Non-Mainstream News English

Non-Mainstream News German

Non-Mainstream News Spanish

Non-Mainstream News French

Friday, June 11, 2010

Wie die Medien Bilderberg verschweigen

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2010/06/wie-die-medien-bilderberg-verschweigen.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SchallUndRauch+%28Schall+und+Rauch%29


Donnerstag, 10. Juni 2010

Wie die Medien Bilderberg verschweigen

Ja, es haben einige wenige Mainstreammedien berichtet, Bilderberg findet statt, mehr nicht, die kann man aber an einer Hand abzählen. Die Masse hat es verschwiegen und über Bilderberg und wer dort war hat praktisch keiner was erzählt. Warum? Deshalb, weil die Nachrichtenagenturen nichts darüber gebracht haben und wenn die Nachrichtenpipeline nicht mit so einer Meldung gefüttert wird, dann kommt auch am anderen Ende bei den Zeitungen und Fernsehsendern nichts auf dem Ticker raus.

Die vielen Medien werden ja nicht dauernd direkt kontrolliert, sondern man muss nur die wenigen Nachrichtenagenturen als Quelle unter Kontrolle haben und schon klappt es mit der Zensur.

Dazu kommt noch, von den ca. 1'200 Meldungen die pro Tag von den Agenturen reinkommen, werden nur 25 bis 30 dann tatsächlich verwendet. Da findet nochmal eine Auslese statt. Was wir lesen, hören und sehen ist nur ein winziger Bruchteil von dem was wirklich passiert.

Die Medien betreiben Copy & Paste Journalismus, kopieren nur was über die Agenturen reinkommt in ihre Blätter und vermelden es. Wenn nichts kommt, dann können sie auch nichts melden. Eigene Recherche betreiben sie ja schon lange nicht mehr. Von keinem grossem TV-Sender oder Zeitung ausserhalb Spaniens war ein Reporter in Sitges anwesend, ausser Charley Skelton im Auftrag des Guardian und jemand von Russia Today.

Warum war zum Beispiel niemand aus Holland da, wenn ihre Königin aber dort war? Ich meine, wenn sie sonst irgendwo auftaucht, würden hundert Paparazzi sie belagern und für die Boulevardpresse Fotos schiessen. Aber hier kein einziger. Die Abwesenheit der Medien muss doch extra so befohlen sein.

Hier ein Bildschirmausschnitt der Suchanfrage bei den Nachrichtenagenturen Reuters und bei AP mit dem Stichwort "Bilderberg". Was für eine Überraschung, es gibt keine Artikel von ihnen darüber ... nichts!!!

Reuters - "No results were found"
AP - "There were no matches for your search"

Monday, June 7, 2010

Illuminati Symbolism In Movies

Illuminati Symbolism In Movies (NEW VERSION - MUST SEE ALL OF VIDEO!) - High Definition FarhanK501

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBKDZhu-EZw&feature=player_embedded#!

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Die offiziellen Lügen und der real existierende Journalismus

http://duckhome.de/tb/archives/8081-Die-offiziellen-Luegen-und-der-real-existierende-Journalismus.html_1275545718

Die offiziellen Lügen und der real existierende Journalismus
Geschrieben von Jochen Hoff
Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010

Dank Horst Köhler wissen die Deutschen nun, dass sie Krieg führen müssen um dem Großkapital die Handelswege und die Rohstoffquellen zu schützen. Damit ist eine der vielen offiziellen Lügen geplatzt, denn bisher waren die deutschen Soldaten in Afghanistan ja zur Bekämpfung des Terrors, zur Schaffung von Mädchenschulen da, und nicht um für die USA und das deutsche Großkapital Wege für Pipelines und Rohstofflager freizukämpfen. Aber das sind ja nur die ganz großen Lügen.

Tatsächlich vergeht kaum ein Tag an dem den deutschen Bürgern nicht frech ins Gesicht gelogen wird. Die Lügner von der Arbeitsagentur melden für den Mai 2010 sensationell niedrige Arbeitslosigkeit. Die besten Zahlen seit 18 Jahren. Das wäre schön. Tatsächlich ist es nur eine Lüge. Denn es wurden im Vergleich zum Vorjahr 140.000 Vollzeitstellen abgebaut und dafür 190.000 Teilzeitstellen geschaffen. Die Arbeitslosigkeit hat also zugenommen.


Denn die Menschen wollen keine prekären Teilzeitarbeitsplätze, die zudem aufgrund des betrügerisch geringen Lohns oft noch mit Hartz IV aufgestockt werden müssen, sondern Arbeit in Vollzeit bei ehrlicher und gerechter Bezahlung. Aber Herr Alt von der Arbeitsagentur will ja nicht die Wahrheit verkünden, sondern lieber seine Lügen. Das gibt ihm und dem politischen Dreck doch die Möglichkeit, die Arbeitslosen weiter zu drangsalieren, obwohl es keine Stellen gibt.

Noch schlimmer aber ist das Bundesamt für Statistik, das in jeder Titelzeile seiner Berichte nur so von Erfolgen tropft, wie das Blut aus der Blödzeitung. Da heißt es in der Pressemitteilung Nr.184 vom 25.05.2010 "Aufträge im Bauhauptgewerbe im März 2010: real + 14,9% zum Vorjahr". Erst in der zweiten Zeile steht, dass die Umsätze gegenüber dem Vorjahresvergleichsmonat um 9,3% zurückgegangen sind und 14.000 Menschen ihre Arbeit verloren haben.

In der Pressemitteilung Nr.177 vom 19.05.2010 heißt es "1. Quartal 2010: Abbau der Erwerbstätigkeit verlangsamt sich", was im Klartext heißt, dass die Erwerbstätigkeit weiter abgebaut wird, aber nicht mehr ganz so schnell. Das wird den Menschen die Arbeit verlieren natürlich viel Trost bereiten und ist sicherlich auch Nahrung für ihre Familien.

Die Pressemitteilung Nr.159 vom 04.05.2010 informiert darüber, dass der "Einzelhandelsumsatz im März 2010 real um 2,7% gestiegen" ist. Wie wunderbar. Dummerweise stieg er im ersten Quartal 2010 gegenüber dem Vorjahresquartal nicht und wie man hört, sieht es auch danach mehr als schlecht aus.

Diese Liste könnte man ewig weiterführen. Ständig wird unter einer Jubelüberschrift, die Wahrheit verborgen, die eigentlich das blanke Entsetzen auslösen müsste. Es wird also gelogen und betrogen was das Zeug hält.

In einer Demokratie wäre das normalerweise ungefährlich, da ja die Presse und die Oppositionsparteien sofort die Lügen aufgreifen würden. In Deutschland, das ja nur eine Namensdemokratie ist, gibt es nur die LINKE die immer wieder solche Widersprüche aufgreift, der real existierende deutsche Journalismus scheint nur noch als Jubelperser aufzutreten, die jede Lüge gerne und freudig weiterververbreiten.

Keine Analysen, keine Rückfragen und vor allem keine Kommentare. Denn die deutschen Qualitätsjournalisten werden ja von den gleichen Leuten, vom Großkapital bezahlt, dem solche Jubelmeldungen und Lügen als einzigem nutzen. Mit den tollen Meldungen sollen die Bürger ruhig gehalten werden, damit man sie leichter ausbeuten kann.

