Harold Holt's murder [external link]
Pleiadian Wisdoms on "Neutralizing Negativity"
When millions of people focus their attention upon listening to the same words, seeing the same pictures, and hearing the same descriptions, tremendous energy is generated and a massive thought-form is created. Thoughtforms are vibrational blueprints that hold instructions for manifesting reality. The media captures your attention and then programs your imagination, essentially canceling out your unique creative drive to manifest your own reality as well as your desire to know yourself. You have been conditioned to believe that all you need to know can be found in the wonderful world of electronic boxes, and the information and the entertainment they hold.
Council of Foreign Relations - Serving Illuminati
All that took time of course; but today our "weeklies," published by patriotic organizations, is completely controlled by CFR stooges and thus they finally succeeded in breaking us up into a nation of quarreling, wrangling, squabbling, hating factions. Now if you still wonder about this slanted news and outright lies you read in your newspaper; you now have the answer.
Who owns the media?
Reality and Spin in the Media
SETTING THE TERROR TRAP
of Mass Deception
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple
hundred dollars a month." CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham,
editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to
peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by
Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)
This is an insidious lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.
In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit is the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status.
This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of Mockingbird.
"By the early 1950s," writes former Village Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early Mockingbird influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times).
Activists curious about the workings of Mockingbird have since been appalled to find in FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field.
Hubert von Blucher
Moses and Walter Annenberg
Mob control of studios
In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the
CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA
employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of
disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a
year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters,
UPI and the AP news syndicates.
For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Now here's a dandy example of the kind of thing that never makes it to the front page or the top of the news broadcast, but that affects absolutely everyone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) led by Michael ("my religion is the market") Powell, is fixing to remove the last remaining barriers against concentration of media.
This means one company can own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area. Presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets. Bill Kovach, of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, and Tom Rosenstiel, of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, say these are the most sweeping changes in the rules that govern ownership of American media since the 1940s. The ownership rules were put in place after we had seen how totalitarian governments use domination of the media to goad their countries into war.
We already know what happens when the free market zealots remove restrictions on ownership. In 1996, the FCC eliminated its rules on radio ownership. Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations around the country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, and there are 30 percent fewer station owners than there were before 1996. The result is less local news and local programming, since the formats are programmed at headquarters. Clear Channel owns as many as six or seven stations in a market, broadcasting generic country, generic pop, generic oldies, etc.
The fearless investigative television journalism we have all come to expect (an hour-long special on Michael Jackson's face in the works) will not be improved by this move. The FCC is doing this in an almost covert way. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps reports that only under pressure did the commission agree to hold one lone public hearing on it, in Richmond, Va.
A coalition of consumer and media advocacy groups presented a 140-page filing that shows joint ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets fails to meet the constitutional requirement, set out by the Supreme Court in 1945, that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people."
In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. That same year, Congress put the Fairness Doctrine into law, but Reagan vetoed it with this memorable rationalization, "The Fairness Doctrine is inconsistent with the tradition of independent journalism." The Fairness Doctrine had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1969 decision that viewed the airwaves as a "public trust" and said fairness required the public trust to accurately reflect opposing views. In a 1986, the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals in a 2-to-1 decision upheld a new FCC rule refusing to apply the Fairness Doctrine to television text. The two prevailing judges were Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.
Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Ore., did a report for the newspaper there last year on the prevalence of right-wing hosts on radio talk shows. "The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else." Monks notes the irony that many of these right-wing hosts spend much of their time complaining about "the liberal media."
On the two Eugene talk stations, Monks found: "There are 80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective. ... Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it."
To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations. What is so perfectly loony about the FCC's proposal to unleash yet another round of media concentration is that it is being done in the name of "the free market."
Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance? The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.
Persuasion works best when it's invisible. The most effective marketing worms its way into our consciousness, leaving intact the perception that we have reached our opinions and made our choices independently. As old as humankind itself, over the past few years this approach has been refined, with the help of the internet, into a technique called "viral marketing". Last month, the viruses appear to have murdered their host. One of the world's foremost scientific journals was persuaded to do something it had never done before, and retract a paper it had published.
While, in the past, companies have created fake citizens' groups to campaign in favour of trashing forests or polluting rivers, now they create fake citizens. Messages purporting to come from disinterested punters are planted on listservers at critical moments, disseminating misleading information in the hope of recruiting real people to the cause. Detective work by the campaigner Jonathan Matthews and the freelance journalist Andy Rowell shows how a PR firm contracted to the biotech company Monsanto appears to have played a crucial but invisible role in shaping scientific discourse.
