I find it interesting that 2pac's last album was entitled--"Makaveli: The Don Killuminati...then he was murdered...
If you actually go through and read through the lyrics of his songs, he explains it all..but for some reason ppl dont listen...(ESPECIALLY the songs "hold ya head" and "against all odds")
1. Intro/Bomb First (My Second Reply)
2. Hail Mary
3. Toss It Up
4. To Live & Die in L.A.
5. Blasphemy
6. Life of an Outlaw
7. Just Like Daddy
8. Krazy
9. White Man'z World
10. Me and My Girlfriend
11. Hold Ya Head
12. Against All Odds
Also look at the likes of those who have stood up (or were ABOUT to) and said something against this 'fabled' group of people OR were refusing to do what they say...or even look at all the random 'mysterious' deaths..and also look at the connections in how each died.
Its also interesting to note that many of these people predicted their own death (ie Princess Di)
Princess Diana, JFK, Tupac, Biggie Smalls, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Aaliyah, Bob Marley, James Dean, Lisa "left eye" Lopez, Janice Joplin, Bruce Lee AND his son, Anna Nicole Smith, Marilyn Monroe, Peter Tosh, Jam Master Jay, JFK Jr, Milton Cooper....etc etc all mysterious deaths..
<
and
"Is the common man really as stupid as the elite seem to believe? If he is, then maybe the average citizen is better off ignorant, being manipulated this way and that, whenever the elite deem it necessary. We will discover the answer very quickly when the common man finds that his ticket to Fantasy Land has just expired."
AND
"Your own government is selling your children drugs, and you don't seem to care. Your own government has given away the power of the people and you don't seem to care. There is an apathy that is running rapid in this country that is deadly. Whether or not there are aliens, we are truly now at this moment a nation of sheep. And ladies and gentlemen, I assure you that sheep are always lead to the slaughter. But it does not have to be that way."
< Then she dies in a car accident..coincidence? I think not. The Queen of England herself has was quote as saying that "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.">> Why is it that every celebrity who has gained world wide influence 'dies mysteriously' after speaking out/warning against the "New World Order" (Illuminati)..hmm... Also look at the likes of Lauryn Hill and Dave Chappelle..Dave Chappelle had a 'breakdown' and fled to Africa...Lauryn Hill did as well...they have both talked openly about the sinister ways of Hollywood and the 'bigger picture' ..but we all call them crazy... And look at Randy Quaid..he's labeled a quack..but perhaps they are the ones who know the truth, yet we are manipulated to believe what they say is ridiculous and couldn't possibly be true.. However, there are way too many parallels...listen to Tupac's lyrics...listen to Immortal Technique or Diabolic's lyrics...even Michael Jackson talked about being controlled in his music.. John Lennon himself stated :“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” The thing is, the New World Order is SUPPOSED to happen (as declared by the Bible..*depends on what you believe religion wise*) and has been openly talked about and pushed for in our present government...so to DENY this or to DENY anything I present here or anything else involving the NWO is to LITERALLY be blinding yourself from it..Political figures have been talking about it for years...in speeches TO the American people...DUH. WE cant do anything to stop it. However, we can educate ourselves and be aware of the hidden agenda so we dont fall prey to these ideas. (also goes back to what you believe religion wise) MIchael Jackon's song "They Dont Care about Us" accurately depicts this picture as well. And in 2002, he stated " ".. i first wanted to say...I don't like to talk that much.I prefer to perform....you know....let me just say this...the tradition..the tradition of great performers....form, and i really want you to know what i say....the tradition of great performers, from sammy Davis JR, James Brown,to Jackie Wilson, to Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly...The story is usually the same though, you know,these guys worked really hard, and they're crabbed, for the story ends the same, they usually are broken, torn and usually just sad...because the companies take advantages of them, they really do. And, well sont...sony, being the...you know, being the artist that i am, I've generated several billion dollars for sony, several billon. They really thought that my mind is always on the music and dancing-it usually is, but they never thought that this performr myself would out think them. So...we can't let them get away with what they're trying to do, because now im a free agent.I just owe sony one more album, it's just a box set, really, with two new songs which ive written ages ago. Because for every album thet i record, i write like, literally,I'm telling you the truth, i write....I write at least 120 songs every album i do. i can do the box set, just giving them any two songs. So i'll be leaving sony, a free agent....owning half of sony, i own half of sony's publishing....And i'm leaving them, and they...they're very angry at me, because i, i just...i just did good buissness, you know. So the way they get revenge is to try and destroy my album. But ive always said, you know....art, good art, never dies.(applause) Thank you. And tommy mattola is a devil....I'm not supposed to say right now, but i have let you know this. Please don't really uptake what i am going to say, Okay?....Do it, do it,I don't mind. take it. Mariah Carrey, after the divorce of Tommy, came to me crying, crying.....Crying, she was crying so badly i had to hold her. She said to me that this is an evil man, and michael, this man is following me, she said. He taps her phones, and he's very, very evil, she doesn't trust him. We have to continue or drive until he is terminated. We can't allow him to do this to Great artists. I just wanted to let you know, I appreciate everything you've done, you've been amazing you're so loyal, everybody, all the people here, i love you all....but still, but still, I promise you, the best is yet to come!..." And Perhaps the best example comes from JFK himself in his speech warning about bout free press and secret societies < The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association President John F. Kennedy Waldorf-Astoria Hotel New York City, April 27, 1961 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession. You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating." But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man. I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration. Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents. Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors. I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity. This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy. I The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security. Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion. For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted. The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration. On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal. I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history. II It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it. III It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure. And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent. I know what I believe...I just find all this quite interesting and people should start thinking about all of it.. *hopefully I dont end up like the rest of these people for opening my mouth about it* Just sayin....
No comments:
Post a Comment