simply do not think the elite will create the level of panic that many people have assumed. The reason being, I don't think it's the best approach for them in the West, certainly in the UK. What has worked so well for so long is making people believe that they have something to lose unless they go along with the system, making people believe that they are benefiting and prospering from the system (which of course, a significant number of people are, otherwise it would be impossible to maintain this impression). It's going so well for them micro-managing people's lives and having an orderly, passive, consumerist, docile population, that I do not think it is a strategy from which they will easily move away.

I think the big events required to move to a global currency will be transmitted to the people, not through widespread chaos in people's everyday lives, but through television. It already worked so well in the case of 9/11, it's such a great medium to convey your unpolluted, undiluted, unchallenged message, and, of course, it has an almost mesmeric effect on people. I'm not quite sure how it will work, but the organisation required to manage a potentially chaotic situation as people being desperate for food, while at the same time trying to make fundamental changes to the structure of society and the monetary system, to spin the new system and communicate it to the people in such a way that they respond the way you want them to, while ensuring there are enough supplies to feed all the people that will be required to police the situation, while simultaneously ensuring that these people remain loyal to the system and establishment, not the mass of humanity, is a pretty difficult balancing act.

They brought the EU and Euro in, not even through the backdoor, through the front door, with minimal fuss. Yes, some people opposed it - and a fat lot of good it did. If you look at Ireland or Iceland, they've already got all the changes in their financial structure that they wanted. There was no starvation necessary. I'm pretty certain they can and will do the same thing with a global currency. There may need to be a period of instability, but it will need to be nowhere near as drastic, in my opinion, as some have predicted.

I don’t believe that stocking up on food, water and supplies is a waste of time, and I certainly don’t believe that growing your own food is a waste of time. It’s always good to have an insurance policy, and particularly some measure of self-sufficiency. However, I don’t expect to see empty supermarket shelves anytime soon. Yes, this would enable some people to be controlled from the fear it would create, but it would also pose the very real threat of waking people from their slumber. People would see how quickly everything they take for granted can disappear. People would see that there isn’t some insoluble comfort blanket that they can always cling to. People would lose serious trust in the authorities and the establishment.

In Brave New World, most people are actually completely satisfied with the state of affairs. This is obviously the dream for the elites; to have complete control of a society, and for people to think it is normal, or even preferable. I am not sure it will be possible to instigate the level of control written about by Huxley, but it is, in my view, the ideal. This ideal cannot be achieved by creating total chaos, then creating order out of it. It is fundamentally achieved by creating order, but an order that begins at the top and filters down. To start to rebuild the very fabric of a society from the bottom and make it in your image is virtually untenable. Much better to have the base of the pyramid set on firm, unchanging foundations.
wake_up_bomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 02:06 PM   #2
martg
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,041
Likes: 7 (5 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb View Post
9/11 isn’t important. It seemed important at the time. But it actually isn’t that important an event in terms of magnitude. Very few people were directly effected by it, save for the poor souls in the buildings, the people on the planes, and anyone that knew them. By contrast, take for example the complete control that someone like Monsanto has over food production and distribution, or the grotesque level of financial fraud that takes place on a daily basis. This effects all of us, yet it is distinct from 9/11 in some important ways.

What is the significance of 9/11? There are only two significant things about it. Firstly, it justified a widespread and multifarious reaction that would have been impossible, or at the very least seemed completely irrational and unjustified without the ‘terrorist’ attacks. Secondly, and more importantly, it was an event that was communicated to people almost entirely through television. This worked on multiple levels. The story broke on TV. Virtually no-one read anything about this event until they’d seen the TV coverage, usually at great length. This was not an event that impacted directly on people’s lives, almost our entire relationship to it was defined by television. It was not an issue that should have directly effected all Americans, let alone anyone outside America, yet when people remember this day, it is almost always with a traumatic recollection. This could not have been achieved through radio or print media or objective argument, it had to be done through the powerful, brainwashing medium that is television.

This is the point about 9/11, the only reason it was on TV, was because the proles needed to hear about it in order for the reaction to it to seem justified. If the proles didn’t need to hear about it, it wouldn’t have been on TV. By devoting so much time and coverage to it, the response to the hawkish and fascistic policies that were put in place after it were diluted considerably by, to borrow an American phrase, ‘shock and awe’.

Have most people witnessed a terrorist attack in person? No. Have most people been directly effected by a terrorist attack? No. Have people largely absorbed the notion that terrorists are a threat, and there needs to be responses to this threat that inconveniences them? Almost without exception, yes.
I agree with the reasons you gave for why 9/11 had to happen, however I would also add that I think there was a secondary occult side to that event.

I heard a very plausible theory on that. there is a ritual in freemasonry in which a member walks between the two pillars Boaz and Jachin. the pillars are then toppled behind the member as a symbol of 'no turning back'. It's possible that the events were partly ritualistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb View Post
How does this relate to the coming financial crisis? I simply do not think the elite will create the level of panic that many people have assumed. The reason being, I don't think it's the best approach for them in the West, certainly in the UK. What has worked so well for so long is making people believe that they have something to lose unless they go along with the system, making people believe that they are benefiting and prospering from the system (which of course, a significant number of people are, otherwise it would be impossible to maintain this impression). It's going so well for them micro-managing people's lives and having an orderly, passive, consumerist, docile population, that I do not think it is a strategy from which they will easily move away.