Der real existierende deutsche Journalist und in erster Reihe die Damen und Herren des öffentlich unrechten Rundfunks betreibt also nicht Aufklärung, sondern Verschleierung und Betrug. Da macht es keinen Sinn für deren Lobeshymnen auch nur einen Cent zu verschwenden. Erst wenn keiner mehr Printmedien, Gebührenfunk oder Privatsender gegen Geld konsumiert, wird sich da etwas ändern.

Wenn sie kein Geld mehr für ihre Propagandalügen bekommen, hören sie auf zu schreiben.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Media Brainwash

http://punk-rock-goth.tripod.com/id2.html



Media Brainwash



How the media is brainwashing you this second




The media has brainwashed todays Americans into believeing what THEY want you to believe. Whether it be politics, what to buy, or what to wear - the media effects everything you do whether you are aware or not. Even in schools they have you watch some sort of news program about 15-20 minutes long every morning informing you of news around the world.

How many hours of television do you watch a day? Maybe 5 or 6? Well I bet you turn it on the second you walk in the door and it isn't turned off until the second you fall asleep. Thats WAY more than 5 0r 6 hours of television. Thats about 8 or more. Even if you aren't giving the television your full attention you are still listening to it. Whenever you hear something interesting you immediately stop what you're doing and watch. What is that?

The war in Iraq was televised. You saw Iraqi's being bombed. The U.S. winning. You saw what THEY wanted you to see. Saddam as a tyrant compared to Hitler, the U.S. being unsung heroes to the poor people or Iraq. Half those people were happy where they were. They didn't even WANT our help, and yet we go over there and bomb the hell out of them, take their leader, impose a new system of goverment upon them, and change their whole lifestyle. The interview of one happy Iraqi is supposed to express the ENTIRE people? I don't think so.

Everything on television is brainwashing. Your favorite cartoon, and especially commercials. But this, buy that. You know what? Just because this cheese is in a prettier package than this one doesn't mean I'm going to buy it. Just because a more atractive person is eating it doesn't mean its better for you. I buy my food based on what it tastes like. Maybe I'll try something new - but not because I see it on TV. EVer see how if you see it on TV you automatically think it must be good?

Don't even get me started on media's potrayl of beauty. Ever see those models? So unrealistic! 5' 8" (taller than most men) a size 3 (about the size of some teen girls) flat chested (most women have at least SOME chest) and blonde hair blue eyes. How many women really look like that? How many men want a woman like that? Thanks to the media young girls now think thats what they have to be. Ever heard of anorexia and bulimia? If they'd just put some NORMAL looking people on that catwalk you wouldn't have teen girls starving themselves.

Then there's the media's potrayl of 'psychos' and 'weird' people. They flash you the picture of some kid who went on a shooting spree - he looks a little different. Maybe dressed in black? Maybe a nerd or someone who got made fun of? The media blames the shooting on the way he looks. Ever think its the media who tells you that people like that are unproductive and weird? Leading to the low self-esteem and self destruction of a kid who was probaly 10% smarter than you and about 50% more common sense.

So whatever. Turn on the televison. Read a good book. Learn something new. Start up a hobby... why not learn some dead art or fencing or something productive and creative like that? Better yet film your OWN movie, you can be the next brainwasher.

Americans Target Of Largest Media Brainwashing Campaign in History

http://www.rense.com/general15/tr.htm


Americans Target Of Largest Media
Brainwashing Campaign In History
By Lonnie Wolfe
Executive Intelligence Review
www.larouchepub.com
10-16-1

Introduction: Are You Brainwashed?

Are you brainwashed? What about some of your neighbors, are they brainwashed? Before you answer that, let us ask you a few preliminary questions: Do you believe that the United States was struck by a terrorist attack on Sept. 11? Do think that the people behind that attack were "Arabs" and that its "mastermind" was this fellow Osama bin Laden, operating from a cave in Afghanistan? Do you believe that the way to stop terrorism is to hit them hard, to hit them at their "bases" in such places as Afghanistan, and to hit the nations who might sponsor them, like, say Iraq?

And what about the economy? Do you think that the recent fall of the stock market, and the weakness in the economy, have been caused by the Sept. 11 attacks? Well, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you probably are brainwashed! If you answered "yes" to more than one, you are definitely a "goner."

"But," you, reply, "isn't that what most people think? Wouldn't they answer those questions the same way I do? Well, the answer to that is, yes. But, we would remind you: Just because the majority of people might BELIEVE something to be true, doesn't make it true. All it means, is that you and most of your neighbors are suffering from a mass delusion--or, put more bluntly: YOU ARE BRAINWASHED. So, the question is, really, how did you get this way? How did you come to believe things like those statements in the first questions were true? "Well, I heard it on.... Well, I saw it on.... Well, I read it in...."

You needn't bother finishing those statements; we can do it for you: You, and your neighbors were told the "truth" by the mass media. The American "news" media, which is so proud of calling itself "free," and has been patting itself on it back for the wonderful job it has done for all us during and after Sept. 11, is the largest, most expensive, mass-brainwashing machine ever assembled in human history. It is a machine that so completely brainwashes the nearly 300 millions Americans, that the Nazis' infamous Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels would be envious.

Here are the essential facts of what happened on Sept. 11: According to Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, whose assessment is shared by many competent specialists on terrorism and irregular warfare, in this country and around the world, what took place was not a terrorist attack, but strategic, covert special operation, organized to have the appearance of a "terrorist" attack. Mr. LaRouche and others concur that, given both its scope, and the extent of the cover-up and misdirection which followed, such an operation could not have been organized by any Arab terrorist cells or networks, nor by an Arab or Middle Eastern state, nor any combination of the above; it had to be organized from within the United States, with the participation and connivance of a rogue network within the Anglo-American intelligence and military establishment.

As with any such covert special operation, there is a psychological warfare component, intended to maximize its effectiveness against a targetted enemy, to confuse that enemy and misdirect him. In the case of the Sept. 11 attack, the targetted enemy is the POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. The "psywar" component of the operation is being carried out by the American media-machine, with the intent to brainwash the American people INTO ACCEPTING THE ONGOING COUP D'ETAT AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Does that mean that the directors of the U.S. mass media are involved in the operation? No; it doesn't work that way. As EIR explained and documented in a 1997 special report, the U.S. media are controlled and run as a cartel, by the Anglo-American establishment. As such, it routinely serves the interest of that establishment, reporting what it wants, and suppressing what it doesn't want reported; or slanting reporting to conceal reality. Thus, the media's performance before, during and after Sept. 11 could be prediscounted by those who planned the operation, so as to become a feature of it; it were merely required to insert certain specific "psyops" content into this media-brainwashing apparatus, for it to be spread far and wide with the desired effects on you and your neighbors.

The brainwashing methods are relatively simple and classic. First, use the terror itself to put people into a state of shock, making them more susceptible to suggestion. Then resort to the "Big Lie" technique to repeatedly hammer home your psywar message--those affirmative answers to the questions we first asked. And most importantly, lie, by suppressing all counter-evidence, by refusing to report anything that might point to the assessment shared by Mr. LaRouche and others: the cover-up. All this has been done, along with initial softening of the population to the mass delusional suggestion of the enemy image and the alleged capabilities and motivations of the so-called terrorists, PRIOR TO THE LAUNCHING OF THE ATTACK ITSELF.

Don't be so hasty in dismissing the possibility of your own brainwashing. The enemy knows your profile and uses it. Doesn't that make you a bit angry--maybe for the right reasons, for the first time in a few weeks?

