web feature Muse Urges Its Fans To Take The Red Pill

[Niall]

lol, mate you couldnt dismiss my stories if you tried , ive made up my mind on certain topics, ive been trying to convince people for two years , and i get the same negative reaction as you're giving me , that im just crazy and dont know what im on about, so i dont really give a shit about convincing people, i just let people find their own way into the rabbit hole, i still agree with you on one thing, and that is looking at things on a scientific basis , but somethings cannot be answered from a scientific view point.

To each his own.

 

Well I tried, and I did! Did you miss it?

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Well I tried, and I did! Did you miss it?

 

wait , what did i miss ? quick change of topic, biffy clyro opening for muse in aus ! cant wait for december now even more, two sick bands.

ok back to what you were saying.

[haze015]

I love this article. I could have wrote it my self. You only have to looks at face book and see all the teen girls who all look the same and think you have to be sexy. kids are so obsessed with looks and being cool that they don't have time to look at the big picture. But that's what the corporates want. Keep us busy so we look the other way. Not like the 60s 70s where teens wanted to take over the world and stop war. Hippy s I salute you. Or in the 80s ware rock music sent a message about how to be proud of who you are and not try to fit in a box. What dose music tell kids today? . You have to look sexy all the time, and be popular. . Muse are the only band I know that are shouting out to the kids saying wake up, .

As conspiracies unwind

Will you slam shut

Or free your mind

Or stay hypnotised

 

What a pile of complete rose-tinted bollocks. The corporate side of the music industry is exactly the same as it has always been, nothing more or less, nothing sinister. It doesn't try to control the minds of teenagers, it's simply dictated by it, if it could dictate, music would go nowhere as these big companies don't handle change all that well.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

What a pile of complete rose-tinted bollocks. The corporate side of the music industry is exactly the same as it has always been, nothing more or less, nothing sinister. It doesn't try to control the minds of teenagers, it's simply dictated by it, if it could dictate, music would go nowhere as these big companies don't handle change all that well.

lmao, i beg to differ, the music industry is sinister, and uses various methods of mind control whether it being the sexualisation of weaponry/police state agenda in rhianna,lady gaga or beyonce concerts/music videos,it all helps to create a positive sub-conscious association with whatever the music video is portraying, im not saying this is how it is on every major music label but a majority of mainstream pop music has hidden meanings, people just dont know how to interpret them yet.

[haze015]

lmao, i beg to differ, the music industry is sinister, and uses various methods of mind control whether it being the sexualisation of weaponry/police state agenda in rhianna,lady gaga or beyonce concerts/music videos,it all helps to create a positive sub-conscious association with whatever the music video is portraying, im not saying this is how it is on every major music label but a majority of mainstream pop music has hidden meanings, you just dont know how to interpret them yet.

 

 

Don't jump to conclusions about what I do & don't know and even who I know or whether I can or can't interpret something. Standard deviation tactic by people with your outlook, it's pathetic.

[Dockertae]

lmao, i beg to differ, the music industry is sinister, and uses various methods of mind control whether it being the sexualisation of weaponry/police state agenda in rhianna,lady gaga or beyonce concerts/music videos,it all helps to create a positive sub-conscious association with whatever the music video is portraying, im not saying this is how it is on every major music label but a majority of mainstream pop music has hidden meanings, people just dont know how to interpret them yet.

 

I'm not saying the music industry is incapable of doing things wrong, but big business as a whole care about making money. I find it highly unlikely that someone goes to work every day with the sole purpose of inserting mind controlling hidden meanings into pop music when there are plenty of people out there who they can market their products to, because what's going to be cheaper - funding ways to mind control people so you can sell your products or selling to existing markets?

 

I'm afraid to say the reason stupid stuff sells is because stupid people buy it. Also why would the music industry want to forward a police state agenda when that's more likely to reduce their profits than help them?

[haze015]

I'm not saying the music industry is incapable of doing things wrong, but big business as a whole care about making money. I find it highly unlikely that someone goes to work every day with the sole purpose of inserting mind controlling hidden meanings into pop music when there are plenty of people out there who they can market their products to, because what's going to be cheaper - funding ways to mind control people so you can sell your products or selling to existing markets?

 

I'm afraid to say the reason stupid stuff sells is because stupid people buy it. Also why would the music industry want to forward a police state agenda when that's more likely to reduce their profits than help them?

 

Yep, these are huge global companies employing thousands of people and require outside help from other companies to do what they do. There can only be one simple goal of any business of that size and that's purely to make money, anything else wouldn't work as it's not a few board members in a room running everything, it's thousands of people from all walks of life with different beliefs and aims...