Monsanto knows better than any other corporation the costs of visibility. Its clumsy attempts, in 1997, to persuade people that they wanted to eat GM food all but destroyed the market for its crops. Determined never to make that mistake again, it has engaged the services of a firm which knows how to persuade without being seen to persuade. The Bivings Group specialises in internet lobbying.
An article on its website entitled 'Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World', warns that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved... it simply is not an intelligent PR move. In cases such as this, it is important to first 'listen' to what is being said online... Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party... Perhaps the greatest advantage of viral marketing is that your message is placed into a context where it is more likely to be considered seriously." A senior executive from Monsanto is quoted on the Bivings site thanking the PR firm for its "outstanding work".
On November 29 last year, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across vast distances, by GM pollen. The paper was a disaster for the biotech companies seeking to persuade Mexico, Brazil and the European Union to lift their embargos on GM crops.
Even before publication, the researchers knew their work was hazardous. One of them, Ignacio Chapela, was approached by the director of a Mexican corporation, who first offered him a glittering research post if he withheld his paper, then told him that he knew where to find his children. In the US, Chapela's opponents have chosen a different form of assassination.
On the day the paper was published, messages started to appear on a biotechnology listserver used by more than 3,000 scientists, called AgBioWorld. The first came from a correspondent named "Mary Murphy". Chapela is on the board of directors of the Pesticide Action Network, and therefore, she claimed, "not exactly what you'd call an unbiased writer". Her posting was followed by a message from an "Andura Smetacek", claiming, falsely, that Chapela's paper had not been peer-reviewed, that he was "first and foremost an activist" and that the research had been published in collusion with environmentalists. The next day, another email from "Smetacek" asked "how much money does Chapela take in speaking fees, travel reimbursements and other donations... for his help in misleading fear-based marketing campaigns?"
The messages from Murphy and Smetacek stimulated hundreds of others, some of which repeated or embellished the accusations they had made. Senior biotechnologists called for Chapela to be sacked from Berkeley. AgBioWorld launched a petition pointing to the paper's "fundamental flaws".
There do appear to be methodological problems with the research Chapela and his colleague David Quist had published, but this is hardly unprecedented in a scientific journal. All science is, and should be, subject to challenge and disproof. But in this case the pressure on Nature was so severe that its editor did something unparalleled in its 133-year history: last month he published, alongside two papers challenging Quist and Chapela's, a retraction in which he wrote that their research should never have been published.
So the campaign against the researchers was extraordinarily successful; but who precisely started it? Who are "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek"?
Both claim to be ordinary citizens, without any corporate links. The Bivings Group says it has "no knowledge of them". "Mary Murphy" uses a hotmail account for posting messages to AgBioWorld. But a message satirising the opponents of biotech, sent by "Mary Murphy" from the same hotmail account to another server two years ago, contains the identification bw6.bivwood.com. Bivwood.com is the property of Bivings Woodell, which is part of the Bivings Group.
When I wrote to her to ask whether she was employed by Bivings and whether Mary Murphy was her real name, she replied that she had "no ties to industry". But she refused to answer my questions on the grounds that "I can see by your articles that you made your mind up long ago about biotech". The interesting thing about this response is that my message to her did not mention biotechnology. I told her only that I was researching an article about internet lobbying.
Smetacek has, on different occasions, given her address as "London" and "New York". But the electoral rolls, telephone directories and credit card records in both London and the entire US reveal no "Andura Smetacek". Her name appears only on AgBioWorld and a few other listservers, on which she has posted scores of messages falsely accusing groups such as Greenpeace of terrorism. My letters to her have elicited no response. But a clue to her possible identity is suggested by her constant promotion of "the Centre For Food and Agricultural Research". The centre appears not to exist, except as a website, which repeatedly accuses greens of plotting violence. Cffar.org is registered to someone called Manuel Theodorov. Manuel Theodorov is the "director of associations" at Bivings Woodell.
Even the website on which the campaign against the paper in Nature was launched has attracted suspicion. Its moderator, the biotech enthusiast Professor CS Prakash, claims to have no connection to the Bivings Group. But when Jonathan Matthews was searching the site's archives he received the following error message: "can't connect to MySQL server on apollo.bivings.com". Apollo.bivings.com is the main server of the Bivings Group.
"Sometimes," Bivings boasts, "we win awards. Sometimes only the client knows the precise role we played." Sometimes, in other words, real people have no idea that they are being managed by fake ones.
