Dell on Democracy & Controlling the Population

These last few days I have been without internet. Now that things are back up and running, I would like to share on a hypothetical situation Ron and I have been thinking over these last few rainy days.

Just suppose, we began, if we were to look at history for the last sixty years; think in terms of what the allies learned from Hitler. Following the war, it had to have been noted that the German government's information, both vital statistics and personal information, allowed greater control over the population. The Nazi's near success in the war, and huge success at exterminating people using the brilliant manipulation of the population through media control and propaganda, were just a few of their successes. The population who are unquestioningly dutiful when asked to provide information, show up for epidemic needles, get on the train, and so on...well, they just go ahead and do whatever they're asked. The leaders know best.
We also noted that since the war, there have been some additional surefire methods to be employed, such as new drug addictions, psychotropic drugs, and rehabilitation and social agencies to deal with every little aspect of a life.Additionally, Psychology, post-war, was gaining wide respect despite never being subjected to a medical model and a Diagnostic Manual that grows with each problem society produces.
The public trusted psychology and went along with labels of depression, anxiety and stress, without asking if the social conditions precipitating their mental illness were the result of a calculated social policy meant to drive people to the edge and seek drugs, or become addicted through legal drugs, only to be refused and forced to buy illegal drugs.  You would have to be manipulating the population with these and other techniques, in order to cull and remove individuals, just as Hitler did, except you wouldn't be doing it as policy but as secondary hidden agenda.
It would be necessary to create news items with world issues and various news items to keep the population focused on the usual: war, poisoning the environment, sexual preference issues, abortion versus right to life, consumerism on a scale unparalleled, and give them any darn thing they want and let them fight themselves silly. Just don't let the population notice what is really happening: we're getting rich off their misery.
If you need or want to cull or get rid of a certain segment of society, you don't do it overtly in this new order. You just scare everyone into lining up for a needle to cure the latest epidemic. Later, when some who went to one nurse get cancer and others who went to another desk don't get cancer, no one will make the connection.
If you want to control people, you come down heavy on crime but only once you've made sure that there is plenty of crime. You don't want to really end crime, but make a good show of things in order to bring more and more police on board. Except the drug crime is actually being fed purposely in order to create social breakdown, further criminalize and control people, infiltrate their lives using social agencies to keep track and brow beat people, and hang labels on everyone. 
You have to control most media [see my most recent post on CBC and youtube.
When all else fails, you threaten the person with death, death of a loved one, a loved one will go missing, a loved one suddenly gets cancer, dies in a freak accident and the like. Or more subtle control: the individual or group are punished by not getting a promotion, having you pay into a pension then robbing you of that pension by not closing the loop-hole laws that put creditors ahead of pensioners, and so on. Some men, no matter how good as fathers, will never find a court to enforce their Order for child access: all things in your family life are chosen for you, except you don't know it.
The internet is the last gasp for those who see what is happening and are trying to open the eyes of the public who would assume that a nice looking face and a smile wouldn't be party to this scenario: somehow I hear the words, "you won't feel a thing" coming. Hello...are they building long-term care homes? Why not?
The reason this scenario isn't jumping out and biting people is that they believe there are several political parties. There are several parties, but there is an unspoken dynasty of money that is behind the bigger plan and it's all about money and not party politics.
The control exerted increasingly over the population over the course of history these last sixty years has been just subtle enough to appear to be no more than the way life goes. 
Except it isn't real.
Is it possible to reverse the power that is exerted upon the likes of Richard Fadden, a credible decent man, when he tries to give enough information so that people will get curious? Must the public wait like dump sheep, while Fadden is bullied into line and Canadian laws are not obeyed by our own police and politicians.
That's crap? you say. Given what was known about psychiatry, psychotropics, scientific advances and the like by 1945, it is not much of a leap to picture a scenario in which the greedy victors set about to create the social conditions by which they would profit for generations.
The ultimate control lies in negating the rights of the individual entrenched in democracy. What took place in Toronto at the G20 recently is the beginning of the final push for that total control.
Given what has been going on since my internet failed, I did notice that the news appears to have been manipulated yet again. Canadian politicians of Chinese background are interviewed, sounding reasonable, accusing Mr. Fadden of behaving irresponsibly with his statements and offending the Chinese Canadian population.
Meanwhile, rhe money grubbers want Canadians to focus on the issue of offending the Chinese, so you won't notice that they're stealing the country blind. As long as the Conservatives and Liberals refuse to close the cash cow loop-holes, they are separate parties in name only. The policies might differ, but the same people are getting rich. Money knows no ethnic or political ties, Chinese, or otherwise: Money only loves more money.
Well, that's what our talk covered. Hope tomorrow's post is shorter; but, if you don't see me and I suddenly die in a freak accident, or my children or loved ones suffer, would you consider it important then to ensure the police act within the law? and the law is not up for changing or being lied about by our politicians and police? Or will you wait until you're asking,"why didn't I see it coming?"