 

Not that purely being about making money isn't sinister, it's far from brainwashing and promoting "police states" when it's actually references to early underground/indie electronic music.

[Mc Queen]

And as for Swine Flu vaccines. Right because vaccines can cause narcolepsy. Where was that even published? I don't mean some local Australian newspaper, what with their cutting edge medical research I know, I mean scientific literature. I'd be interested to see the mechanism behind that.

 

Here's an article from a -as far as I know- more reliable news website:

article on yle.fi

 

Science is what I'm after. Not scaremongering media report. Find me some scientific publications, something with some authority, not a website with an agenda referencing the biggest scaremongering, agenda-laden tabloid in the UK. The DM isn't taken seriously.

Couldn't find any of those, sorry, but then I wasn't willing to search for long.

There's a nice comment on medicalnewstoday.com too, as I've never seen that site before I have no clue who does it but they claim to quote the Finnish health authorities.

 

Anyway I refused to take this swine flu shot alone for the fact it had mercury in it.

[hyper_chondriac_muser]

I tend to disagree with people who say the government controls the media. True, there are the occasional grand reveals when the CIA has been discovered to have hired journalists to write on the behalf of the government, but the main drive is, crazily enough, money. They know what the people like to watch and give it to them. Crazy stuff boosts the ratings, and they win dough.

 

Because people are biased though, and that bias finds its way into news stories (eg Faux News), peoples' minds can be easily influenced by what they are told to be true. At the stage where they realise it should be taken with a grain of salt, the next conclusion is somehow 'OMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY', which while plausible, isn't logical. It's just good business, with a sprinkle of human error.

 

That sounds like a lot of generalising when I edit through it.

 

 

 

I think it's a bit of both. The media are always out to get the biggest ratings, sell the most papers, have the highest number of readers/viewers etc.; however, I don't think we should be ignorant to the possibility of government influences in some areas... take the the whole 'swine flu' pandemic. It was blown waaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion; some papers made it sound like London was about to be hit by an unstoppable plague that would take 60-90,000 lives, and the only cure rested in the hands of whom?... the government, who would spend X amount to get the hundreds of thousands of Tamiflu tablets that we MUST have in order to survive.

 

The actuality of it was nowhere near the 'epidemic' they made it sound like. A sense of hysteria was created out of these stories - it's textbook sensationalism from the media. They stood to gain because, as you say, many people are easily influenced by what they're told and are pretty much spoon fed by tabloids etc. But the government would gain too, arguably... just like some people think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government to keep people in 'perpetual' fear so that we would turn to our leaders to pull us out of the crisis and our faith in them would be restored, the swine flu thing could be perceived in a similar light.

 

I don't think the government 'controls' the media as such, but I do think they have a bit of a partnership and pay-outs etc. happen to keep both parties happy. The press get their ratings, the politicians get some stories 'tweaked', and all is fine to an unsuspecting public. I don't buy in to conspiracies really, I just think it's wiser to be open-minded about what's potentially happening in society than to be ignorant to the fact that there is an element of 'mind control', however subtle.

 

[Mozza]

Potential and rebuked accusations of data tampering at one institution does not equal a global conspiracy to fake data.

 

Climate change is a more general term. It is still called global warming, although is term can be misconstrued as a uniform increase in temperature, as apposed to an increase in temperature anomaly, because with global warming some areas may indeed get colder as global climate changes.

 

Ocean acidification is a recorded side effect of increased CO2. Simply because when CO2 dissolves in water it forms an acid, therefore an increase in CO2 will obviously increase the acidity of any bodies of water exposed to it.

 

Energy security is a no brainer. Oil isn't reliable. It is dependent on finding new sources of it, and it is always running out. Also, its availability is subject to an increasingly unreliable economy and a politically complex infrastructure. New oil takes millions of years to form naturally, whereas we're pumping out vast quantities of it ever day. Things like the sun and the wind are not so potentially variable, so they are a secure means of obtaining energy.

 

I really wish the focus was on energy security rather than climate change. Energy security issue is rather easy to prove using quite simple economics. Climate change is almost impossible to predict with any accuracy. So even in my PhD on reducing household energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions) i'm still constantly being asked to 'prove' climate change when I am not, and do not pretend to be a climate scientist and consider it to be a secondary issue to my work.

