on Oct. 29, 2011 :
This ebook is an interesting case study in paranoia, propaganda and conspiracy theorising. It is also sometimes unintentionally very funny.
A lot of what you will find here will not be unfamiliar to conspiracy theory fans - Masons, Knights Templar, 9/11, The New World Order, global warming, vaccinations, fluoridation, microchips, surveillance, etc., etc. Now I don't want to be dismissive about these things. There is no doubt there have always been power elites and that this is a bad thing. Hierarchical power structures always lead to corruption at the top and disempowerment at the bottom. This is just as true in democratic countries which allow a choice only between two similar leaders, and in which the economic wealth (and thus power) is concentrated in the hands of a few, as it is when hierarchical religious organisations dictate people's dress and sexual and other behaviour. And some people have raised difficult to answer questions about aspects of what happened on 9/11 and the political changes which it ushered in in the U.S., but, if you want to examine this from an intelligent perspective, read Michael Ruppert, not Mr. O'Moss (I'm assuming that is the name of the author of this book since it says 'written by A. N. O'Moss' even though he claims to have signed it anonymously to protect his safety from the Satanic conspirators), who believes that the passengers aboard the "real" United 93 were murdered or are being kept prisoner somewhere.
O'Moss probably believes everything in this book, but intentionally or not he uses one of the prime techniques of every good propagandist, and that is to mix truth with conjecture and lies. If the author includes accounts of real events about which the reader will be rightfully outraged and then follows them with unsupported generalisations, the reader may be caught up in the general flow instead of being sceptical and asking for evidence. And O'Moss makes loads of accusations in this book for which he provides not a shred of evidence.
One of the problems with grand conspiracy theories is that they require one to believe that diverse groups of people are all networking secretly and have agreed to cooperate on some big joint enterprise. That rich people use their political power to make things easier for rich people doesn't require a conspiracy. That's just common selfish human behaviour. But for them to be organising the formation of an Orwellian society devoted to blood sacrifices to Satan would require more selflessness (i.e. willingness to cooperate for what they perceive to be their common "good") than humans generally show.
An example of how misleading this book can be is that, next to a discussion of a proposed "brain chip", it shows an illustration from a blog which shows a diagram of a computer that would plug straight into the brain, it has the Apple logo and says "iThink". I did a Google search to find this illustration on the net. It was a parody someone did for their blog. But O'Moss says "the new IThink computer that Apple is looking to launch…"
Because he believes that swine flu was engineered as a pretext to inject us with computer chips, he presents it as sinister that Bill Gates has expressed an enthusiasm for vaccination. If he lived in a country with cholera or dengue fever he might not be so quick to jump to conclusions that Gates' concern is anything other than humanitarian.
Of Hollywood, O'Moss says : "Ideas seen on television and in movies allow your mind to become familiar with these alien concepts, so when similar situations do manifest in real life, you are more inclined to accept them as your subconscious has already accepted it in a certain form, as you have seen or experienced it before. One example that springs to mind is that of 'society' accepting homosexuality. Just think 20 years ago, there is no way an individual who was homosexual would have come out of the closet and admitted as much on television, but today by using subliminal messages and setting up homosexuals as heroes and 'good guys' in works of fiction, the idea has subconsciously been accepted and welcomed in society today."
Now, first of all, anyone who is familiar with the change which has taken place in attitudes towards homosexuality in the media will realise that this has not been imposed top-down by the powerful in society, but, rather, began with relatively powerless outsiders who were opposed by the powerful. It is rather hard to imagine Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burroughs, Quentin Crisp, John Waters and Kenneth Anger, for example, as working for "the man". Like so much else in our society, the media is not driven by some hidden conspiracy, but by the pursuit of money. Television stations would happily program nothing but religious programming if that was what the public would watch and thus be a profitable form of programming in which to sell advertising spots. But most people don't like being preached at and would rather watch sex and violence. I know I do. Now O'Moss may not like this because it make people less interested in reading the Bible. But what would be the answer? Only tight centralised control of what could be shown on television. It seems that it is not the idea of society being controlled by a propagandising elite which he objects to. He just wants it to be his elite.