Dell on What Is CBC Up To?

You know how something sticks in your craw? Someone will say something? or you see something? and something about it nags at you? Something just doesn't fit and you can't quite put your finger on what it is?
For me it was several things all on the same day.

One was the video report by Jennifer Hollet of CBC on June 27, 2010.

The other was Susan Ormiston's report to CBC 'The National'  on the same day regarding the police abrogation of citizens' rights in Toronto at the G20, asking, "What country am I living in?"

Jennifer Hollet,of CBC, in her report, made a point of showing two videos side by side and a number of  what I found intriguing statements, throughout her video report: 

Prior to Ms. Hollet's report, another CBC reporter draws attention to a protester shouting out, "See you on youtube"
Then Ms. Hollet's report followed, in which she talks about the 70 "new security cameras" in Toronto for the G20...
" one could argue that these are actually the new security cameras." [Hollet holds up her flip cam]
"My flip cam allowed me to get right up close when protesters took over police vehicles"
..."Here I was shooting a police car on fire when riot police suddenly storm the crowd"
..."Just this morning, with everyone having these little cameras"..."Police can't separate the protesters from the press"..."the media line blurs"...
At this point the side by side videos are shown: "take a look...it's actually the CBC's "
Jennifer Hollet CBC video

Side by side are then  two identical videos. The video was posted to youtube by the CBC video journalist...
Hollet draws attention to the fact a CBC journalist has posted to youtube...what's with that? why mention it?
Is she saying the CBC video was posted by the journalist filming it because he didn't think it would make it to air? ...or is she saying some news doesn't make it to air?...or is she saying, something you've seen as news is not real?
"as journalists we're trying to make sense of what you see?" is the ending.

Is someone manipulating the news?
... with staged bank bombings? terrorist acts that are really "controlled events"? to drum up public support for Harper's policies and discredit CSIS' whistleblower, Richard Fadden?
Is there an effort being made to draw Canadians' attention from the bigger story?
Richard Fadden has told Canadians that Harper's government has done nothing to close the loop-holes that make Canada vulnerable to foreign influence and theft of trade secrets and technology? [because PM Harper and his friends are getting rich leaving the loop-holes in place.]

If I wanted to draw the attention of the public to news manipulation, I'd do a piece like Jennifer Hollet's report. It comes across like a hostage trying to send a message.
If that's what Hollet was up to, sending an innocuous report with a deeper message, in such a way as to not  draw attention from the censors, I would have used the same sort of word choices, phrasing, order of phrasing, visual clues, etc....
Susan Ormiston, "What country am I living in?"
CBC reports: "protestor shouts back: See you on youtube."
Jennifer Hollet does a piece on CBC news footage being posted at youtube.
Either CBC is slipping in the way it covers news, or CBC is telling Canadians, "look, listen and make sense of what you are seeing."
CBC news: what are you up to?