 

 

I think it's a bit of both. The media are always out to get the biggest ratings, sell the most papers, have the highest number of readers/viewers etc.; however, I don't think we should be ignorant to the possibility of government influences in some areas... take the the whole 'swine flu' pandemic. It was blown waaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion; some papers made it sound like London was about to be hit by an unstoppable plague that would take 60-90,000 lives, and the only cure rested in the hands of whom?... the government, who would spend X amount to get the hundreds of thousands of Tamiflu tablets that we MUST have in order to survive.

 

The actuality of it was nowhere near the 'epidemic' they made it sound like. A sense of hysteria was created out of these stories - it's textbook sensationalism from the media. They stood to gain because, as you say, many people are easily influenced by what they're told and are pretty much spoon fed by tabloids etc. But the government would gain too, arguably... just like some people think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government to keep people in 'perpetual' fear so that we would turn to our leaders to pull us out of the crisis and our faith in them would be restored, the swine flu thing could be perceived in a similar light.

 

I don't think the government 'controls' the media as such, but I do think they have a bit of a partnership and pay-outs etc. happen to keep both parties happy. The press get their ratings, the politicians get some stories 'tweaked', and all is fine to an unsuspecting public. I don't buy in to conspiracies really, I just think it's wiser to be open-minded about what's potentially happening in society than to be ignorant to the fact that there is an element of 'mind control', however subtle.

 

With Swine Flu, the media/Government overreacted because imagine it was an incredibly bad illness and millions/billions of people died. There would have been severe uproar. People have trouble accepting bad things happen and want to blame someone. So when a disease comes along and debilitates them/destroys their lives they want compensating. The Government were covering their backs and the media had a story to run on. No conspiracy just the media using the story to push up profits and organisations covering their backs incase the worst did happen.

 

In the end, politicians have to pander to the media to some extent because they need re-election but I don't think there is some global conspiracy going on. In a globalising world, national Governments have less and less control over fiscal and monetary tools, so instead they just try and micromanage everything, because all Governments want to be seen as doing something. So instead of say the UK Government tweaking with interest rates every 5 minutes (and sometimes getting it spectacularly wrong) they just put up some more CCTV cameras that are useless to be seen as 'getting tough on crime'

[haze015]

 

I think it's a bit of both. The media are always out to get the biggest ratings, sell the most papers, have the highest number of readers/viewers etc.; however, I don't think we should be ignorant to the possibility of government influences in some areas... take the the whole 'swine flu' pandemic. It was blown waaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion; some papers made it sound like London was about to be hit by an unstoppable plague that would take 60-90,000 lives, and the only cure rested in the hands of whom?... the government, who would spend X amount to get the hundreds of thousands of Tamiflu tablets that we MUST have in order to survive.

 

The actuality of it was nowhere near the 'epidemic' they made it sound like. A sense of hysteria was created out of these stories - it's textbook sensationalism from the media. They stood to gain because, as you say, many people are easily influenced by what they're told and are pretty much spoon fed by tabloids etc. But the government would gain too, arguably... just like some people think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government to keep people in 'perpetual' fear so that we would turn to our leaders to pull us out of the crisis and our faith in them would be restored, the swine flu thing could be perceived in a similar light.

 

I don't think the government 'controls' the media as such, but I do think they have a bit of a partnership and pay-outs etc. happen to keep both parties happy. The press get their ratings, the politicians get some stories 'tweaked', and all is fine to an unsuspecting public. I don't buy in to conspiracies really, I just think it's wiser to be open-minded about what's potentially happening in society than to be ignorant to the fact that there is an element of 'mind control', however subtle.

 

There is backhand deals going on, but not for something like swine flu, the government wouldn't have benefitted there, it would have been the drugs companies creating a vaccine for it who'd have benefitted. The media going apeshit is a story to sell.

 

Murdoch supporting the Conservatives in the recent British election was part of a behind the scenes deal.

[CarrieB]

 

I think it's a bit of both. The media are always out to get the biggest ratings, sell the most papers, have the highest number of readers/viewers etc.; however, I don't think we should be ignorant to the possibility of government influences in some areas... take the the whole 'swine flu' pandemic. It was blown waaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion; some papers made it sound like London was about to be hit by an unstoppable plague that would take 60-90,000 lives, and the only cure rested in the hands of whom?... the government, who would spend X amount to get the hundreds of thousands of Tamiflu tablets that we MUST have in order to survive.

