CIA, putin, and the internet.

[squeezewax]

putin has just commented that 'the internet is a CIA project!'
what a dick!
does he really believe this just propaganda so the russian people believe it to be so, and distrust americans even more?

i wouldn't be surprised if he does believe it though, he seems to of lost reality these days.
why don't any world leaders comment that putin is ridiculous, and that he planned this whole ukraine thing before the olympics took place?
he did, it didn't just happen, it was all planned months in advance imo.

all we hear is that obama or whoever, has talked on the phone with putin, and that more sanctions are happening.
i wish someone would say it like it is in regards to putin, instead of all this polite behaviour and words.
tell everyone that putin wants civil war in the ukraine and that he's going to take back even more of the country for russia.

 

[Jukai]

Uh, as ridiculous as Putin's statement is, I don't exactly think he planned for Ukraine's government to collapse.

 

[IDL]

I'm sure the CIA, NSA and all the various other agencies have their fingers in all sorts of pies.

Google, Facebook, etc.

The internet was originally a military research project, no?

 

[ZroC]

Well intelligence gathering is what these people do so I'm pretty sure they have their finger prints over most of the Internet at this stage. Most of us know, but put it out of our minds, that all of our online activity is being monitored (and then some.) If the internet wasn't started as a CIA project it certanly must be one at this stage.

 

[Nebi]

* > No links

 

[lhx58]

I'm sure the CIA, NSA and all the various other agencies have their fingers in all sorts of pies.

Google, Facebook, etc.

The internet was originally a military research project, no?

This

but its not in their control anymore.

 

[IDL]

This

but its not in their control anymore.

They don't seem to be censoring inconvenient information. Hopefully that lasts. If too many people learn too many things I suspect they would take measures to do that.

So far their strategy seems to be to flood the internet with misinformation to make it extremely difficult to discern fact from fiction.

 

[Thames]

They don't seem to be censoring inconvenient information. Hopefully that lasts. If too many people learn too many things I suspect they would take measures to do that.

So far their strategy seems to be to flood the internet with misinformation to make it extremely difficult to discern fact from fiction.

Wouldn't it be better if you stopped spreading the information then? So you and your kinsmen can work in the shadows? You're fucking everything up IDL.

Also, must suck to be the one who gets the assignment to flood the internet with misinformation. Must be a draining job - "We a code 976 John! IDL is spreading true information on Sherdog again! Quickly log in and discredit him with false information! Ban him if necessary!

 

[Gandhi]

Idl has to be one of the worst posters in WR history and that is quite the benchmark.

 

[5H3RD0G]

I like Putin but that makes no sense. It's good it allows people to speak their minds and a faster way to a solution. If there was no internet we can just scam all the people all day from the confines of leadership. :icon_chee

 

[IDL]

Alrighty then. Apparently this is a sensitive topic.

 

[weed]

Putin like Roose Bolton. He has power now, but he gon' git his comeuppance one of vese days

 

[JonnyRingo84]

the reason they dont act like that TS, is because adult geopolitics are a chess game. youre asking them to play cornhole. aint happening. you get reckless and youll lose.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

They don't seem to be censoring inconvenient information. Hopefully that lasts. If too many people learn too many things I suspect they would take measures to do that.

So far their strategy seems to be to flood the internet with misinformation to make it extremely difficult to discern fact from fiction.

they dont censor inconvenient information because they know that most of that information is manufactured for page hits. conspiracy sites need conspiracy in every event....otherwise, their business goes away.

the government cannot keep secrets any longer. the legit ones are brought out on the regular. the bogus ones on infowars and the like are part of an industry.

 

[IDL]

they dont censor inconvenient information because they know that most of that information is manufactured for page hits. conspiracy sites need conspiracy in every event....otherwise, their business goes away.

the government cannot keep secrets any longer. the legit ones are brought out on the regular. the bogus ones on infowars and the like are part of an industry.

The legit ones are brought out onto the oligarch MSM media? Not likely. If you want the truth you have to find it yourself.

The corporate media is so controlled it isn't even funny.

 

[ncordless]

I like Putin but that makes no sense. It's good it allows people to speak their minds and a faster way to a solution. If there was no internet we can just scam all the people all day from the confines of leadership. :icon_chee

No way man. Putin's right. It's all a plot of the West in order to destabilize oppressive regimes by increasing a society's ability to exercise their right to free speech and assembly. Thank God Putin combats these Western aggressions by censoring websites critical of his government and maintaining either direct government control or Gazprom control of all major media in Russia so he can keep this filth out and spread the truth.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

The legit ones are brought out onto the oligarch MSM media? Not likely. If you want the truth you have to find it yourself.

