[Robvalue]

You’re probably all aware that much of the "alt-media" is actually owned by the mainstream, and used to reveal a bit of information, but misdirect people from more important information. Determining who is owned and who is independent is often difficult. 

If we set those aside and deal with any alt-media who start out wanting to be honest, there’s still going to be problems, as far as I can see. Once someone has a sizeable following, the Powers That Be are going to become aware of them. They’re going to want to either buy or stifle them, as uncontrolled media is dangerous to them.

Let’s assume again that an alt-media person gains a good following and refuses to be bought. Obviously the PTB have a variety of tools to mess with them, such as smearing them in the MSM. But if they’re becoming a serious problem and it’s considered likely they may reveal highly secret information,  I would imagine that more direct action would be taken, such as threatening them if they don’t keep a lid on it.

I’d be interested in everyone's opinion on this. It seems unlikely to me that any big alt-media is going to get away with saying whatever they like. So what can they do once they are threatened, assuming I’m correct in that assumption? It seems to me they have two options. They carry on regardless, and could then be subject to action being taken up to and including them having an "accident"; or else they agree not to reveal certain things, to be able to safely get the truth out about some things, at least.

It’s easy for someone to say that they’d ignore such threats. But anyone familiar with the PTB knows you would be risking it all. My very rough conclusion is therefor that any sizeable alt-media is likely to be under orders, even if they aren’t actually owned. I don’t know how else things could be.

Does anyone have ideas about any alt-media who they think are uncensored entirely, and if so, how are they managing it?

Many thanks for reading!

[Steve]

You’re probably all aware that much of the "alt-media" is actually owned by the mainstream, and used to reveal a bit of information, but misdirect people from more important information. Determining who is owned and who is independent is often difficult. 

If we set those aside and deal with any alt-media who start out wanting to be honest, there’s still going to be problems, as far as I can see. Once someone has a sizeable following, the Powers That Be are going to become aware of them. They’re going to want to either buy or stifle them, as uncontrolled media is dangerous to them.

Let’s assume again that an alt-media person gains a good following and refuses to be bought. Obviously the PTB have a variety of tools to mess with them, such as smearing them in the MSM. But if they’re becoming a serious problem and it’s considered likely they may reveal highly secret information,  I would imagine that more direct action would be taken, such as threatening them if they don’t keep a lid on it.

I’d be interested in everyone's opinion on this. It seems unlikely to me that any big alt-media is going to get away with saying whatever they like. So what can they do once they are threatened, assuming I’m correct in that assumption? It seems to me they have two options. They carry on regardless, and could then be subject to action being taken up to and including them having an "accident"; or else they agree not to reveal certain things, to be able to safely get the truth out about some things, at least.

It’s easy for someone to say that they’d ignore such threats. But anyone familiar with the PTB knows you would be risking it all. My very rough conclusion is therefor that any sizeable alt-media is likely to be under orders, even if they aren’t actually owned. I don’t know how else things could be.

Does anyone have ideas about any alt-media who they think are uncensored entirely, and if so, how are they managing it?

Many thanks for reading!

Hi Rob,

Yes, trusting news sources can be really quite tricky. I’m amazed / staggered at how many people are hopelessly brainwashed by the MSM. 

A good idea is to look at multiple sources in order to achieve a balanced view on any given subject. Here’s a list of reliable sources where there is less chance that they follow a particular narrative or agenda -

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/e.../websites/

[Firestarter]

Let’s assume again that an alt-media person gains a good following and refuses to be bought. Obviously the PTB have a variety of tools to mess with them, such as smearing them in the MSM. But if they’re becoming a serious problem and it’s considered likely they may reveal highly secret information, I would imagine that more direct action would be taken, such as threatening them if they don’t keep a lid on it.

It’s doubtful that anybody, who is successfully exposing the truth will ever get a sizeable following.
Of course there are people, who try but simply don’t have enough understanding of how it all works or don’t have the time to do proper research.

Websites, blogspots, Youtube channels are taken down.
Sometimes tricks like these are even used to give the preferred “conspiracy theorist” (like Alex Jones, David Icke or Mike Adams) some additional publicity.

A good idea is to look at multiple sources in order to achieve a balanced view on any given subject. Here’s a list of reliable sources where there is less chance that they follow a particular narrative or agenda –

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/e.../websites/

The problem is that those “multiple sources” aren’t really “multiple” at all! The mainstream and alternative media are filled with stories that are basically copies of each other, with some minor changes to them.
When you read the same (wrong) story from multiple outlets, it sounds a lot more convincing. Then when you’ll read a story that comes much closer to exposing the truth, you’ll probably discard it, because it is “different”.

In my opinion the only way to get a better understanding of the "New World Order" is to read good books. I don't know how to advise others on how to see the difference between "realiable" or "unreliable" conspiracy theories...
The following long essay from the Nexus Magazine that you seem to favour is a good introduction on the "Round Table" (or Milner's Kindergarten of Knight of the Garter Alfred Milner) - A short history of the Round Table (2005): https://danielsolis.cz/?mdocs-file=2538


And then there are those wonderful internet “search” engines that are actually designed to hide the real scandals.
I’ve started threads on my posts/threads being blatantly deleted from the internet search results on several forums. I’ve also been attacked by trolls for making such a ridiculous claim: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.p...924&page=2
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread....orld/page2

Yesterday, I did an internet search with Google.nl, Yahoo.com, Duckduckgo.com, Bing.com and Qwant.com with:

The Ambassador commented on our distinguished visitors, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and commented that Teheran seems to be the site for an opposition parties congress

This should the following thread on the Anglo-American support for Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and 1980s, but none of them find it (I’ve checked only the first 5 pages of Yahoo results): https://forums.richieallen.co.uk/showthr...340&page=2

[Robvalue]

Okay, thanks guys Very useful thoughts.