Our report below is designed to give you a view from inside this brainwashing process, to see how it has worked on you and your neighbors. And, while we can't yet say who precisely is behind what was done to this country--is still being done--we can show you how they think about brainwashing and use your weaknesses against you.

Psychological Terror as a Means of Warfare: Dresden Redux Before discussing the brainwashing operation itself, we provide a little background on the use of terror against mass civilian populations. Not surprisingly, this was pioneered by the brainwashers of the Anglo-American establishment.

As commentators on the scene at "Ground Zero" of the World Trade Center (WTC) attack on Sept. 11 surveyed the devastation, they reached for metaphors to describe the incredible scene. "It looks like Dresden," said one, referring to the firebombing of that German city by the Allies in 1944.

Dresden had no military value as a target. For centuries, it had been a center of German cultural heritage--a heritage that had everything to do with positive developments in human civilization, and nothing to do with the Nazi disease that had been imposed on Germany by the Anglo-American financial elite. Dresden was chosen for destruction as an act of TERRORISM, directed, not against the Nazis, per se, but the German people.

The firebombing of Dresden, creating a raging inferno of destruction that slaughtered more that 100,000 human beings, was conceived and directed by a group of social psychiatrists at the Strategic Bombing Survey, affiliated with the Special Operations Command of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This group was effectively overseen by the head of the British Psychological Warfare Directorate, Brig. Gen. John Rawlings Rees, the director the Tavistock Clinic in London, which, since the 1920s, had served as a center of psychological warfare operations of the British Empire.

The team at the Strategic Bombing Survey, which included a host of U.S.-based Tavistock operatives, such as Kurt Lewin, Rensis Likert, and Margaret Mead, theorized that the terror inflicted on the German population through the "message of Dresden" would break their will to fight, leaving them fearful, frightened, and disorganized. They projected that it would have a lasting effect on Germany, removing that nation from among the great states of Europe, making it a permanently psychologically scarred entity. The German people, they argued, would be made to realize that "all that is German" could be wiped away, all of its culture and history, in an instant, as it were, by powers who would oppose an assertive future Germany.

In his 1941 book, "Time Perspective and Morale," Kurt Lewin described the psychology behind the use of this terror tactic for mass effect:

"One of the main techniques for breaking morale through a `strategy of terror' consists in exactly this tactic--keep the person hazy as to where he stands and what just he may expect. If, in addition, frequent vacillations between severe disciplinary measures and promises of good treatment, together with the spreading of contradictory news, make the cognitive structure of this situation utterly unclear, then the individual may cease to know when a particular plan would lead toward or away from his goal. Under these conditions, even those individuals who have definite goals and are ready to take risks will be paralyzed with severe inner conflicts in regard to what to do."

As the pilots and their crews came to realize what they had done--the creation of a raging inferno, burning civilian targets and civilians--many returned to their bases horrified. At the instruction of the psyops warriors, the crews had not been fully briefed on the mission. Now, they were greeted by teams of psychologists and others, who would profile their responses to the terror they had unleashed; they were told, as the crews who later dropped, unnecessarily, atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, that it would "shorten the war."

As one former intelligence officer remarked decades later, "we killed for pure terror, slaughtered people as A TERRORIST WOULD. And, it had no effect on shortening the war. In fact, it seemed to help rally the German people to the Hitler government. The fools who designed this mission probably extended the war" (emphasis added).

The attack on the U.S. Sept. 11, in particular the WTC attack, was designed for a similar PSYWAR brainwashing effect.

The Sept. 24 issue of "The New Yorker," commented that, according to "defense experts," the Sept. 11 strike "was clearly an example of what military strategists call `psyops'; that is, a brand of warfare whose aim is not to disable military targets, but to sap the overall will of a nation and its people."

The article goes on to quote from a 1999 paper by military strategist and analyst Joseph Cyrulik of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., "Asymmetric Warfare and the Threat to the American Homeland": "By killing and wounding people, damaging and destroying their homes and communities, disrupting their jobs and economic livelihoods, and undermining their confidence and sense of security, an enemy can inflict pain to the point that people demand a change in their government's policies.

"Used at the right time and place ... an attack could destroy the people's faith in their government, their military, and themselves. It could become a decisive attack against the political will of an entire populace."

Cyrulik is part of a network of "thinkers" who seek to change all military doctrine to meet alleged 21st Century threats; in so doing, this network wants to activate psyops, including "covert warfare" such as assassinations. While we can't say that such people are directly responsible for what occurred on Sept. 11, their assumptions about strategy, tactics, and the elevated value of psychological warfare, as well as the misdirection involved in their ascribing powers to "terrorist organizations" or "rogue states" fit nicely into the overall operation.

There are new methods, not available at the time of the Dresden attack, for maximizing the psychological effects of a TERROR CAMPAIGN that parallel standard brainwashing techniques. One involves the repetition of terrifying images, the kind that would make a person recoil, and then compelling that person to continue viewing them. Such terrifying images weaken the ability of the mind to reason, making it more susceptible to suggestion and manipulation.

In the hours following the attack on the World Trade Center, every television media outlet in the United States broadcast, again and again, the images of the airplanes smashing into the Twin Towers, from all conceivable angles, and then, the shots of the two towers collapsing. It was easily the most terrifying real-life image that most Americans had ever seen.

A population induced into a state of terror and shock was then bombarded with SUGGESTION: images started to appear, the mugshot-like photos of the alleged perpetrators, and the image of the "evil mastermind" behind the deed, Osama bin Laden.

And, you still believe that you weren't brainwashed?

The Movies in Our Heads "God, this is just like a movie," exclaimed CBS anchor Dan Rather as the first of the World Trade Center towers collapsed. "Only, it's the real thing." Did you have the sense, as you were witnessing the horror of the WTC attack, that you, too, had seen this before? You probably had--and that is part of the brainwashing operation.

In the last five years, there have been at least a half-dozen movies, whose plots have centered on a terrorist attack on the United States. Hollywood statisticians have estimated that these have been viewed, both in movie theaters and home videos, by more than 100 million people. And, many of these movies, in the recent period, have portrayed "Arabs" or "Islamic fundamentalists" as being behind the terrorist assaults.

Each of these latter films has some "expert" advisor, usually a "former counterterrorism expert" and, in some cases, someone who has worked in the military. While it would be a leap to say that the movie-production companies or the "experts" are necessarily witting accomplices in the current plot, the movies, with their "steered" scripts helped people believe that "Arab" terrorists might be capable of what was done on Sept. 11.

Long before there was television, images were placed, for "playback" in America's memory banks--first by the print media, and then, starting early in the 20th Century with the first of the real mass media, the movies. Hollywood is a component of the Anglo-American media cartel, a point made more obvious by recent creation of "entertainment conglomerates" through mergers and acquisitions. Thus, a mere handful of companies, with interlocking boards, comprised of people within the Anglo-American establishment, controls all of what we see in the multiplexes, on television, in the print media, and, more lately, on the Internet.

As movies were becoming a truly mass-media phenomenon, the Anglo-American commentator Walter Lippmann described their power, along with the popwer of media generally, in shaping "public opinion"--what you and your neighbors think. In his 1921 "handbook" on the mass manipulation of the public mind, "Public Opinion", Lippmann, who had been trained by Rees, among others, at the British propaganda directorate during World War|I, writes in his introductory chapter, "The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads":

"Public opinion deals with indirect, unseen, and puzzling facts, and there is nothing obvious about them.... The pictures inside the heads of these human beings, the pictures of themselves, of others, of their needs, purposes and relationships, are their opinions. Those pictures acted on by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups, are Public Opinion with capital letters.... The picture inside [the head] so often misleads men in their dealings with the world outside."