The fourth method of news suppression
Catherine Austin Fitts talks about methods used to keep a real story
Here are the three most common ways that the "news" media makes
information safe for Corporate America (the actual rulers of the country):
Dutch CIA-agent turns
A Dutch forum propagandist by the appropriate name of Eddy_Smith has responded to his personal moral qualms by announcing the end of his service. He is no longer ready to assume his lying, distorting and ridiculing function as a CIA-paid propagandist.
Eddy_Smith (real name unknown) has been doing his work on the readers' forum of Belgian weekly magazine "Knack" for over two years. As one of the several propagandists working there, his task was to discredit any contributions that did not fall into place with the Bush agenda. This ranges from ridiculing alternative views on 9/11 up to prevention of public inquiries into the CIA's work in Belgium. In short, he was a spook, a spy, an agent in disguise of a genuine internaut, like so many others who have infiltrated the worldwide web since Bush Sr. took over the CIA in 2000. Ever since he joined the forum, Eddy was suspected to be working on behalf of the CIA , and I know several others are still performing the same duties, there and on so many other forums on the www.
However, Eddy_Smith developed a conscience. He says he is not ready to perform this lying and deceiving effort any longer, by a grown preoccupation with the world's future under this totalitarian CIA government. In the same declaration, his insider information comes out: "Bush is a puppet controlled by big money.(...) Not only by big money, but also by certain individuals (World Destroyers). (...) My whole life I have admired science. I think it's wonderful that ESA has detected water on Mars. It's a sign that we are not alone in the universe. I remember the sounds of the first landing on the Moon. I was there watching it live on TV in the night of the 20th on the 21st of July 1969. (...) It was a nice time, but behind many nice things hide dark realities. Werner Von Braun was project leader. The United States took him from Germany, together with his V2s. Stolen knowledge. I always thought the Germans were the brain behind all crimes, the murder of so many millions of innocent Jews. That's mainly correct. But IBM and the Rockefellers have equally interfered.
From punch card to eugenetics. IBM has been located in Germany since 1922. The enterprise was called Dehomag and in 1934 the director held a speech to high-ranking Nazis in which he promised them to put all characteristics from populations on small cards. Dehomag gave the Nazis punching card machines called 'Holleriths' which were used to register Jews. Even before the Nazis took power scientists were developing methods to promote the white race. The Rockefeller foundation was funding German eugenetic research in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and the American quest for the perfect race in Cold Harbor Springs [New York]. IBM's role is a scandal! On 9/11 the most disgraceful event in human history took place.
The CIA, FBI, the Rockefeller foundation together with some extremist Jesuit and Christian groups, staged the attack on the World Trade Center complex. Bush was informed and initially didn't even react. He knew everything, showed no compassion with the innocent victims and their families. He only did so when advised. Israel and the Rockefellers were the brain, and the CIA had to make sure everything went smoothly. But they failed! They were regular family men, not trained by Mossad! Explosives were put to the WTC tower structures and were indeed used on them. (Why? The US and Israel want to get power over the whole world.)
Only one president in the US dared to go against this. (JF-Kennedy). They wanted to stage an attack by Cuba on the United States, more precisely on the American fleet, but Kennedy resisted it. He had to pay with his life, killed in cold blood by the CIA. (...) As far as countries like Syria, Iran etc, they will be the next point on Bush' agenda. It's too early. Iraq was most logical. As there were no prohibited weapons (which was known in advance), in the year 2005 Bush will challenge and attack these countries and others of which I don't know. You think Bush won't be re-elected?
Then the next president will HAVE to obey the CIA, or he won't live through 3 days. Saudi-Arabia is already COMPLETELY in the hands of the US, with the help of, guess who, bin Laden. I'm afraid for our political and ecological future. We live on a time bomb. The next step will be another staged attack on an American city. The only way to give Bush the presidency in November 2004. But it's too soon for that, this will happen in autumn.(...) Those who wish to ridicule me, with pleasure; observe, investigate, and draw your own conclusions! I made a fool of my SELF for more than a year.(...)
Best regards Eddy Smith"
For Those Who Care About Our Future
*** Paper – Into the Buzzsaw, 10-Page and 2-page Summary
Website – Project Censored
Article – U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations Personnel Worked at CNN
The US media: a critical component of the conspiracy against democratic
Part 3 - Television personnel: money matters
Part 4 - Television personnel: a few profiles
Part 5 - Media ownership and concentration
Part 6 - Who is the Wall Street Journal's Robert Bartley?
Part 7 - Conclusions about the media in general, the liberal press in particular http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/med7-j13.shtml