There’s one guy that I follow who believes that the launching of the SpaceX car to orbit Mars is a psy op to a lesser or greater degree, and he’s suspicious that no alt-media seem to want to touch it, and are in fact covering it up. He believes they are probably under orders to do so, even if they are genuine alt-media. Please check out this post from his blog.

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-let...planet-tv/

I’ve not looked into it in detail yet, but it bears all the hallmarks of a psy op, and it is strange not to see it covered by anyone. I’ve been trying to figure out what the motives would be and I think there’s 2 main ones:

1) Keep Joe Public thinking that the space program hasn’t made any significant advances and is still using crummy rockets rather than anti-gravity fields

2) Keep Joe Public thinking that nothing of interest is going on in the vicinity of Mars.

Now I have no idea what is or isn’t going on near Mars, but it’s funny how the very fact that I’m probably being led to believe that nothing is going on leads me to think that something is probably going on.

This is only brainstorming, I’m just interested in ideas. I’ve developed a nose for psy ops and I seem to have been right when I look into them to confirm. Why is no one covering this? Do they genuinely believe there’s nothing to cover, are they not interested, or are they under orders to keep quiet?

If it does turn out Richard Hall is a plant, I’d be most upset. He’s the one that got me into this shit. He feels like the most genuine to me and his stuff always checks out. If he’s an act, he has gone to some extreme lengths to convince me he’s not. I’m leaning more towards him being genuine but being under orders not to cover the SpaceX business.

[awakened53]

Hi Rob...

I have been to see Richard at lectures many times and I personally don't think he is a fraud. He only talks to an audience of around 100-150 people at a show and has said many times that his tours are done to fund his research. He is a relatively small fish in a very big pond, and although he is getting more widely known, he is still very much mostly known here in the UK.
I attended one of his talks in Hastings a few years back and had a drink in the bar with him afterwards as he was staying in the same hotel, and he seems pretty genuine. If he is fake, then he is a bloody good actor, and if you look at his very early richplanet shows he certainly is not good at acting lol.
The impression that I get from reading the correspondence between Richard and this guy Allan, and with Andrew Johnson, is that they both got fed up with him.

It is hard to work out who is real and who is controlled opposition these days, and I tend to go with my gut instinct until something proves me wrong.
Richard has said many times when he is asked questions about various subjects, that he tries not to comment too much on subjects that he has not researched, as he doesn't want to be mis quoted.

I am going to re visit his secret space shows and see if anything jumps out as odd as it is some time ago that I last saw them.
Have you been to any of Richard's shows?
If so, what did you think?
I took a friend with me to his show last year, who was not really into alternative media, and he really enjoyed it, so much so, that he was talking about him to a British couple out in Majorca a month or so later.

[Robvalue]

Thanks very much for your reply

No, I haven’t been able to go see him. I would like to at some point! I agree, everything about him points to him being genuine, as far as I can tell.

Allan can be insightful but I also find him very rude, and he’s lucky he got as many replies as he did to be honest. My own communications with him haven’t gone too well. So I’m certainly not counting Richard out based on what he’s said.

I’d be very interested to see what you think re-watching his space stuff, and if Allan has any valid criticisms. It is still strange to me how no alt-media seems to have covered it, as far as I can tell. But perhaps they didn’t think it noteworthy enough, I don’t know. Elon Musk or whatever he’s called smells very much to me like an intelligence asset / gatekeeper.

What I’ve learned is the importance of checking the evidence for myself, and not relying on anyone’s word for anything if I can avoid it.

[Robvalue]

I’m doing more digging to see if any suspicious things emerge on various alt-media.

David Icke: He seems to unsceptically accept the holocaust narrative. He himself always says that, "the thing you’re not allowed to have an opinion about, that’s the agenda." Well, I’m not allowed to even question the holocaust. I get called a "denier" and people get hateful. In some countries I’d get arrested. I’ve done research into it and I think there’s sufficient reason to doubt that the narrative is completely accurate. I haven’t reached a firm conclusion yet, but I find it hard to believe Icke isn’t at all suspicious of this.

Some think his "lizard" stuff is all an act to send researchers off down a mad path.

Richard Hall: It makes me sad to question him, as he seems so very legit. But I found another person who doubts him, because they think he was very unsceptically pushing the Holly Greig story. I haven’t watched that episode yet and I don’t know much about it, but I thought it was was worth mentioning. I’m not saying I’m convinced he’s a plant, just that I must ultimately investigate everyone. Any opinions on this are welcomed.

Link to the complaint: 

http://sharonkilby.co.uk/wp-content/uplo...OHNSON.pdf

Richplanet episode:

https://youtu.be/ae4sc3v12fE