You'll find astonishing examples of flat-out ignorance like this :
"In ancient Greece, Plato was in control of the culture department (industry), everything he planned and showed the people was based on the idea of 'Monkey see, Monkey do'. Plato understood the mind of the people and he understood how it worked. This is why he used to actively plan and force the masses (including the slaves) to attend the plays held at the local amphitheatres. The plays were much like the films and television programmes of today, with influential heroes and heroines that the population can emulate and therefore remain under contol." Huh? Plato was an author whose works consisted of philosophical dialogues between the philosopher Socrates and his pupils. Far from being a member of the authoritative structure of his day, Socrates was viewed as a threat to that structure because he encouraged young people to think independently, critically and logically, and so Socrates was put to death. But it may be illustrative that O'Moss presents Plato as a villain, because he was a promoter of logic and open-mindedness. While O'Moss claims to be opposed to the brain-washing influence of television and movies, it appears that it is only because this brainwashing is (he feels) undermining religious brainwashing. True independent and logical thought is not something he appears to support.
And this is how paranoia works. Paranoia is the projection onto the world around us of our own disowned self. Unable to admit that his religious beliefs are an oppressive dogma, O'Moss looks at television and movies and sees them as one monstrous Satanic monolithic dogma threatening to crush all he believes in.
Surveillance is another question on which the idea of a global conspiracy falls down. It is certainly a worry that more surveillance is going on and that technology makes it easier. But, if we are going to be watched for every minute of every day, there have to be almost as many watchers as watched. The idea of centralised control can seem scary if you feel you will be one of the ones being controlled. But if you try to imagine having the job of controlling everyone you'll see that that would be even more scary, because you couldn't do it. You'd have a nervous breakdown the first day on the job.
"Have you also noticed that whenever there is a debate between a religious person and a non-religious person, the religious person can hardly ever speak the language well, or they do not know how to argue? I would volunteer my services to argue against any person and guarantee that I would bury them eloquently and succinctly. The only reason for this is that I have truth on my side!"
The reason for this is that religious individuals are usually arguing from inflexible and unaccountable dogma, rather than using logical argument based on documented facts. Logic and reliable information confer fluency. The author's offer seems an unwise one given the ignorance and illogicality demonstrated so often in his book.
Here is an example of his illogicality : "There was a case in America where a democratic congressman mocked the idea of talking to God, and even referred to him as She. The media made a complete joke of it, but because he received a lot of criticism from the people he later apologised. Any religious person can tell you that God is genderless." If God is genderless, why has O'Moss referred to "him" rather than "it"? The Judeo-Christian religions imply that God is male, otherwise why say "Father".
There is even a diagram in this book which the author borrowed from somewhere else which shows "Religion" as one of the streams in "The Pyramid of Manipulation", but he says "I must point out that in this pyramid (above) the tab that says religion only applies to totalitarian systems such as communism, not religions as we understand the term." Yeah, pull the other one. The creator of the diagram clearly had a better grasp on the truth, but O'Moss was just too lazy to draw his own diagram.
Some other juicy tidbits : the I-Pod is the Anti-Christ & crude oil is not a fossil fuel but a self-regenerating lubricant for the earth's tectonic plates.
I don't think the author needs to worry about the ruling elite trying to bump him off. With swelling public resistance to the power structure, as manifested by the "occupy" movement in the west and the revolutions in the Middle East, nutty conspiracy theorists like O'Moss and David Icke who are claiming that corrupt government figures and corporate leaders are Satanists planning to come out at the London Olympics (O'Moss) or are reptilian aliens (Icke), are just what those individuals need to provide a "nutcase brush" with which to tar all nay-sayers.
Of course the author will probably say that I'm a part of the conspiracy because I'm a fan of William Blake (whom he claims was a Freemason - something which has always been disputed), the Rolling Stones and movies with lots of homosexuals in them. But the Satanic Freemason's never invite me to their parties.
(reviewed the day of purchase)