Somewhere in your memory banks, were planted the "pictures in your head" of the WTC attack. New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane writes in the magazine's Sept. 24 issue, "How often have we listened to these words [since Sept. 11]. The statement of fact: `The worst terrorist bombing since Oklahoma City.' The promise: `Make no mistake about it--we will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy.' The caution: `You can't fight a war against an enemy you can't see.' And the ominous look ahead: `This is a time of war; the fact that it is inside our border means that it is a new kind of war.' We have learned such sentiments like a script; that we have heard it again and again [in the days since Sept. 11] has not diminished the sternness with which we have given our assent.

"Just one problem: it IS a script. All the lines quoted come from `The Siege,' a 1998 thriller directed by Edward Zwick."

The plot of that movie involves a network of "Arab" terrorist cells, which commit acts of increasingly violent intensity, against civilian targets in New York City. Video clips of President Clinton commenting on the attacks launched, by his administration, against the networks of Osama bin Laden are spliced into the movie footage. As the terrorists wreak more havoc and kill more people, New York City is placed under martial law; anyone who looks "Arab" is rounded up and placed in internment camps, even as the violence continues.

In the end, the movie becomes a sermon on how to moderate attacks on the Constitution, and on ethnic profiling of Americans, while the nation goes on to fight the foreign, "Arab"-terrorist enemy.

When "The Siege" opened in November 1999, it was greeted with protests from the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, who charged that it "portrays Arabs and Muslims as an homogeneous, threatening mass," and labelled the film, produced by Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox, "dangerous and incendiary."

Despite such protests, and relatively poor reviews, the movie sold several score millions of dollars worth of tickets and has done well in its video release. In remarking how successful the movie-brainwashing effort has been, Lane noted, in the "New Yorker," that the majority of Americans reacted to those events with the same kind of unreasoned emotion that they express at the multiplex or in the home theaters:

"And the exclamations from below, from the watchers of the skies caught on video, as they see the aircraft slice into the side of the tower: where have you heard those expressions most recently--the wows, the whoohs, the `holy shits'--if not in the movie theaters, and even on your own blaspheming tongue." Hollywood, through films like the "The Siege" and "Die Hard," writes Lane, has provided a "sensory education ... fed to a hungry public."

In the days following the attack, President Bush's approval rating shot up to above 90%, and stayed there, especially after his nationally televised address of Sept. 13. Following the speech, a CNN commentator observed that President's approval was so high because he was behaving the way Americans expected him to: "Like the President in `Independence Day' [a blockbuster movie about an attack on Washington and the U.S. by aliens] or the guy from the `West Wing' [a popular television show]."

And, you think you haven't been brainwashed?

`Morphing' the Enemy Image Take a close look at the image of Osama bin Laden, as it appears on the television screens, in this time of a new "war." In psyops terms, bin Laden has become the image of the enemy--the picture that a targetted population keeps in mind as the person, or, specifically, the type of person it is fighting. There is the swarthy complexion, the beard, the burnoose, the weapons in hand--it is all there, all as expected, an ideal subject for the projected rage and hatred of an injured nation. No matter that bin Laden is not really the "evil mastermind."

In the days and weeks leading up to the attack, media-watch organizations reported that the major U.S. television news outlets, including the cable networks CNN and Fox News, devoted an inordinate amount of what passes for their "international" coverage, to bin Laden, describing him as a "terrorist mastermind" or "terrorist controller," almost always accompanied by a photo or video clips.

But his creation by the media as "terrorist mastermind" doesn't really begin there. To understand what happened, one needs to look at a nearly 30-year span of news reporting, that led us to this point, where some character, a former and current asset of U.S.-British-Israeli intelligence networks, operating from "caves" and other bases in one of the most remote and isolated areas of the world, has become U.S. "Public Enemy Number One."

Look at the bin Laden enemy image as a morphing process that begins with the television image of the Black September terrorists of the 1972 Olympics. Then, continue to the 1973 images of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat; later, there are the images of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and the fanatic mullahs.

Think of someone in Hollywood central casting, trying to find a person to portray the terrorist archetype, given these past figures and images: An oil-rich, almost mystical clerical type (although he holds no religious position), who looks like a morph of "enemies" Arafat and Khomeini, gets the "part."

The population has also been pre-conditioned to accept the "storyline" that terrorists who would do such things as took place on Sept. 11 MUST BE ARAB AND/OR MUSLIM FANATICS, as thousands of televised hours of misreporting has repeated. Arab organizations in this country report polling results showing that, by a large margin, Americans believe, even without supporting evidence, that any act of terrorism has "Arab" origins and "Arab" perpetrators.

As one intelligence source said this week, within minutes of the World Trade Center attack, Americans had decided that this was done by "Arab terrorists" connected to "terrorist mastermind" bin Laden. "They didn't need to be told to think this," said the source. "They had already been conditioned to believe it." Are such people not "brainwashed?"

We are told that our press is "free." But isn't that a lie? How "free" can it be, if the most important event of our time is lied about, at almost every turn, misreported; if the truth is nowhere to be found among the smorgasbord of news outlets that comprise our glorious, "free press."

In Nazi Germany, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels boasted that the press was free to report whatever it wanted. But, that press was "coordinated" through the operation of a "press trust," that encompassed all media. The Nazis planted stories in the press to suit their ends, and the trust dutifully reported them, with various spins that might give the appearance that not all media were receiving information from the same spigot.

While Americans might find it hard to believe, THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPAGANDA OPERATION OF THE NAZI PRESS TRUST AND THE ANGLO-AMERICAN MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT CARTEL. It is not hard to slant the coverage of any event to suit almost any purpose--as long as that purpose fits the needs of those elites that control the media. All it takes is the planting of a few key items of content, which are then flushed down through the media sewer pipes. Before you know it, the poor citizen is deluged. In a certain sense, the Nazi operation was less insidious, because it was more overt; only fools would fail to realize that they were being fed the "line" by Goebbels and his crew. Here, the appearance of choice, the appearance of a flood of information, confuses the average citizen into believing that he MUST BE GETTING THE TRUTH, FROM SOMEWHERE.

But, even a cursory content analysis of all, or most of our news sources, especially the major television providers, shows that the general content line from all sources is basically the same. This has been the case, for example, in coverage of Lyndon LaRouche and his policies; in the major media, the coverage of LaRouche has followed the line dictated by the late Lazard Freres-linked Katharine Graham of the "Washington Post" to never cover LaRouche, unless it is to slander him. Similarly, the decision to black out the present global depression and financial collapse. While there may be no formal meetings among the controllers of the media cartel, where such policy is laid out, a policy consensus, nonetheless, ruthlessly enforces the content of the "news."

In periods of crisis like the current one, however, some of the controls become more visible; less is left to chance.

It has been reported by some sources, that within a few hours of the Sept. 11 attacks, Executive Orders were issued that put the U.S. media under effective wartime censorship. That is not to say that government auditors of news reporting actually issued orders censoring reports; it is to say that they moved quickly to block any reporting that might have veered away from the official "line."

