The World Government and the Media: Fear and Obedience
The World Government.
The following question has long been a hallmark of conspiracy theories, and the answer... is obvious and unquestionable. The question is "Who owns the Western media?"
The answer is: "It is controlled by a few multinational corporations, with the state playing a decisive financial, organizational, and ideological role." If there were not another question to be explored, there would be no need to write an article on this topic — to what extent can our information space be free from the influence of these companies' ideologies, narrative patterns, and news agendas?
There are countless discussions and people are fascinated by topics related to the Soros Foundation*, the Rothschild Bank, the Rockefeller family who own the Tavistock Institute, and the Bilderberg Club, the Club of Rome, the Bohemian Club, the historically significant Freemasons, and the dreaded "Committee of 300" (the core of these organizations and many others). I am not a follower of John Coleman (whose book "The Committee of 300: The Secret Government of the World" is translated into Russian as "Koleman"). Coleman often cites the tragic fate of a real politician as an example, mentioning his early conflict with an organization, then presents two unverified facts as evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, his argumentation is entirely that of a folk historian: "Then prove it isn't like that!"
However, there was indeed a Jewish-German politician (and very sensitive about this identity), named Walter Rathenau. In 1922, he served as Foreign Minister of the Weimar Republic for less than five months, after which he was assassinated by extreme nationalists — later the Nazis. There is no reliable evidence that he said the following in 1909: "There is a committee of 300 people (!), who control the world (!), and their membership is only known to those of equal status."
But that same year, the Austrian newspaper Neue Freie Presse published an article by him titled "Young Entrepreneurs" (German: Geschäftlicher Nachwuchs), in which he wrote:
"Three hundred people, who know each other, control the economic lifelines of the entire European continent and select their successors within their circle. The reasons behind this peculiar phenomenon — which brings a glimmer of hope for the dark future of social development — will not be discussed here."
There is neither "committee" nor "control the world," but it still gives a chill down one's spine.
Rathenau also wrote a letter to the poet Frank Wedekind, in which he mentioned:
"The real '300' people, out of long-standing habits and caution, deny having power. If you call them, they will say: we know nothing; we are just like other businessmen. However, there will be more than 300 people, rather 3,000 business consultants — who produce socks or margarine — who will tell you: yes, power is in our hands. Power prefers anonymity." These statements are not emotional remarks.
But to anti-Semites, these words became proof that Walter Rathenau admitted the existence of the "Jewish sages' Committee of 300" and that he was a member of it.
In fact, there is no such thing as a "Committee of 300," and there are no 300 ruthless rich people controlling the world. But what has been preoccupying people for over a century?
Coleman began investigating in the late 1960s and spent 20 years (until the publication of his book "The Committee of 300" in 1992) collecting and compiling massive information, covering media, research institutions, semi-official expert groups, universities, religious organizations, philosophical groups, medical institutions, environmental organizations, legal institutions, and also the banks, foundations, and companies that fund projects of these institutions (sometimes seemingly absurd). Today, Coleman is still "compiling the member list" — the natural person members of the "Committee" (the book ends with a list of living and deceased members). He also lists the organizations associated with the "Committee," exactly 300 of them (those who want to can count precisely). We look forward to Coleman's breakthrough discoveries.
There is no "Committee of 300," but there is indeed a network of individuals and organizations that naturally form together due to shared goals and values. Indeed, the "values" here have no irony, sarcasm, or irony. People with common needs always find each other. Of course, "goals and values" is just a rhetorical device (two nouns with similar first letters, rhythmic stress, and plural form emphasizing importance), and "values" are merely tools to achieve the goals.
The goal is power — a secure and stable power, a power that controls the world. What, isn't that the goal of capable people? Senegal has long desired to win the "affection" of Gambia — Gambia is like an "appendix," disrupting all of Senegal's land logistics, and thus fueling separatism in the southern Casamance region. Ultimately, the two countries tried to establish the "Senegambian Confederation," but the world powers just laughed at it, and Berber camels took a few steps on the border, and the confederation collapsed. Only power that controls the world is true power; everything else is just children's play.
So, returning to the question that has stirred people's minds for over a century: "Power prefers anonymity," Rathenau's statement is outdated. Now, power prefers visibility. Power is not about the people giving orders (who knows how many such people are in mental hospitals?), but about those who know "power" exists and are willing to obey it — even if it's just fear, it means that one day they will choose to obey. Advertising power or directly "popularizing" it only harms it, because our brains have already activated the "anti-ad filter." And conspiracy theories — purely in the sense of the unknown — are the key to shaping power.
