Is Knowledge Power of Fake News and War Lies?


television

First of all, you must know that nothing in the world is as you have been told. The old adage “The Truth is stranger than Fiction” could not be more accurate, for we have been deceived on such a large scale that most would have difficulty grasping the full extent. We are constantly told that we are well-informed contemporaries, and because we are so flattered by this claim, we are only too happy to agree with it – but it is a lie.

Does it matter what information we let into our heads?

Of course it does, because the information we take in about our world changes our perception of it and it changes us. And in doing so, it also changes the reality in which we live. Our reality formation proceeds in these four steps:

1. Information Available

This is potential knowledge that can be collected, processed, understood and edited by individuals

2. Decision making processes

These processes take place in the human mind and decisions are made by each individual based on the available information.

3. Le comportement humain

Le comportement de chaque individu repose sur la qualité de son processus de décision, qui repose à son tour sur la qualité des informations disponibles.

4. La réalité manifeste

The quality of the condition manifested in a society is based on the overall quality of behavior in that society

So who controls the flow of information determines the state of reality in which we live.

In other words, if the spectrum of available information is limited, the decision-making and action options of those who only have access to this information are also limited. Especially if it is not questioned.

That is why it is so important to take a closer look at our information channels. As mentioned, there is an unbelievably large amount of information available today, but a large part of the people only know the world through the so-called ‘mainstream media’ (MSM).

The machinations behind the scenes of big money and politics are so well hidden from the majority of the population that if people really knew how things really worked, we would have a second revolution overnight. Henry Ford knew this well, for he said:

“It is good that the people of our country do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution first thing in the morning.”

Most people reading this find it hard to fathom how an entire country could be so well deceived, but it’s really not that hard if you understand the inner workings and hierarchy of these overly revered media houses in which we place our blind faith.

The truth is not what you think you know. Our belief in the media myth is our Achilles heel. Many realised long ago that our politicians lie to us without batting an eyelid, but most have no idea that our news media lie and deceive just as much, if not more.

We could only be deceived by our media to such an extent because people trust our news system too much. They very naively believe that anchors and journalists would never lie to us. This trust has been used against us with devastating consequences, to an extent unknown to most.

To understand how badly you have been misled, you must first learn how our news organisations have been infiltrated (more on this later). Once you have learned this indisputable historical fact, it is much easier to understand that life is not as you know it.

A little history lesson on ‘Fake News’

The old adage “knowledge is power” has become a way of life for many warriors and would-be rulers throughout history.

A well-known example from the annals of history is Nathan Rothschild, the British representative of Meyer Amschel’s infamous Rothschild banking dynasty. At the Battle of Waterloo, Rothschild’s horsemen and messengers were able to break the news of Napoleon’s defeat a day before the news carriers of his own government. As history shows, Nathan was able to convince the public that he had supposedly learned of Wellington’s defeat by selling heavily in the English stock market. When panic selling ensued, Rothschild had his clerks buy the shares for pennies. By the time news of Napoleon’s defeat actually reached the shores of Britain, Rothschild had already secured his position as one of Britain’s richest men, a fortune that only grew stronger in the years that followed, in which he loaned post-war stabilization funds to the European royal families.

Regardless of the historical veracity of the story, it serves as an illustration of the preceding statement: knowledge is indeed power. It also shows the counterpart: misinformation is a way to extend power over enemies. This, too, is an ancient idea that has been used throughout the centuries as a tool of psychological warfare to give armies an advantage over their enemies.

Military deception is an ancient and time-honored art. Throughout recorded history, military commanders have sought to spread false news and sow false information as part of psychological warfare to deceive, confuse, and demoralize the enemy.

In the Crusades of 1271, Sultan Baibars successfully hoodwinked the Krakow Crusaders in Syria by delivering a letter to the knights stationed there urging them to surrender. The letter, purporting to be from the head of their order in Jerusalem, was in fact a crude forgery, but the gambit worked. The knights surrendered and the Sultan took over the castle.