(There was also coordination on the extent of coverage as well. It was reported that all broadcast media were given the recommendation to cease normal programming in favor of 24-hour coverage of the "Terrorist attack on the United States" and "America at War," as the "ID logos" that appeared on all the networks. It is also reliably reported, that the White House and national security operatives participated in the decision to cancel all major sporting events.

What this translates into, we have been told, is that a muzzle has been placed on government sources, and that all information coming out about the attacks and the investigation, is under top-down control. This is understood by those who control the news reporting of the major media outlets, who have thus submitted to a voluntary censorship.

And you, of course, have managed to understand the truth in this brainwashing environment? As they say, "Give me a break."

Beating the Drums for War There was a brief interval, that morning of Sept. 11, as the great brainwashing machine allowed for the visual impact of the terrorizing message to sink in, before the signal was given for the talking heads to pronounce the name of the enemy.

If it appeared to some that no matter which channel--broadcast or cable--you tuned to in those first hours, you saw the same dozen or so spin doctors, you weren't mistaken: This has been confirmed by various media-watch outfits. For example, one media-watch organization tallied more than a dozen appearances by former CIA Director James Woolsey in the first few days after the attack, each repeating the message about the need to wage war against Iran, Iraq, and anyone else who allegedly sponsored the likes of bin Laden. An only slightly less strident Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) appeared numerous times; we lost count on Henry Kissinger.

As the media-watch group, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) stated, following Sept. 11, any hope that the media would present an unbiased account of what happened, that it might resist the drive for an ill-defined war, went out the window. Instead, FAIR documented how the print and broadcast media issued emotional tirades for war, echoing what they believed to be the sentiment of the American people; in so doing, there were no contrary views presented, and, in effect, Americans still have no clear idea about what happened, or exactly what the Bush Administration is proposing to do to protect them from future terrorist threats.

Look at these following selected examples, which could be amplified by many more:

* Kissinger-clone Larry Eagleburger, appearing on CNN, on the day of the attack: "There is only one way to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them, even if they are not directly involved in this thing."

* The "New York Post", the next day: "The response to this unimaginable 21st-Century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift--kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for the cities or countries of these host worms, bomb them into basketball courts."

* Sept. 14 op-ed in the "Washington Times" by Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow: "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration."

FAIR commentator and media watcher Norman Solomon commented that many of the same people who were now calling for a "war against terrorism" and anyone who might support it (including many of the analysts who were appearing as talking heads and op-ed columnists) were themselves involved in assisting terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, when such efforts were official, if then-secret U.S. policy. "How can a long-time associate of terrorists now be credibly denouncing `terrorism?'" he asks. "It's easy. All that is required is for media coverage to remain in a kind of history-free zone that has no use for facets of reality that are not presently convenient to acknowledge."

One of those "inconvenient facts" was the well-documented involvement of U.S. "special ops" people, and the Zbigniew Brzezinski crowd; then, later, Ollie North and the Bush people, with bin Laden, dating back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which amounted to the biggest "state sponsorship" of terrorism, or at least sponsorship by a then-dominant faction of our government and intelligence community. FAIR and other media-watch groups report that almost no one mentioned these "inconvenient" matters, amidst the vast flow of war propaganda; and if they did, it was only to lie that it was a policy that had long since been abandoned.

Similarly, much attention was given to reports about FBI and other agencies work in putting together the "conspiracy" behind the attack. To this date, no one in the major media outlets of the United States has mentioned that there is even a possibility of involvement of U.S. elements. Instead, the reporting has focussed on a combination of "spade work" on clues and leads, as well as, alleged connections to the bin Laden networks. FAIR remarked on such coverage, saying that the shots of bin Laden and his camps gave the impression that there had been more than circumstantial evidence linking them to attacks. The only proof offered was from "intelligence leaks" coming from the wartime propaganda apparatus created by the Executive Order or from assertions made by the talking heads and other "experts."

The only characteristic, universal to all the coverage, is the cover-up of any possible trail leading to a domestic source for the control of the terrorism.

Is all reporting being so "coordinated and steered?" It is clear that some of the wackos, like Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, a particularly vile character, are simply being given free rein to vent their lunacy.

On Sept. 17, O'Reilly demanded that, if the Taliban do not turn over bin Laden, "the U.S. should bomb Afghan infrastructure to rubble--the airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads....

"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are responsible for the government that they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against their government, they starve, period."

He went to advocate, in that broadcast and others, to make the "Iraqi population suffer another round of intense pain" and to blockade Libya from all food supplies: "Let them eat sand."

As is typical with a "grey psyops" propaganda campaign, the most extreme ravings are played off against those only slightly less lunatic, to make the latter appear sane by comparison. Thus, an O'Reilly makes a Woolsey look like a sober analyst, as he calls for a war to take out governments that support terrorism, and for "careful" and "calculated" escalating response against bin Laden.

To hold people's attention, to keep them on "message," it were necessary to keep them in a highly emotional state. To do this, there was a steady stream of "human interest" stories about the grief of affected victims, about the courage of rescue workers and those who perished, along with shots of grieving citizens. While the courage and grief are real, the constant bombardment of these images is BRAINWASHING CONDITIONING. Without them, you would have, after a few days, turned off CNN and the "news" coverage.

Do you still insist that neither you, nor your neighbors, have been taken in by this?

`Crash? What Crash?' Lost amid the war hysteria, or more precisely "spun" inside of it, is the coverup of what would otherwise be the biggest story of the day: the full-scale crash and blowout of the financial markets. The markets, at last look, had plunged nearly 20% since Wall Street reopened on Sept. 17. A fall that precipitous is normally called a "crash," engendering widespread panic, not only among traders and brokers, but among the general population. But in the two weeks of this crash, not one commentator on a major network has used the term! Moreover, we are told, it is our patriotic duty to have faith in the eventual recovery of both the markets and the economy. "We can't let the terrorists defeat us and bring our economy down," said financial commentator Louis Ruckeyser on his televised "Wall Street Week."

As Lyndon LaRouche has stated, the crash would have occurred anyway, given the bankrupt state of world financial system, even without the Sept. 11 events. However, now the financial analysts who appear on the television news and in the print media are universally blaming most, if not all of what happened, on "Osama bin Laden." This was to be expected, they claim, given what happened on Sept. 11, in what is the biggest "Big Lie" of them all.

As one trader reported, "My God! The bottom has fallen out and nobody calls it a crash. It's like it's your patriotic duty not to mention the word. Hell, the Dow's lost more than 1,500 points--that's a CRASH. But, if I'm overheard saying this, people look at me: `Where's your American flag? Remember who you are and what's going on. Do you want to help Osama bin Laden in his plot to destroy our economy?' Unbelievable!"

But, as like many other media-brainwashed Americans, this trader was, in his words, "going with the program. It's not a crash, it's a terrorist event."

A Clockwork Future? Several nights after the Sept. 11 attacks, CNN flashed images on the screen of National Guard personnel patrolling the streets of Washington, and heavily armed special police in New York City, inspecting cars at a tunnel entrance. Then, images were flashed of Israeli military personnel on the streets of Jerusalem, inspecting cars. The voiceover, by CNN news-witch Greta van Susteren, a regular featured personality of that media sewer, along with Mossad-asset Wolf Blitzer, spoke of America, in response to the "terrorist threat," becoming an increasingly "policed society," where civil liberties had to be sacrificed for the protection of its citizens. We have seen this before, she said, not just in Jerusalem, but in Belfast, Northern Ireland, as a response to "political terrorism" of the IRA and Protestant militia. After a while, people get used to it, she said. "Life goes on." Interviews were presented with Israelis who seemed to concur with the sentiment that, under conditions of "internal war with terrorists," one needs to adjust to sacrifices in civil liberties. "Americans will get used to it, just like we did," the Israeli said.