The corporate media is so controlled it isn't even funny.

and who told you that?

the msm are businesses (just as ct sites are). their #1 goal is money. they find the largest demographic of unrepresented viewers, and they slant the "news" in whatever form those viewers want. they dont brainwash people. we know they dont. how? because people only watch news media that they already agree with. if they dont agree with it, they change the channel.

then make the news sensational and controversial so that you can compete for ratings with MTV, and "world most shocking police chases." should we interview sociologists, historians, and politicians about whats going on in the middle east? or should we show footage of people burning flags and then have a liberal robot debate a conservative robot? which one is more entertaining? the latter, of course (to most people).

its really that simple. you dont need secret plots of world domination to explain whats going on. what is more entertaining? truth and thorough objectivity? FFFFFFFFF no. controversy, sex, bizarre crimes, and sensationalism. thats entertaining ratings grabbing news. if rupert murdoch could have made more money producing liberal shows, he would have. these people just want money, and they dont need an NWO to get it.

 

[IDL]

and who told you that?

the msm are businesses (just as ct sites are). their #1 goal is money. they find the largest demographic of unrepresented viewers, and they slant the "news" in whatever form those viewers want. they dont brainwash people. we know they dont. how? because people only watch news media that they already agree with. if they dont agree with it, they change the channel.

then make the news sensational and controversial so that you can compete for ratings with MTV, and "world most shocking police chases." should we interview sociologists, historians, and politicians about whats going on in the middle east? or should we show footage of people burning flags and then have a liberal robot debate a conservative robot? which one is more entertaining? the latter, of course (to most people).

its really that simple. you dont need secret plots of world domination to explain whats going on. what is more entertaining? truth and thorough objectivity? FFFFFFFFF no. controversy, sex, bizarre crimes, and sensationalism. thats entertaining ratings grabbing news. if rupert murdoch could have made more money producing liberal shows, he would have. these people just want money, and they dont need an NWO to get it.

That's what it looks to the man on the street.

It's not how it looks when you study the use of media historically and how information is the most powerful weapon there is to be used to control people.

No way in hell the military spends so much as it does and leaves control of the information in the hands of a few corporations that they aren't directly working with. Why do you think media heads attend the Bilderberg meetings and the CFR? It's a club.

That would be a massive security risk. It's more crazy to think that kind of power isn't controlled.

It's not what you see on the news, it's how it's presented, and it's what isn't presented.

Left and right media, divide and conquer. It's controlled opposition that's all it is.

 

[IDL]

In reference to the consolidation of media that has occurred to a staggering degree, here is an interesting snippet from Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World Revisted that may be of interest

keeping in mind this was written in 1958 so is talking about a time when the press was much less consolidated into the hands of such few people as we see today.

..

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free," said Jefferson, "it expects what never was and never will be. . . . The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." Across the Atlantic another passionate be*liever in reason was thinking about the same time, in almost precisely similar terms. Here is what John Stuart Mill wrote of his father, the utilitarian philoso*pher, James Mill: "So complete was his reliance upon the influence of reason over the minds of mankind, whenever it is allowed to reach them, that he felt as if all would be gained, if the whole population were able to read, and if all sorts of opinions were allowed to be addressed to them by word or in writing, and if by the suffrage they could nominate a legislature to give effect to the opinions they had adopted." All is safe, all would be gained! Once more we hear the note of eight*eenth-century optimism. Jefferson, it is true, was a realist as well as an optimist. He knew by bitter expe*rience that the freedom of the press can be shamefully abused. "Nothing," he declared, "can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper." And yet, he insisted (and we can only agree with him), "within the pale of truth, the press is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and civil liberty." Mass commu*nication, in a word, is neither good nor bad; it is simply a force and, like any other force, it can be used either well or ill. Used in one way, the press, the radio and the cinema are indispensable to the survival of democracy. Used in another way, they are among the most powerful weapons in the dictator's armory. In the field of mass communications as in almost every other field of enterprise, technological progress has hurt the Little Man and helped the Big Man. As lately as fifty years ago, every democratic country could boast of a great number of small journals and local newspapers. Thousands of country editors expressed thousands of independent opinions. Somewhere or other almost anybody could get almost anything printed. Today the press is still legally free; but most of the little papers have disappeared. The cost of wood-pulp, of modern printing machinery and of syndicated news is too high for the Little Man. In the totalitarian East there is political censorship, and the media of mass communication are controlled by the State. In the democratic West there is economic censorship and the media of mass communication are controlled by members of the Power Elite. Censorship by rising costs and the concentration of communication power in the hands of a few big concerns is less objectionable than State ownership and government propaganda; but certainly it is not something of which a Jeffersonian democrat could possibly approve.

http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/index.html#propdem

 

[Rusk]

Source?

EDIT:

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-just-called-the-internet-a-cia-project-2014-4

there TS


Anyway on topic, i think Internet worked more for Russia and against US. I don't get why he would say such thing.

"Like the Russian government, which is currently using the Snowden disclosures to justify bringing global online platforms and services under Russian jurisdiction, many countries are beginning to support the concept of national sovereignty in cyberspace,"

fuck that!