I originally intended this post to be an addition to Herbert's thread with the latest George Kavassilas interview,
http://jandeane81.com/threads/2300-G...ugh-Agreements
but the more I thought about it, the more it became a whole new subject worthy of it's own thread.
One thing that consistently bothers me about the alternative media (and I know some of you may be getting tired of me lamenting on this LOL), is that for all the time and energy we put into listening to the alt media movers and shakers, and how seriously we take what they say, there is virtually NO vetting process what so ever. The only vetting I see going on, is that all of these movers and shakers go around vouching for each other's immense genius and credibility, and that's about what the vetting process is, unfortunately. They basically get to vet themselves, not a tough thing to do.
Of course this is basically the same way big time politicians are coddled by main stream media, so it's really making me start to wonder what's so darned alternative about alternative media? Obviously the material content is radically different between the two, but what about the media part of alternative media? We all know that *true* main stream journalism is already 6 feet under, and I am now going to posit that alternative media is right there with it as well.
Back to Kavassilas. He was one of the last people I hung onto before not caring to pay particular attention to *any* of them any more, but even now I saw a lot I liked about what he was saying in this interview. Thing is, as Sandy pointed out in that thread, It wasn't that long ago when ole George was preaching ascension. Wasn't the Earth supposed to turn into a star or something soon? Before that he was channeling the Galactic Federation of Light ffs.
Now I was always willing to give him a pass on the GFL thing because he freely admitted to being duped, and we've all been duped six ways to Sunday along the way right? Meanwhile though, the new truth was ascension. OK, but now ascension is apparently not the truth any more either. But now this, now *this* is the *real truth*, it's right here in my new book! (LOL) Really???
A good journalist should politely ask him something like this at some point: "George, forgive me for being blunt here, but as you know this is my job. I have to ask how you are so certain that the way you see things now is the truth to end all truth, when before it was ascension, and before that it was the GLF? Can you please do your best to explain how this has come to be for our viewers?"
See this is getting to the crux of my point here. In these interviews we all watch, the guest is never challenged, and never asked tough or probing questions. It's almost like the old "we'll just perch here around your feet and listen to how wise and wonderful you, your spirituality, and deep wisdom is".
It's Texas Pick 'Em with most of the rest of AM interviews as well, not just picking on this one. What ever happened to doing some preparation and research for someone you're going to interview? That's what a journalist is supposed to do for us, the viewer or reader seeking new information, right? Read or scan through various books and such the guest has authored, note what they said then, say now, and said in between as well. Do they have a history of making predictions that never come to pass, like Ed Dames' "Kill Shot" for example? (Ed, where the heck IS that kill shot brother?) If you findthey are privately funded, then who funds them? Why do I not see this, ever? Is it now seen as rude or attacking, to ask public people, people who are putting themselves out there (or are being put out there) on a soap box, tough and probing questions?
A couple of other examples:
1) Crop circles are a big deal in the AM, and say you have the opportunity to interview, let's just pick Colin Andrews. I've got nothing against Colin Andrews, he's probably a nice guy, and hell I'm not really even into the crop circle thing. But, it's no big secret that his research is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
http://www.colinandrews.net/CropCirclesAssessment.html
Maybe it's just me, but that's a bit of a sticking point. How much does this Rockefeller moula influence his research? What are the Rockefellers getting out of this? Are they simply interested in crop circles like everyone else, and want to help investigate?
Would that not be a fair question to ask of Mr. Andrews? I'm just sayin...
2) Disclosure disclosure disclosure, everywhere we turn we see that disclosure *must happen*, and it *must happen now*!!! Well, besides my old question asking why demand that kind of information from the very ones who constantly lie through their teeth, and apply deep mind control on their populations, there is this funding thing again. The Rockefeller Foundation is again *very* deeply involved in this, they are actually the ones who started the official disclosure movement in the first place back in '93 I believe it was.
http://www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/main.html
So if you have the chance to interview say a Bruce Maccabee, a Steven Greer or a Richard Boylin, (even Colin Andrews again LOL), shouldn't this also be up for discussion? It never is though is it? Are the Rockefellers simply just trying to lend us the old helping hand here yet again? Sure would be nice to at least hear the matter thoroughly discussed in an open and public setting, but me no thinky that's to be permitted...
I could go on and on here, but that's enough of stepping on toes for now. Let me just finish with this: When someone who has something important to hide is approached by a true journalist, it should strike fear in their hearts. When someone who has *nothing* to hide is approached by a true journalist, it should be a welcome occasion.
As an addendum, just because someone has said one thing here and another thing there over time, doesn't at all (necessarily) dictate that malfeasance is in the offing. You know what? I'll be the guinee pig for this one. If for whatever oddball reason a true journalist wanted to interview me, it wouldn't take them a New York minute to find my many extreme contradictions in web forum posts. Heck, just go back 1 year to what I was saying over at PA/ULTRA, and it is blatant that I was saying one thing then, and something radically different now.
But see I have nothing to hide though, so I would welcome any and all questions if my credibility were in doubt because of that. Vet away dear reporter, and I'll answer them all to the best of my ability. Here is one thing the reporter should ask at some point, if they were worth their salt at their craft: "So Fred, why do your posts from even a year ago suggest they may as well be from a whole different person. I find that interesting, and also rather shocking. I think our viewers may be scratching their heads wondering about that as well. Would you please explain what's going on here?" Simple and straight forward answer, I *was* a different person 1 year ago. Things have changed, and I'll be more than happy to lay it out for you how, why, and where the turning point was. How simple is that?
Now if I were getting let's say, some shady funding, trying to become another run of the mill internet guru, spreading disinformation, or trying to start a cult for just a few examples, I would not give this interview, not with a *true* journalist anyway. They would nail my hide to the wall in no time flat, as they well should. But see herein lays the rest of the problem (as I see it). I wouldn't have to sweat that, because I don't see any, or at least many true journalists out there in AM to be concerned about. Like taking candy from a baby.
Cheers
Reply With Quote
Originally posted by Fred Steeves
Bookmarks