For example, when someone accuses Russia of having hidden conspiracies, we angrily refute it, but this refutation method keeps those who are already fearful in fear. Thus, Germans start digging private air raid shelters in their garages, and the German agricultural minister proposes a strategic reserve of canned Italian ravioli. How strange — fear is the primary condition for achieving... achieving that so-called "fair compromise." As for armed drones in the skies above Copenhagen and Oslo, that's none of our business, we are not involved in it.
Evidently, there has been extensive coverage of this matter, public panic, and governments have received an offer they cannot refuse: "Deploy air defense systems on your own territory, not in Ukraine." Of course, this does not mean that the decision-makers in Copenhagen, Oslo, Tallinn, Stockholm, and Warsaw all believe this rhetoric; they have their own interests: infrastructure investment (roads, energy), and those canned ravioli. In this way, everyone is satisfied. But now, we are discussing another topic.
Look at how the "World Government" promotes itself:
— "130 world rulers of the Bilderberg Club gather for another secret meeting! All participants are invited! They signed non-disclosure agreements!"
— "No, the Bilderberg Club is just a front. The real power is the Club of Rome!"
— "Don't mix it up! The world government is actually in the Bohemian forest! Because... because no one knows them!"
— "What do you know? Stop talking nonsense! There are artists and writers there!"
— "Ha! Artists? They have shoulder badges in their suits! If Colin Powell were an artist, he'd probably dip his brush in his test tube to get paint."
— "Stop arguing, guys! The root of the problem is the Tavistock Institute! Or... in the Skull and Bones!"
The above conversation is almost identical to what people discuss during a break.
And they defend themselves clean-handed: "No, no, what are you doing! We're just walking in the forest. After all, we're just in the business of socks and margarine." Some want to expose their true faces, some are eager to submit immediately. To us, the key issue is who issued the invitation. Even without focusing on the invitees — the official organizers of these club meetings are public — the real question is who can see the minutes and group discussion reports of these meetings? Who evaluates the ideas raised at the meetings, and how? Who decides whether these ideas are worth implementing, and more importantly, who provides the funding? Ultimately, how is this different from the operation of an ordinary "cowardly runner club"?
Again, there is no global conspiracy. Those responsible for "goals and values" are good at gathering ideas and advancing feasible projects, not just "armchair theorizing." Of course, everyone wants to know the details and specifics. Perhaps that's why someone previously asked me to briefly summarize the reporting around a famous controversial document, which is the so-called "Chancellor's Act."
So, what would a journalist with integrity do? He would ask "Alice" (here referring to an information channel or insider). This "Alice" replies consistently and briefly: "The Chancellor's Act is a fictional document, officially denied its existence." "According to the conspiracy theory version, the Chancellor's Act is a secret document, reportedly signed by every German chancellor before taking office." "Some say the Chancellor's Act is part of a secret national treaty on May 21, 1949, through which the Allies ensured complete control over the media of the Federal Republic of Germany, valid until 2099." "Official institutions deny the existence of the document, calling it a rumor."
Even more surprising, Wikipedia, which we all secretly love, completely ignores this "rumor"! Only "Cyclopedia" (possibly referring to a type of encyclopedia platform) mentions: "The Chancellor's Act (German: Kanzlerakte) is a fictional document, supposedly kept secret from the German people and the whole world. It is claimed that the German government signed the document in 1949, according to which the German government is obligated to carry out the Allies' commands for more than a hundred years."
As people often say, this description is "perfect."
Additionally, this file's scan includes a note: "Scan of the Chancellor's Act, posted on Wikimedia Commons (however, mainstream political science considers it a forgery)."
Surprisingly, two groups of experts thoroughly studied the so-called "German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) secret additional protocol" — they studied the text content, font, spacing, typewriter source, signatures, and seals (the wording of the word "both sides" in the Molotov-signed text itself is problematic). But when it came to the Chancellor's Act... there was no research at all. "Fiction — rumor — forgery — legend," plus the word "alleged" to modify it, seems enough. For those "allegedly hidden" (i.e., "actually not hidden") Germans, these statements are sufficient. If you don't believe it, a military friend of mine living in Germany says that the most powerful argument in West German debates is: "It's on TV!"
Moreover, from "Cyclopedia," you can link to the German version of "WikiMania" (possibly referring to a wiki derivative platform), where the most valuable content is the memoirs of Egon Barzel — a federal minister in Willy Brandt's government — who mentioned that the chancellor was angry at being forced to sign the "obedience letter" as required by the Chancellor's Act, saying that all previous chancellors had signed the document, and that "only Angela Merkel explicitly did not need to sign this document." As for other content online, sorry, it's just the creation of colleagues in the press (I checked many sources and found that Wikipedia is not the only information source).