 

The actuality of it was nowhere near the 'epidemic' they made it sound like. A sense of hysteria was created out of these stories - it's textbook sensationalism from the media. They stood to gain because, as you say, many people are easily influenced by what they're told and are pretty much spoon fed by tabloids etc. But the government would gain too, arguably... just like some people think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government to keep people in 'perpetual' fear so that we would turn to our leaders to pull us out of the crisis and our faith in them would be restored, the swine flu thing could be perceived in a similar light.

 

I don't think the government 'controls' the media as such, but I do think they have a bit of a partnership and pay-outs etc. happen to keep both parties happy. The press get their ratings, the politicians get some stories 'tweaked', and all is fine to an unsuspecting public. I don't buy in to conspiracies really, I just think it's wiser to be open-minded about what's potentially happening in society than to be ignorant to the fact that there is an element of 'mind control', however subtle.

 

Yeah partly agree, though I also think that the Swine Flu thing could have possibly just have been a mistake. It was taken pretty seriously in the Health Service, you know, meetings, predictions, emergency plans, hygiene packs etc sent round everywhere (that wasn't public it was behind the scenes stuff). We all thought it was laughable (particularly as we worked in mental health ) at the time and we turned out to be right, but I'm not sure if the Health Service would have taken that on board if it wasn't thought to be a serious threat. I think possibly we all have to be aware that there's an element of Fawlty Towers going on as well.

 

Yeah. Cop out. See I've dismissed your stories and present the real facts, but you've decided to give up on the discussion and make accusations about me dismissing the "facts". I think this shows you haven't really been reading or paying attention.

 

Nah not cop out but a lack of thorough research as yet. I am not going to take anyone on their word, without looking at it myself. Personally I think that it is likely that some of it is true and some of it fallacy.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

 

Don't jump to conclusions about what I do & don't know and even who I know or whether I can or can't interpret something. Standard deviation tactic by people with your outlook, it's pathetic.

 

what i said was "standard deviation" ?, , so every person that says the music industry is bad is going to tell you something similar to what i said, yer ok that makes sense, and are you suggesting you work high up in the marketing side of the music industry ?

 

your pathetic for thinking that us as a society dictates whats "cool" for the music industry, LMAO.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Yeah partly agree, though I also think that the Swine Flu thing could have possibly just have been a mistake. It was taken pretty seriously in the Health Service, you know, meetings, predictions, emergency plans, hygiene packs etc sent round everywhere (that wasn't public it was behind the scenes stuff). We all thought it was laughable (particularly as we worked in mental health ) at the time and we turned out to be right, but I'm not sure if the Health Service would have taken that on board if it wasn't thought to be a serious threat. I think possibly we all have to be aware that there's an element of Fawlty Towers going on as well.

 

 

 

Nah not cop out but a lack of thorough research as yet. I am not going to take anyone on their word, without looking at it myself. Personally I think that it is likely that some of it is true and some of it fallacy.

 

i cant believe you implied i havent done my research, oh man ,

i just cant understand yours and nials aspect of thinking the government is all sweet and rosy and do no wrong and "conspiracy theorists" have it all wrong. Am i wrong to presume this ? i would love to hear you guys try disprove alot of the "conspiracy theories"

[Zaphod Chizzlebrox]

i cant believe you implied i havent done my research, oh man ,

i just cant understand yours and nials aspect of thinking the government is all sweet and rosy and do no wrong and "conspiracy theorists" have it all wrong. Am i wrong to presume this ? i would love to hear you guys try disprove alot of the "conspiracy theories"

 

Where IS your research? Your scientific papers? I don't want to see anything coming from a news website or other third party source. Just the links to the scientific papers that you've researched.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Where IS your research? Your scientific papers? I don't want to see anything coming from a news website or other third party source. Just the links to the scientific papers that you've researched.

 

Its totally unfair to say you need scientific proof for everything i say, yet do you really live by this rule in the real world ? every point of view you have on certain topics, are they pre-determined or did you scientifically research your own answers ? If you are going to basically deny whatever i say , i want you to scientifically prove me wrong, with scientific papers. This is a taste of your own medicene, so what would you like me to try convince you of ?

[CarrieB]

i cant believe you implied i havent done my research, oh man ,

i just cant understand yours and nials aspect of thinking the government is all sweet and rosy and do no wrong and "conspiracy theorists" have it all wrong. Am i wrong to presume this ? i would love to hear you guys try disprove alot of the "conspiracy theories"

 

No you misread my post. What I said was that I hadn't researched enough as yet, though I have to say that my intuition tells me there's a fair amount of BS. That doesn't mean that I think all of it will be. I know there have been false flag incidents before, I know there is a corporatcracy, I know the media twist stuff and influence people and if you think I think the government is all sweet and rosy, you're having a laugh aren't you!? I just don't believe it's all orchestrated by one elite group of people.