Thus, the media prepares--or more precisely, conditions--the country to accept a form of police state, justified by a threat that has not really been dealt with, and whose true source has been covered up. Not surprisingly, when Attorney General John Ashcroft, proposed legislation for a sweeping abridgement of civil liberties, it was given relatively short shrift by the same media. FAIR reports that two of the three network news broadcasts never reported it at all; while it was hardly mentioned on CNN or Fox News. The print media, while reporting it, maintained the theme of the "necessary sacrifice" of civil liberties for personal safety and security.

Back in the mid-1970s, Eric Trist and Fred Emery, two leading Tavistock brainwashers and "experts" on the effects of mass media, forecast that, by the end of the century, the United States were likely to become just such a fascist police state.

The two developed a theory of "social turbulence," by which a society is delivered a series of "shocks"--administered as shared, mass phenomena--energy shortages, economic and financial collapse, and TERRORIST attack. If the "shocks" were to come close upon each other, and if they were delivered with increasing intensity, then it were possible to drive the entire society, into a state of mass psychosis, Trist and Emery said. They said that individuals would become disassociated, as they tried to flee from the terror of the shocking, emerging reality; people would withdraw into a state of denial, retreating into popular entertainments and diversions, while being prone to outbursts of rage.

That rage could easily be steered, said the two brainwashers, by those who had access and control over the means of mass communication, most notably television.

It was the view of Trist and Emery, in two works widely circulated among the networks of brainwashers and social psychiatrists associated with Tavistock, and among the psychological-warfare operatives of the U.S. and Britain, that the process of watching television was itself a brainwashing mechanism. They cited their own studies, that regardless of content, habituated television viewing shuts down the cognitive powers of the mind, and has a narcotic-like effect on the central nervous system, making the habituated viewer an easy subject for suggestion and manipulation; in addition, they found that such effectively brainwashed "zombies" would hysterically deny that there was anything wrong with them, or, even, that such manipulation of what they "thought" were possible.

In a chilling metaphor, Trist and Emery proposed that the terrorized, violent society of the Anthony Burgess book, "A Clockwork Orange," made into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, was the logical societal outcome for an America that would, by the end of the century, have been subjected to more than 50 years of mass brainwashing by the "boob tube." Burgess's world is one of perpetual violence and terrorism, as a daily part of life; it is accepted that, if you go out at a certain time, or walk in a certain neighborhood, you will be attacked and/or killed. There is no purpose to the violence--it is random and meaningless, and therefore all the more terrifying. The wealthy are protected; everyone else is told to go about their business with knowledge of the risk.

With terrorist youth gangs roaming the streets, people stay home, watching their televised entertainments, or go only to certain areas, which are heavily protected by police and military. The most sickening thing about Burgess's image is the sense of hopelessness, of inevitability, that nothing can be done about it--it is just "the way it is," as Dan Rather's predecessor as CBS News anchor, Walter Cronkite, used to remind us each night, as he closed his broadcast.

While the Trist-Emery thesis is not exactly required reading in the caves of Afghanistan, it is quite familiar to the psywarriors and brainwashers who have launched a war on the American population. There is a particular kind of oligarchical evil that would think like this, that would see a Clockwork Orange society as a necessary outcome, to protect their continued privilege and power. Are we Americans already so brainwashed that we would allow this to happen? The next weeks and months will determine whether we truly do have the moral fitness to survive.

"The end of the world. Details at 11. Now back to your regular programming."

Remember: The first step in deprogramming yourself from mass-media brainwashing, to freeing yourself and your neighbors, from its evil clutches, is to recognize that you and they are, indeed, brainwashed. It gets a lot easier, and things begin to get much clearer from there on.

Satanism in the Media, Hollywood & the Music Industry

Saturday, May 1, 2010

How To Deceive, Lie And Spread Disinformation: A Guide To The Most Effective Disinformation Tactics

http://www.masternewmedia.org/how-to-deceive-lie-and-spread-disinformation-a-guide/


How To Deceive, Lie And Spread Disinformation: A Guide To The Most Effective Disinformation Tactics


•A potentially dangerous news story may be ignored by mass media. Most people believe that something which has not been reported just does not exist.


•A news story may be presented as a "wild accusation", especially by someone authoritative. People that have a large consensus or cover important positions in politics, economics or the military may leverage their reputation to label a a fact as false and preposterous.


•A big media coverage of an important event may create enough distraction to deviate the attention of people from a real issue.


•A rumor that is neither confirmed or denied may generate confusion and doubts in a large audience.


•An individual or group of people may be forced or payed to provide false information that generate fake news stories.

Now that I have presented you some examples of how disinformation works, let me share with you some practical advice to protect yourself against misleading information:


•Ask: Always ask yourself lots of questions when you hear a news story. Where is the news from? Is it a reliable source? Is somebody else reporting the same story? Question everything and take nothing for granted.


•Verify: Search on the web or discuss with your friends and family any piece of news that comes from media sources. You may discover valuable information that put the entire story under a different light.


•Keep position: Never underestimate your opinions and do not be afraid of authority. Beware "the guy who knows" who puts his credentials on the table. Everyone has the same level of reliability until they prove to be trustworthy.


•Investigate: Be very careful with news stories claimed to be too complex to solve. No analysis of the story has probably been done and you are consuming information which has not been investigated or verified.


•Focus: Do not try to split your attention to multiple news stories. Choose one and stick with it. Then move on. There is always a bigger news story screaming for attention that may distract your investigation.

These above are just some examples to help you think differently and develop a critical attitude towards everyday news you consume. In the contributing article from H. Michael Sweeney you are about to read, you will find a good list of tactics that disinformation artists use to deceive and let you buy into lies and fake news stories.

For those of you who have never heard of Mr. Sweeney, he is a disinformation expert and a book author. He also runs the website The Professional Paranoid which is a good reference to address items related to web security and personal privacy issues.



Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules Of Disinformation

by H. Michael Sweeney

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation.

Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and / or the conspiracy.

There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here.

The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspects in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before a conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links.

It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth.

Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out.

If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out.

There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach.

Avoid The Chain of Evidence

While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them.

Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit.

Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics.

Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter.

Fact Is Fact

Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals.

Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid.

Where a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance - the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role.

In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution - very much in development at the time.

People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas.

Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role - the role of nipping it in the bud.

They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes.

You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted.

They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid - and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely.

They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or - put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.)


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Here are the twenty-five method , some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.

Accusations should not be overused - reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics.

Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery.

Avoidance

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Become Incredulous and Indignant

Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

Create Rumor Mongers

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'.

If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.


Alice In Wonderland Logic

Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.


Confuse

Invoke Authority

Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Play Dumb

No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Enigmas Have No Solution

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Change The Subject

Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Ignore Proof Presented, Demand Impossible Proofs

This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.)

In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required of you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Create Bigger Distractions

To distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Attack

Use a Straw Man

Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.

Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Sidetrack Opponents With Name Calling and Ridicule

This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.

Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Hit and Run

In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

Associate Opponent Charges With Old News

A derivative of the straw man - usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.

Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.

Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues - so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Demand Complete Solutions

Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for "Associate Opponent Charges With Old News".

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents

If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.

Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Fake

Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Establish and Rely Upon Fall-Back Positions

Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made - but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.'.

Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.


Fit The Facts To Alternate Conclusions

This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

False Evidence

Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations - as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Manufacture a New Truth

Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Hide The Evidence

Vanish Evidence and Witnesses

If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, Or Other Empowered Investigative Body

Subvert (the process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.

Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators.

Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Silence Critics

If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Vanish

If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Originally written by H. Michael Sweeney for WHALE and first published on April, 1st 2000 as "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation".

How The Fake News Works



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIh4yucVUc

Friday, April 30, 2010

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Michael Tsarion on hidden symbolism in the media

Michael Tsarion zum Thema Freimaurersymbolik in den Medien




The Subversive Use of Sacred Symbolism in the Media [Part 1 of 6]Conspiracy Con 2003 Presentation "The Subversive Use of Sacred Symbolism in the Media" with Michael Tsarion [Part 1 of 6]

Satanic masonic symbolism in the media

Masonic symbolism in the media is everywhere!!!

http://putasparanoias.blogspot.com/2010/03/simbolismo-masonico-satanico-contrala.html

Monday, March 29, 2010

How TV works on the psyche

TV hypnotizes its audience in a trance like state and makes them accept anything. Watch this great video:



http://www.mindcontrolinamerica.com/

Sunday, March 28, 2010

German TV historian's view to 9/11

and this is a reply to all the inside-job allegations by Germany's most famous tv historian Guido Knopp.



Make your own mind!

September clues

9/11 nothing but a giant media fake?

the movie SEPTEMBER CLUES is a huge accusation to the credibility of mainstream media.




SEPTEMBER CLUES new 2008
This comprehensive analysis of the9/11 broadcasts shows how the mainstream media actively participated in the 9/11 false-flag operation aimed at generating public support for illegal wars. This media deception has effectively fooled the World for too long. Please watch with an open mind and make your own conclusions.

Infotainment

This great article is in German. Mainstream media only presents insignificant shit. They want to stultify their audience.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2008/03/es-gibt-keine-nachrichten-mehr-nur-noch.html

Samstag, 8. März 2008

Es gibt keine Nachrichten mehr … nur noch Infotainment
Was wir jeden Tag von den Nachrichtenorganisationen serviert bekommen, hat mit der Realität nichts zu tun. Es ist reines Infotainment, die unterhaltsame Vermittlung von Nachrichten und von Scheinwissen, das den Anspruch erhebt, Bildungsbestandteil zu sein. Im Prinzip handelt es sich nur noch um Propaganda. Dadurch werden die Menschen nicht mehr aufgeklärt, sondern gezielt gesteuert und für Dumm verkauft. Die Grundlage der Demokratie wird damit zersetzt und die Menschen in eine neue Unmündigkeit geführt.Ein Beispiel dafür ist PRO7, die den Slogan haben „We love to entertain you“, wir lieben es euch zu unterhalten. Nur darum geht’s, reine Unterhaltung und Volksverblödung. Dieses Medium verbreitet nur gesteuerte und bezahlte Falschinformationen und nicht die Realität. Alles was dieser Sender zeigt ist gezielte Propaganda, um die Menschen zu manipulieren und dumm zu halten. Und die anderen machen genau das gleiche.Ziel der Medien und den Strippenziehern die dahinter stehen ist es, eine Masse an braven Konsumenten zu schaffen, die nicht mehr selber denken, nichts anzweifeln, sondern was ihnen präsentiert wird als Tatsachen schlucken, um sie wie unter Valium halten zu können. Das Publikum soll gerade nur noch so viel wissen, damit es für die Meister funktioniert, konsumiert und pariert.Deshalb wenden sich immer mehr Menschen von den traditionellen Medien ab, kündigen ihre Abos, lassen die Zeitschriften am Kiosk liegen und schalten den Idiotenkasten aus. Die welche an der Wahrheit interessiert sind, benutzen das Internet verstärkt als Quelle. Der Trend zeigt, die Zeitungen, und die Massenmedien überhaupt, gehen den Weg der Dinosaurier, werden bald aussterben.Die neue Generation der Nachrichtenkonsumenten, speziell die Jugend, sind es satt bis hierher, nur Bullshit zu hören, einen Tsunami an Lügen und Desinformation, der jeden Tag über sie hereinschwappt.Die Leute haben es gecheckt und die Jugend ist am Ball. Gut für sie, sie sind unsere Zukunft und diese sieht viel besser dadurch aus.Eine neue Umfrage der Harris Interactive Poll hat in ihrer Forschung herausgefunden, dass mehr als die Hälfte der Amerikaner … 54 Prozent ... vertrauen der Presse nicht mehr und nur noch 30% tun es. Immer mehr Amerikaner, 41%, vertrauen den Nachrichten aus dem Internet und alternativen Medien mehr als den traditionellen Medien. Das Radio schneidet noch am besten ab, in dem 44% der Amerikaner sagen, es ist glaubhaft.Zwei Drittel der Amerikaner … 67% … glauben, der traditionelle Journalismus ist völlig realitätsfremd und sie berichten nicht was die Amerikaner an Nachrichten wollen.Die schärfste Kritik der etablierten Medien kommt von dem wachsenden Segment der Bevölkerung, die verstärkt sich aus dem Internet informieren. Sie sehen den Unterschied was jeweils berichtet und nicht berichtet wird, das völlige Versagen der Medien und ihre Zensur und Einseitigkeit.Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Massenmedien hat einen schweren Schaden erlitten. Entweder wachen diese auf und besinnen sich ihrer wahren Aufgabe, als vierte Säule des Staates zu funktionieren, geben ihre Rolle als willige Handlanger der Macht auf, oder sie werden völlig ignoriert und langsam aussterben.

news without content (french)

Check out this great article about how mainstream media operate using insignificant shit news.

http://www.syti.net/JTContents.html

Télévision: de l'info sans infos
La nouvelle censure
Le principe de base de la censure moderne consiste à noyer les informations essentielles dans un déluge d'informations insignifiantes diffusées par une multitude de médias au contenu semblable. Cela permet à la nouvelle censure d'avoir toutes les apparences de la pluralité et de la démocratie.
Cette stratégie de la diversion s'applique en premier lieu au journal télévisé, principale source d'information du public.

De l'info sans infos...
Depuis le début des années 90, les journaux télévisés ne contiennent quasiment plus d'information. On continue d'appeler "journal télévisé" ce qui devrait en réalité être appelé un "magazine".
Un J.T. moyen contient au maximum 2 à 3 minutes d'information. Le reste est constitué de reportages anecdotiques, de faits divers, de micro-trottoirs et de reality-shows sur la vie quotidienne.

