In an interesting and important article reposted at Rense.com, the BBC is "laid out" with some relish by its private competitor, the Daily Mirror: "BBC: We Fake It All The Time." Now, is this the issue in particular that I want to address? No. But it is a convenient jumping-off point. Here's some of the article:
Sir David Attenborough yesterday defended Frozen Planet's fake polar bear footage – by comparing BBC nature documentaries to movies. His blunt remarks came as more footage from the series was exposed as a sham. In a surprising justification for duping millions of viewers, the TV star argued that owning up to splicing archive film with real Arctic scenes during the programme would have spoiled the mood.
His blunt remarks came as more footage from the series was exposed as a sham. Speaking after our exclusive story yesterday revealed shots of a polar bear and her newborn cubs were staged in a zoo using fake snow, Sir David, 85, said: "The question is, during the middle of this scene when you are trying to paint what it is like in the middle of winter at the pole, to say 'Oh, by the way, this was filmed in a zoo'.
"It ruins the atmosphere, and destroys the pleasure of the viewers and destroys the atmosphere you are trying to create. "It's not a falsehood and we don't keep it secret either. But to say actually in the middle of that sequence, I mean how far do you take this?
"Do you say this is a penguin, but actually it was a different penguin colony than this one and this one is a different one? Come on, we were making movies." It yesterday emerged BBC producers also misled viewers about footage of a frozen caterpillar in hit seven-part series Frozen Planet.
To some, the fakery itself may be of interest, as the BBC has been caught out before as regards polar bears. Not so long ago, the BBC used artistic license to imply polar bears were apparently stranded on icebergs without showing nearby ice shoals. Former US Vice-President Al Gore used similar footage to imply polar bears were trapped on icebergs when they were not.
To me, the issue is a much larger one, and that's what I want to examine in this article. There is an important point here: The Internet (and even its attached mainstream media such as the Daily Mirror) is making it extremely difficult for the Anglosphere power elite's dominant social themes to catch hold the way they did in the 20th century.
The powers-that-be are apparently trying to justify their fantastical elaborations by claiming that emotional honesty is just as valid as a realistic recitation of facts. But defending such promotions is oxymoronic. By the time one needs to justify a promotion, its propaganda value is of little consequence.
The elite have used such hidden-in-plain-sight organizations as the Tavistock Institute to propound fear-based promotions that frighten Western Middle Classes into giving up wealth and power to pre-made globalist solutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. But in the 21st century, these promotions are increasingly exposed and thus losing their effectiveness.
Everything from global warming to Peak Oil and the war on terror itself has been undermined by countervailing information to be found on the 'Net. Even central banking – the elite's most important falsification – has come under sustained attack. Meanwhile, sensible formulations regarding free markets have surged. Ludwig von Mises has never been so popular. And John Maynard Keynes is increasing in disrepute.
People begin to understand (even at a subconscious level) that the meme of leadership itself – along with Western-style, state-mandated justice – is fairly unproductive. In fact, the free market itself can perform most if not all of the functions that the world's increasingly massive and militaristic mercantilist states are supposed to be skilled at handling.
There is nothing more frightening to the Anglosphere elite, in my view. Ultimately, the "competence of the state" is a foundational meme. As the Internet undermines the rationale for this purveyance, the elites grow increasingly desperate. This is perhaps the reason so many wars are being fought so rapidly and why Western democracies are seemingly turning increasingly authoritarian.
People in the libertarian, free-market community are discouraged by the outbreak of seeming fascism in the US. In fact, such manifestations are a sign of weakness, not strength. It is almost impossible in the long term to control seven billion people by fear. What the elites are doing now makes little sense unless they intend to foment genocide of billions. And murdering millions, let alone billions, is easier said than done.
As it makes little sense, ergo, it must be borne of a kind of panic. And to me, that makes sense. There is literally nowhere to hide these days. Vast, societal promotions were elitist stock-in-trade, but increasingly they are failing.
In the era of the Internet – the Internet Reformation as we call it – the larger societal promotions of the elites are being exposed on a regular basis. Just this past week, the US Pentagon awarded the Medal of Honor – the nation's highest honor – to Sgt. Dakota Meyer even though reports were circulating that Meyer's actions had been exaggerated.
It was ultimately an extensive McClatchy News expose that clarified the apparent Meyer exaggerations. It is safe to say that the expose would not have received so much exposure – in fact, probably would not have been written – if not for the Internet that makes such reports and their circulation feasible and even imperative in an increasingly competitive media environment.
According to the Washington Post, "The McClatchy report, based on dozens of military documents, found that Meyer didn't save the lives of 13 U.S. service members, leave his vehicle to rescue 24 Afghans, lead a final push to retrieve the bodies of four dead Americans or personally kill eight Taliban fighters during a night of intense fighting in a remote eastern Afghanistan province."
The Post also reported that when the White House was asked point blank about whether the charges had been investigated, administration spokesperson Jay Carney replied, "The answer to your question is 'no'."
According to the Post, Carney added, "Everyone, even the reporter who wrote yesterday's article, agrees that Sgt. Meyer displayed extraordinary heroism. … The president was proud to present it on behalf of a grateful nation."
The Post, however, did not mention this was a non-sequitur: I will. In the era of 'Net transparency, this is what it's come down to: The material facts don't matter; only the emotional ones. Whether Meyer actually performed his heroic deeds is not as important as their assertion and the subsequent "gratefulness" of a nation.
Is this really a rational posture long-term? If the powers-that-be think they can continue to get away with this sort of positioning they may be fooling themselves. So I'd argue, anyway. Emotional honesty – by the lights of those who interpret it – is being substituted for factual accuracy.
Hollywood knows this, of course. The greatest filmmakers understand that the plot is nothing but a conveyance for emotional involvement. If the audience cannot be convinced to suspend its disbelief then the entertainment is for naught.
But here is the catch. If a Hollywood producer were put on the spot and forced to defend his dramatic exegeses, he or she would likely declare the entertainment a failure. That's because the very act of defending them constitutes an admission of manipulation!
At some point something similar will occur to Western elites, in my view. They work hard to continually try to manufacture the world's faux-realities but what worked fairly well in the 20th century is failing miserably in the 21st. This is a profound occurrence – a singular and truthful insight that the old men of the Anglosphere and their enablers and associates will likely deny to the bitter end.
This will, of course, create further difficulties for Western societies but the chances are that it will not avert an ultimate collapse. Such collapses can occur quite quickly when too many know about the lies, are enraged by them and are determined to make them stop. (At some point even, the powers-that-be may find it necessary to take an aggregate "step back."
There are what? … at least a thousand top elites controlling apparently tens or even hundreds of trillions of "money." Well, there are billions who are not and they are waking up.