It was not until the invention and widespread use of technologies such as the printing press, then radio and television, that the modern concept of “news” was developed. The advertising journal, magazine and newspaper began to give people a sense of regularly published ‘news’. These technologies also allowed the mechanization of ‘fake’ news to spread propaganda to the enemy.

Some of the most dramatic examples of this was in the 20th century when aircraft were used to disseminate propaganda leaflets and the use of radio transmissions over enemy lines to influence public opinion.

However, this was by no means limited to psy-ops (psychological operations) against the enemy. The same techniques have been used throughout history to deceive friendly troops in order to boost morale.

In the Civil War, false “news” was regularly distributed to Confederate soldiers to boost their motivation before a battle, from false reports of the death of Union General Ulysses S. Grant to rumors that a world war was about to break out between England and France against the Confederates.

In World War II, false news of reinforcements for the beleaguered American-Filipino garrison resisting the Japanese invasion of the Philippines caused them to fight well past the point of imminent defeat.

propaganda 2

propagande

One of the most extreme examples of “false information” disseminated to confuse, panic, or disarm a nation are news stories made entirely of fiction and broadcast as if they were real. Although rare, these stories can be devastatingly effective in confusing and demoralizing enemies or panicking the public.

The root of fake news stories goes back a long way, but the most famous was the 1938 Halloween edition of the weekly radio play ‘Mercury Theatre on the Air.’ This adaptation of H. G. Wells ‘War of the Worlds’ was presented as a fake news broadcast of an alien invasion. As is well known, many of the listeners did not realize that the broadcast was fictional and assumed that the nation was actually under attack. Some believed that aliens had actually landed, while others assumed it was a Nazi hoax as tensions rose in the run-up to World War II.

war of the worlds

The phenomenon provoked by the broadcast, although often dismissed as a sensational media hoax, became the subject of intense academic research. One of the organizations that took a particular interest in the broadcast was the Princeton Radio Project, a Rockefeller Foundation-funded entity that studies the effects of radio on public opinion. The group worked closely with organs of the U.S. Psychological Warfare Program, and in it was Hadley Cantril, who was Nelson Rockefeller’s roommate at Dartmouth College. Princeton Radio Project eventually published a study of the public’s reaction to the “War of the Worlds” story.

Since then, fake news stories have been broadcast from time to time on otherwise “mainstream” networks, often with little or no indication that the “news” story being broadcast is entirely fictional, but I’ll get to that.

La première attaque des médias par l'argent

Let’s first look over to the United States. The media is supposed to be the watchdog over the American Republic and our democracy, but few know or realize that it was usurped nearly 100 years ago and has been completely stolen in the last thirty years since the Reagan deregulation.

Don’t believe it? Put down the TV remote for once and do your own research instead of spoon feeding their pre-chewed news again.

Let’s take a look at this quote from John Swinton, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times (and New York Sun)….

“At this point in the history of the world, there is no such thing as an independent press in America. You know it and I know it. There is not a single one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you would, you already know it would never appear in print. I get paid weekly to let my honest opinions out of the paper I write for. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things and any of you who would be so foolish as to write Honest Opinions would be out on the street looking for another job: If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in an issue of my newspaper, I would be out of a job in less than twenty-four hours. The business of journalism is to destroy the truth, to lie bare, to pervert, to denigrate and to lick feet, and to sell this country and its inhabitants for its daily bread. You know it, I know it, and what is this adulation of an ‘independent’ press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping puppets, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our opportunities and our lives are all owned by other people. We are intellectual prostitutes.” – John Swinton

In 1917, Congressman Oscar Callaway documented in the official Congressional Record that multimillionaire JP Morgan infiltrated the U.S. media for the purpose of using and controlling it for himself. Regardez ici.

Morgan hired twelve of the best news executives to help him identify the most influential newspapers in America. The idea was to find the most important news institutions that other news organizations sought out and were influenced by. (This is documented in the ‘Official US Record’, Volume 54, February 9, 1917).