I think the big events required to move to a global currency will be transmitted to the people, not through widespread chaos in people's everyday lives, but through television. It already worked so well in the case of 9/11, it's such a great medium to convey your unpolluted, undiluted, unchallenged message, and, of course, it has an almost mesmeric effect on people. I'm not quite sure how it will work, but the organisation required to manage a potentially chaotic situation as people being desperate for food, while at the same time trying to make fundamental changes to the structure of society and the monetary system, to spin the new system and communicate it to the people in such a way that they respond the way you want them to, while ensuring there are enough supplies to feed all the people that will be required to police the situation, while simultaneously ensuring that these people remain loyal to the system and establishment, not the mass of humanity, is a pretty difficult balancing act.

They brought the EU and Euro in, not even through the backdoor, through the front door, with minimal fuss. Yes, some people opposed it - and a fat lot of good it did. If you look at Ireland or Iceland, they've already got all the changes in their financial structure that they wanted. There was no starvation necessary. I'm pretty certain they can and will do the same thing with a global currency. There may need to be a period of instability, but it will need to be nowhere near as drastic, in my opinion, as some have predicted.

I don’t believe that stocking up on food, water and supplies is a waste of time, and I certainly don’t believe that growing your own food is a waste of time. It’s always good to have an insurance policy, and particularly some measure of self-sufficiency. However, I don’t expect to see empty supermarket shelves anytime soon. Yes, this would enable some people to be controlled from the fear it would create, but it would also pose the very real threat of waking people from their slumber. People would see how quickly everything they take for granted can disappear. People would see that there isn’t some insoluble comfort blanket that they can always cling to. People would lose serious trust in the authorities and the establishment.

In Brave New World, most people are actually completely satisfied with the state of affairs. This is obviously the dream for the elites; to have complete control of a society, and for people to think it is normal, or even preferable. I am not sure it will be possible to instigate the level of control written about by Huxley, but it is, in my view, the ideal. This ideal cannot be achieved by creating total chaos, then creating order out of it. It is fundamentally achieved by creating order, but an order that begins at the top and filters down. To start to rebuild the very fabric of a society from the bottom and make it in your image is virtually untenable. Much better to have the base of the pyramid set on firm, unchanging foundations.
you make some interesting points, true, panic would not be in their interests, but what if supermarkets did run out of food and the goverment created a system where people could go and get their food parcel from a goverment agency?

It seems to me that that would create greater dependence on the state without spreading mass panic and they could work the microchip into it, phasing it in as a requirement.

It's not possible for all of us to grow our own food, but if people have that capability it can only be in their interests to have that food as insurance.

I'm not so sure they do want us content, pharmacologically controlled or not.
they have control now, very soon they will have complete control with no possibility of rebellion or escape.

In 1984 O'Brian asks Winston Smith
"How does one man exercise power over another?"

Winston answers
"By making him suffer"

O'Brian -"If you want a vision of the future Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face for all eternity"

I don't think it would be the end of false flag terrorism either, there are solid reasons why they like to keep the people in constant fear. it's not just control on a societal level, it's also control on a spiritual level.
martg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 06:57 PM   #3
wake_up_bomb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martg View Post
you make some interesting points, true, panic would not be in their interests, but what if supermarkets did run out of food and the goverment created a system where people could go and get their food parcel from a goverment agency?

It seems to me that that would create greater dependence on the state without spreading mass panic and they could work the microchip into it, phasing it in as a requirement.
Think, though, of the actual physical manpower required for such a scheme. Firstly, to switch to total state control and distribution of food production, considering the UK already imports 50% of its food, is pretty impractical. The great thing about the current food production system, from the elite's point-of-view, is that it's already reliant on the state, just very few people consider it. It already relies on state subsidy on a massive scale to keep people in the low-paid jobs, already completely reliant on migrant labour, often illegal, and the food that people eat is making them ill, which gets them into the health system, which then proscribes them pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, receiving food from a government agency is rather too symptomatic of a totalitarian or feudal system. It's like a bread queue in the USSR. Although the supermarket production and distribution system is massively corrupt and damaging to public health, the vast majority of people view it as completely normal, although even in my lifetime the way supermarkets work and the way food is produced has changed monumentally. Most people have never even considered for one second that they could go to Tesco and there'd be nothing on the shelves. Yet, every time there's a bit of snow, the shelves get cleared out by panic buying. Imagine empty shelves for a concerted period of time. The chaos would be unimaginable, and it's hard to create the kind of order that you want when that level of chaos is occurring. Such a system would need huge policing, and you'd need all those people to have sufficient food to be strong, but yet, they still need to live amongst all the people that haven't got food. These are just a few of the practical issues involved.

Quote:
I'm not so sure they do want us content, pharmacologically controlled or not. They have control now, very soon they will have complete control with no possibility of rebellion or escape.
I'm not sure I would use the word 'content', more 'acquiescent'. Like the old quotation, I think by Bertrand Russell, that they want to get the public to the point where rebellion is as likely as sheep rebelling against the practice of eating mutton. It's not that the sheep can't rebel physically, although it'd be rather difficult, they just have no concept that what is occurring goes against their interest. That is the key idea, as Huxley put it: "a really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude".
wake_up_bomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.