...et une censure sans censeurs
Toute la subtilité de la censure moderne réside dans l'absence de censeurs. Ceux-ci ont été efficacement remplacés par la "loi du marché" et la "loi de l'audience". Par le simple jeu de conditions économiques habilement crées, les chaines n'ont plus les moyens de financer le travail d'enquête du vrai journalisme, alors que dans le même temps, le reality-show et les micro-trottoirs font plus d'audience avec un coût de production réduit.
Même les évènements importants sont traités sous un angle "magazine", par le petit bout de la lorgnette. Ainsi, un sommet international donnera lieu à une interview du chef-cuistot chargé du repas, à des images de limousines officielles et de salutations devant un batiment, mais aucune information ni analyse à propos des sujets débattus par les chefs d'états. De même, un attentat sera traité par des micro-trottoirs sur les lieux du drame, avec les impressions et témoignages des passants, ou une interview d'un secouriste ou d'un policier.
A ces insignifiances s'ajouteront le sport, les faits-divers, les reportages pitoresques sur les villages de la France profonde, sans oublier les pubs déguisées pour les produits culturels faisant l'objet d'une campagne de promotion (spectacles, films, livres, disques...).

Information destructurée pour mémorisation minimale
Tous les psychologues et spécialistes des neurosciences savent que la mémorisation des informations par le cerveau se fait d'autant mieux que ces informations sont présentées de façon structurée et hiérarchisée.
La structuration et la hiérarchisation de l'information sont aussi des principes de base enseignés à tous les étudiants en journalisme.
Or depuis 10 ans, les journaux télévisés font exactement le contraire, en enchainant dans le désordre des sujets hétéroclites et d'importance inégale (un fait divers, un peu de politique, du sport, un sujet social, un autre fait divers, puis à nouveau de la politique, etc) , comme si le but recherché était d'obtenir la plus mauvaise mémorisation possible des informations par le public. Une population amnésique est en effet beaucoup plus facile à manipuler...
© Syti.net, 1998

Contenu d'un Journal Télévisé ordinaireou comment faire de l'info sans infos...J.T. 20h - TF1 - Janvier 1997
20h00 Le froid, les accidents sur les routes.
20h04 La naissance du petit Joseph, dans le Gers couvert par la neige.
20h05 La récolte des brocholis, chez Albert en Bretagne, est menacée par le gel.
20h06 La récolte des poireaux se fait au marteau. Augmentation inévitable du prix des légumes.
20h08 Compteurs d'eau et canalisations gelées chez les habitants d'une ville de province.
20h09 Début des soldes à Paris.
20h11 Reportage sur la fabrication artisanale du pain.
20h13 Viol d'une petite fille.
20h14 Jugement en Belgique d'un membre présumé islamiste du "Gang de Roubaix".
20h15 En Israël, présentation devant le juge d'un jeune soldat qui avait tenté de mitrailler des Palestiniens.
20h16 Jugement en Angletterre des époux West, assassins en série de jeunes filles.
20h18 Départ à la retraite de Miguel Indurain. Rappel de sa carrière de champion cycliste.
20h22 Rétablissement d'un malade cardiaque greffé aux Etats-Unis.
20h23 Les hommes consomment de plus en plus de soins et de produits de beauté. Reportage.
20h26 Prison pour Bernard Tapie, suite à l'affaire des comptes de l'OM.
20h28 Reportage sur la "poupée qui mange", conçue pour manger des frites, mais qui "mangeait" aussi les cheveux des enfants, voire la peau du doigt. Il est suggéré que la poupée soit équipée d'un "bouton d'arret d'urgence".
20h30 Stages-nature en montagne pour les enfants en Savoie.
20h32 Présentation du téléfilm de la soirée, consacré à Dalila, femme du héros biblique Samsom. Reportage sur le tournage du téléfilm.
20h34 Fin du J.T. Générique.


37 minutes sur 40 d'insignifiances...J.T. 20h - France 2 - 4 Septembre 2002
20h01 Orages violents et inondations en Provence.
20h04 Orages violents et inondations en Ardèche. Mort d'un touriste après que sa voiture ait été emportée par les flots.
20h05 Les orages sont-ils de plus en plus violents? Interview rassurante d'un spécialiste de Météo France.
20h08 Progrès dans l'enquête sur les meurtres en série de jeunes filles dans la Somme.
20h10 Procès d'un pédophile à Melun.
20h11 Remise en liberté refusée pour Maurice Papon.
20h12 Condamnation d'un hopital pour avoir transfusé un malade contre son gré et contre ses convictions religieuses.
20h15 Interview de Bernard Kouchner. L'ancien ministre de la santé rappelle que l'éthique médicale interdit au médecin d'imposer un traitement contre la volonté du patient.
20h18 Nomination par le gouvernement d'un nouveau PDG à La Poste.
20h19 Annonce par le gouvernement d'une diminution du nombre de fonctionnaires, et d'une diminution des budgets de la plupart des ministères, à l'exception des budgets de la justice (+7%), de la police (+6,5%) et des Affaires Etrangères (+14%).
Remarque: l'une des rares "vraies" infos de ce JT est traitée en 1 minute, contre 7 minutes pour les orages. Par ailleurs, aucune raison n'est donnée pour justifier la très forte augmentation obtenue par Dominique de Villepin, le ministre des affaires étrangères.
20h20 Reportage sur un stage de conduite spécialisé pour échapper à une éventuelle embuscade. Interview d'un chauffeur de ministre qui participe au stage.
20h22 Revendications des médecins pour l'augmentation de leurs honoraires.
20h23 Reportage sur les vaccinations des bébés dans les maternités.
20h24 George W. Bush s'entretient avec Tony Blair à propos d'une nouvelle intervention militaire contre l'Irak.
Cette autre info importante est elle aussi traitée en une minute.
20h25 A Jerusalem, le Mur du Temple menace de s'écrouler à cause d'un chantier souterrain.
20h26 A Moscou, succès d'un groupe de chanteuses avec une chanson "glamour" sur Vladimir Poutine.
20h28 A Johannesburg, le Sommet de la Terre s'achève sans être parvenu à fixer un calendrier et des engagement précis de la part des états. Les Etats-Unis continuent de refuser tout effort en matière d'environnement et de réduction des gaz responsables des modifications climatiques.
La troisième et dernière info importante est présentée en une minute et en fin de journal, alors que ses implications auraient justifié une place en ouverture du journal.
20h29 Mise en service d'une éolienne géante dans la Marne.
20h31 A Grenoble, des bergers manifestent contre les loups.
20h32 A Paris, le Maire Bertrand Delannoe souhaite réglementer la présence anarchique des émetteurs de téléphonie mobile.
20h34 Dans les Hauts de Seine, les habitants manifestent contre les coupures d'eau chaude causées par l'insécurité d'une centrale thermique.
20h36 Après la rentrée des classes, la rentrée dans les crèches. Reportage.
20h38 Début de la nouvelle tournée mondiale des Rolling Stones.
20h40 Retour de Johny Halliday au cinéma, avec un rôle dans le film de Patrice Leconte, "L'homme du train".
20h42 Résultats de l'US Open de tennis.
20h43 Fin du J.T. Générique.

© Sylvain Timsit - Syti.Net

Sports, celebrities and other trash news

When you browse the headlines of mainstream news sources get aware of how much importance is given to reporting about football or other sports results!


28.03.2010, 21:35

Nationalmannschaft
Beckenbauer will Kuranyis Comeback
Nicht nur die Fans machen sich für Kevin Kuranyis Rückkehr in die Nationalmannschaft stark. Jetzt hat der Schalker Torjäger einen wichtigen Fürsprecher bekommen: Franz Beckenbauer. Er setzt Löw unter Druck.

source:
http://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/wm-2010/nationalmannschaft-beckenbauer-will-kuranyis-comeback_aid_494005.html

Crap like this, picked at random, is presented amid other news abaout politics and economy. So the brainwashed fool can't discern after some time what is relevant news and what not.