After the editors reached a consensus, Morgan bought or infiltrated the top 25 news organizations reported to him by his task force of news managers. An editor was hired for each newspaper to ensure that all news was controlled and that the ‘watchdog of freedom’ remained officially neutered.

This was a crucial step toward comprehensive information and news control in the United States, which produced censorship, disinformation, and propaganda. The Founding Fathers’ basic notion of constitutional liberty had been deeply wounded.

The second attack on the media through covert operations

cia 1

As if that weren’t bad enough, the CIA made its own foray into news control in the 1940s with a program to infiltrate the media, with the idea of having selected journalists parrot the official government line, all under the guise of national patriotism. Some news members were simply duped and naively thought they were helping America by disseminating certain news. Others were simply unscrupulous and morally deficient in their profession, could be easily bought off, and spewed whatever disinformation and propaganda they allowed themselves to be used for .

This project was called “Operation Mockingbird.” Wiki.

The name alone indicated the goal of the mission: complete control of the U.S. media system. Many might naively scoff at this information until they might hear it straight from the mouth of the perpetrator.Former CIA Director William Colby said:
“The CIA owns everyone who matters in the major media.”

If that quote alone is not enough for some to raise a “Spock eyebrow,” then please consider this gem from another former CIA Director, William Casey:

“We will know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes to be true is false . “

The CIA understands well that information is as good as gold, and those who control information can use that data for political gain, power, and wealth.

Over the years, venerable broadcasting icons such as Walter Lippmann, Edward R. Murrow, and Walter Cronkite, have been baited into Operation Mockingbird, to name just a few of the elite among hundreds of broadcasters and well-known journalists.

According to published Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents, a great many of America’s media outlets were apparently involved in Project Mockingbird, including more than 400 journalists who were used for numerous assignments, as well as many publishing outlets that were rumored to have been involved as well.

Reportedly, Carl Bernstein, Washington Post reporter, was once told:

“One journalist is worth twenty agents.”

CIA policy is to use and manipulate these “assistants” to spread disinformation in the U.S., just as it has done for years abroad through its ‘Office of Strategic Influence’. The problem is that it is only sanctioned by Congress when they do this abroad, but specifically prohibited from doing it domestically.

Over the years, it became increasingly clear to many observers that the CIA had taken control of the media through Operation Mockingbird. The biggest blow to the project came in 1974 when two ex-CIA agents, John D. Marks and Victor Marchetti, published a book entitled ” The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence” (ISBN 0440203368). The book opened the door to many questions about Project Mockingbird. Public scrutiny of the CIA reached new heights, drawing a wave of concern in the U.S., including from some on Capitol Hill (note that MK-Ultra also came to light at the time).

As the Mockingbird program became known and concerns about possible CIA infiltration spread to the U.S. media, the Senate began an investigation under the Church Committee to examine government operations related to intelligence activities .

The Church Committee unveiled Operation Mockingbird in 1975. According to Senator Frank Church (D-ID), the total cost of the disinformation campaigns would have cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million per year. This figure has increased exponentially since the 1970s.

The Church report noted that “by 1967, over a thousand books had been produced, subsidized, or promoted by the CIA.”

For all that was uncovered, the commission was nonetheless stopped by none other than CIA directors William Colby (73-76) and George H.W. Bush (76-77). The Frank Church committee report was said to have been deliberately buried.

Despite its exposure, that was not the end for Mockingbird. FOIA documents were eventually uncovered that showed CIA agents bragging quite openly in intra-agency memos that the agency still had “crucial posts” in every major intelligence organization in the United States. In 1982, the CIA admitted to having reporters on its payroll.

The U.S. media enables the Operation Mockingbird agenda simply by avoiding stories that should be kept from the public, or by mixing something true with obvious misinformation to deliberately muddy the waters and obscure or completely distract from the true background of the story.