[Niall]

Its totally unfair to say you need scientific proof for everything i say, yet do you really live by this rule in the real world ? every point of view you have on certain topics, are they pre-determined or did you scientifically research your own answers ? If you are going to basically deny whatever i say , i want you to scientifically prove me wrong, with scientific papers. This is a taste of your own medicene, so what would you like me to try convince you of ?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course everyone doesn't require scientific evidence for everything we say (although almost any true fact about the world will have been subject to research under one form of science or another). If you want to claim that, for example, swine flu vaccines cause paralysis or are being used for nefarious purposes, then you will be required to present some for of rigorous evidence to support this.

 

It isn't required for people to prove you wrong until you prove yourself correct. It's called the burden of proof, it's a commonly understood principle in matters of determining the truth, and is the basis behind things such as innocent until proven guilty, for an example in a non scientific context. It makes no sense for us to try and prove something wrong until you have attempted to prove it true. The knowledge a priori is that a swine flu vaccine is a swine flu vaccine. It is up to you to show that it is something that it is not currently understood to be.

 

It is extremely fair and expected for you to back up any claims you make with good evidence if anyone is going to listen to what you have to say.

[CarrieB]

lol i think you are in the middle, which is a good thing, you just need that little extra push to come onto myside

 

Actually despite posting this, not that it's true mind you, you continue to make stupid statements regarding my position. Spoiling for a fight much?!

[pinkfloyddsotm]

No you misread my post. What I said was that I hadn't researched enough as yet, though I have to say that my intuition tells me there's a fair amount of BS. That doesn't mean that I think all of it will be. I know there have been false flag incidents before, I know there is a corporatcracy, I know the media twist stuff and influence people and if you think I think the government is all sweet and rosy, you're having a laugh aren't you!? I just don't believe it's all orchestrated by one elite group of people.

ok im sorry

[CarrieB]

ok im sorry

 

Fair enough.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course everyone doesn't require scientific evidence for everything we say (although almost any true fact about the world will have been subject to research under one form of science or another). If you want to claim that, for example, swine flu vaccines cause paralysis or are being used for nefarious purposes, then you will be require to present some for of rigorous evidence to support this.

 

It isn't required for people to prove you wrong until you prove yourself correct. It's called the burden of proof, it's a commonly understood principle in matters of determining the truth, and is the basis behind things such as innocent until proven guilty, for an example in a non scientific context.

 

It is extremely fair and expected for you to back up any claims you make with good evidence if anyone is going to listen to what you have to say.

 

"It isn't required for people to prove you wrong until you prove yourself correct", this doesnt make sense, being correct is entirely up to the individual and how they percieve my information.

I can give citations on all the information i give, and their is "extraordinary evidence" on heaps of " conspiracy theories" , just got to filter through it all

Hell most of the shit i read hasnt got much to do with conspiracies, Im not into shit like "the moon landing was fake", im more into government,political ,scientific tyranny that has to do with the stripping of basic liberties and being a free individualist person and not being a controlled slave. idk its to diverse and ill start rambling again.

[Zaphod Chizzlebrox]

Its totally unfair to say you need scientific proof for everything i say, yet do you really live by this rule in the real world ? every point of view you have on certain topics, are they pre-determined or did you scientifically research your own answers ? If you are going to basically deny whatever i say , i want you to scientifically prove me wrong, with scientific papers. This is a taste of your own medicene, so what would you like me to try convince you of ?

 

You're employing tactics of FUD (look it up). You're stating stuff you believe and you want others to believe but you're not backing it up with independent research.

[pinkfloyddsotm]

You're employing tactics of FUD (look it up). You're stating stuff you believe and you want others to believe but you're not backing it up with independent research.

 

interesting read , but i dont think so buddy. I couldnt care less if people dont believe me, im just simply putting it out there and people will find their own way into learning more, i dont feel like i have to prove anything, if people are interested ,which clearly was not the case in this thread, ill go further into detail instead of wasting my time.

[Zaphod Chizzlebrox]

interesting read , but i dont think so buddy. I couldnt care less if people dont believe me, im just simply putting it out there and people will find their own way into learning more, i dont feel like i have to prove anything, if people are interested ,which clearly was not the case in this thread, ill go further into detail.

 

But you've been asked several times to cite independent references and failed to do so. That's an FUD tactic.