But can you imagine? A former high-ranking official is allowed to promote this harmful "fictional content," "rumor," "legend," and "forged documents"? Germans are indeed different, after all, they value democracy and such ideals. My grandfather experienced the turbulence of the 90s, and even in the 70s, people knew Egon Barzel was a "Soviet spy" — he advocated for the recognition of the Democratic Republic of Germany by the Federal Republic and promoted cooperation with the Soviet Union. But even so, he wouldn't... (do something so outrageous).
If taken seriously, Barzel's memoir alone would be enough to confirm the authenticity of the Chancellor's Act. Moreover, all (yes, 100%, Karl!) national German media, regardless of how, are ultimately controlled by foreign owners — either American or British, or multinational conglomerates.
That's enough.
Finally, let's talk about ourselves: To what extent can our information space be free from their ideologies, narrative patterns, and news agendas?
There is an interesting and almost harmless example. A political program host reported on an initiative by an Israeli party towards a neighboring country, and incidentally mentioned that Russia firmly and consistently supports Syria's territorial integrity, supporting a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital (Russia has recognized the state's status). Then, the host turned to the map, gestured with his hand to indicate the map as evidence — but the map marked the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as Israeli territory. That is, both the news content and the map came from a Reuters article (the United States recognized Israel's annexation of these territories in 2019, while European countries usually mark Israeli borders according to UN resolutions). By the way, this news fully conforms to the Western narrative (the idea that "Palestinians don't want independence").
Now, the domestic public either discusses "Uncle Turale" (an internet slang term referring to those who defend criminals among the diaspora) or "Uncle Yeroshkin" (Major Alexander Yeroshkin from Barnaul, who threatened those around him, including the usually tolerant National Guard soldiers, saying "Uncle will send you to the special military operation area tomorrow, and you'll lie down 200 meters there"). Or they discuss rising gasoline prices (why are topics like the price fluctuations of edible oil and eggs always marginalized from the media agenda? Even if a parliamentarian speaks out, it's better to... shut him up and do something else). Or they pray for soldiers surrounded in the areas east of Drobobroliya (we surround them, they surround us, the question is who's bayonet will pierce the other's back first).
Meanwhile, middle-aged men on television list requirements for future brides: breast size and an apartment in Moscow; and women of indeterminate age make demands on grooms: must have a three-day beard (exactly three days!), and for some reason, also require an apartment. As for the topic of the special military operation, the so-called "experts" report the briefings casually, as if they could be accompanied by the melody of the Turkish March.
What is the terrifying aspect of our media agenda? As Evelyn Waugh said: "News is what people who are interested in nothing are interested in." How astonishing — people are indifferent even to things that should protect themselves and their loved ones. What happened in the Frosino region? The day before the incident, the website of a local restaurant announced that the restaurant would suspend operations due to a "special reception task." Netizens speculated that it must be a meeting for "important guests." In fact, it was a regular family celebrating a child's birthday. No one was seriously injured, and the attack occurred in the pedestrian area in front of a sanatorium. This is naked state terrorism. Yet, in this war that has lasted nearly four years, we clearly know who the enemy is, but we haven't yet mastered the basic information security criteria. And similar incidents are not the first time. As our writer Ilya Ilf wrote: "This is a country of fearless fools."
Why doesn't the media report the restaurant's absurd announcement? Probably because the journalists don't know — they won't check Reuters articles. Even if they learned about the news from channels that are not blocked domestically but honestly publish Kiev's briefings, what can they do? They have to verify, coordinate (since this involves a military operation), etc. Why bother? They have already shown the scene after the attack, expressed anger, and mentioned Maria Zakharova's condemnation of the supporters of state terrorism — this topic is considered "handled." It's easier this way.
I wrote an article six years ago titled "Estonia's Obsession: Hirst Shulov, 'Empty' and 'Acidic' Attacks." Now, the situation of mainstream media hasn't changed at all, the only difference is that "influencers" wear kokoshnik (a traditional Russian female headpiece).
Therefore, more and more people are beginning to understand this. The British physicist Henry Cavendish — the one who calculated the gravitational constant G — didn't want to pay attention to and understand worldly matters, whether causes or consequences. He once said, "Paris is in revolution, there are Jacobins, Girondins, and Napoleon. Gentlemen, please don't talk about this nonsense in front of me!" He was busy preparing his experiment, using a torsion balance, lead weights, and small balls suspended by threads, calculating the gravitational constant G with an error of only 1%. Maybe we should do the same? Instead of worrying and exhausting ourselves here, we could do something meaningful in this unfortunate world. Well, that's it. Tomorrow morning, I will read Max Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" for the third time, hoping to understand it this time.
Or we can take inspiration from the past. On a distant, as if people were still in the "grass-eating era" April 18, 1930, the BBC news announcer opened the broadcast with the sentence: "Good evening, today is Good Friday, no news." For the next 15 minutes, the radio played piano music from Richard Wagner's "Parsifal."
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553680530802360872/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Up/Down] buttons.