A declassified document from the CIA archives in the form of a letter from a CIA task force to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, describes the close relationship that exists between the CIA, the mainstream media and academia.

The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major cable service, newspaper, news program, and television station in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success’ stories, and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” Lire ici.

In addition, it explains how the agency “convinced reporters to move, change, withhold, or even destroy stories that may have harmed national security interests or compromised sources and methods.”
Let’s not kid ourselves, Operation Mockingbird or a derivative of it is still alive and well and working because our media keeps misleading the public about everything and anything those pulling the strings want is sold to us by their paid media puppets. Be it the numerous unreported inconsistencies of 9/11, the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the orchestrated economic collapse, or the diversion of the Gulf oil spill, the media has told us nothing that comes close to the truth. More on that later.

CNN – a psy-op of the military

How does this just happen? Why does the media keep letting such obvious lies just pass? Aren’t there journalists with back rat?

Yes, of course there are! We must never forget that in all of this, there are certainly many honest journalists, driven by morals, who want to make the world a little better through their work. However, they are trapped in a corrupt, immoral and false system that spits on their morals. Thus, many of the major news houses in the U.S. are also infiltrated by undercover military officers who have very different ideas of morality, of right and wrong. Crude notions of patriotism and a high-powered career in the military quickly become more important than the truth.

Amber Lyon is a three-time Emmy award-winning journalist for CNN. She has gone on record stating that the mainstream media is regularly paid by the U.S. government and foreign governments to selectively report and distort information about specific events. She has also stated that the United States government has editorial control over mainstream media content:

“My only fear is that the public will continue to be fed propaganda that undemanding Americans don’t realize they are being fed.”

Then in 2000 there was this article in the most influential newspaper in the Netherlands, the Trouw. In it, Col. Christopher Saint John, Commander of the US Army’s 4thPsy-Ops Group is quoted as follows:

“[…]called for greater operations between the armed forces and the media giants. He pointed out that some Army personnel had worked for CNN for several weeks and had helped produce some newscasts for the network.”

According to the article, Major Thomas Collins of the U.S. Army Information Service, confirmed the presence of these Army psy-op experts at CNN’s headquarters: Lire ici.

“Psy-Ops personnel, soldiers and officers worked with the industry at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters through our program training [whatever that program is]and they worked with the industry at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. They worked as regular employees of CNN. They helped produce news.”

giphy

The Dutch journalist responsible for the article had backbone and reported the story to CNN. They then angrily called him and accused him of jeopardizing their reputation. In the course of the conversation, it even emerged that CNN was actually hosting five Army psy-ops employees – two for television, two for radio and one for satellite operations. The Pentagon’s program started shortly after the war began in Kosovo. And, of course, CNN’s airtime, as in all other wars, was filled with supporters of the bombing campaign, mostly resigned Army generals. No question, that’s still going on today.

Of course, CNN says that these psy-ops Army employees have no decision-making power on the coverage, but then again, what else can they say? Maybe they are right, but the point is that such close ties with the military are absolutely unacceptable for any serious news organization.

Who is surprised that not a single American news portal reported on this story!

Speaking of CNN: Anderson Cooper, the main moderator of CNN (quasi the American Klaus Kleber) and a part of one of the richest families in the history of America, completed two summer internships at the CIA before he suddenly decided to become a reporter at CNN without any journalistic training. I’ll just leave it at that. Wiki.

“Since the end of World War II, the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in the U.S. and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will argue that they have few, if any, relationships, but the not-often-acknowledged history of their close collaboration suggests a very different story, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.”

-James F. Tracey, a former professor of communications at Florida Atlantic University

EDIT 07.01.19: Recently, an NBC and MSNBC reporter named William Arkin, best known since 2010 for his 3-part Washington Post series on black-budget programs, went public. He says in an open letter that the national security apparatus is out of control and that military and intelligence figures working at his network as ‘analysts’ have not made the Middle East a safer place. In particular, he couldn’t stand the Trump-bashing circus anymore, saying that even though he’s “obviously an ignorant and incompetent fraud,” he deserves a lot of credit for being the only president in decades to stand up to the national security apparatus and withdraw troops from Syria, improve relations with Russia, end nuclearization of North Korea, question why the U.S. is fighting in Africa, and dare to attack intelligence agencies like the FBI. Arkin couldn’t stand how Trump was attacked every day while the military and intelligence agencies were courted on the network and called for more war again and again without being asked. That’s why he quit the networks, aptly saying that they “have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to government security agencies.”

And he’s not exaggerating with that; NBC in early 2018 engrossed ex-CIA Chief John Brennon as “senior national security and intelligence analyst.” So did MSNBC reporter Ken Diliaian who previously worked at the CIA. Or MSNBC host Nicole Wallace who had been ‘communications director for Bush/Cheny’ and had a lengthy policy career for warmongers before going into television and doing the same. But no, something like Operation Mockingbird has nothing to do with that, of course….

Secoué, pas remué

It’s also worth mentioning that the influence is not just on the news, by the way. The Hollywood film industry is also influenced. John Rizzo revealed that the connections between the CIA and Hollywood are “very close”. In his book ‘Company Man’ he describes how actors, directors and film producers are always happy to assist the CIA. Since its founding in 1947, the CIA has worked covertly with Hollywood.

But it wasn’t until the mid-1990s that the agency officially established a link with the entertainment industry and began openly pushing treatment favorable to it in film and television. During the Clinton presidency, the CIA took its Hollywood strategy to a new level-it sought to control its own mythmaking. In 1996, the CIA assigned Chase Brandon, one of its veteran intelligence officers, to work directly with Hollywood studios and production companies to improve its image. “We were always falsely portrayed as evil and Machiavellian,” Brandon later told The Guardian. “It’s taken a long time to support projects that portray us in the light we want to be seen.” Lire ici.

Here I’m thinking particularly of the CIA propaganda films in the Tom Clancey series. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information (FOIA) show that the U.S. government was involved in over 800 major motion pictures and over 1000 television productions. It was revealed that the U.S. government was even able to make script changes to major productions such as James Bond, the Transformers franchise, and films from the Marvel and DC universes.

Also involved is the Department of Defense: When a screenwriter or producer asks the Pentagon if they would provide military equipment for his film, they first go through his script. If the Department of Defense (which even has its own department for this) doesn’t like characters, dialogs or plots, changes have to be made. Otherwise, no equipment is provided and cheap props have to be used. If there is a green light, everything that is desired is very generously brought to the set free of charge. For anti-war films, the situation is rather bad.

There was also an Army TOP SECRET film studio in Laurel Canyon at Lookout Mountain Air Force Station. Declassified in the 1990s to secrecy, ‘TSM3K’, produced film footage from 1947 to 1969 and showed it on television as ‘real front line war operations’ on the news. Over 250 employees (scriptwriters, cameramen, ressigeurs etc.) worked in secrecy together with Warner Brother, Universal, MGM in studios that were equivalent to the most modern Hollywood studios of the time. In 22 years they produced over 20,000 films on Army and intelligence operations, more than Hollywood made in that time. Who knows how much of the Korean War or the Vietnam War in the news was even real. And who knows what other major events of the time were filmed there 😉

propagande hollywoodienne
Movies are not only entertainment – they also always want to sell you ideas and beliefs

There is nothing against watching movies & series, so there are among them but very inspiring, only you must always keep in mind that just Hollywood also constantly wants to sell you ideas and beliefs. That’s why you should always stay present while watching movies and try to ‘read between the lines’. Sometimes things that happen behind the scenes in the movies are also ‘disclosed’, about this and the topic of film & Hollywood there is another time more. And a ‘screen detox’ now and then doesn’t hurt either.

The third attack on the media, once again by money

The new form of media control is simply put: buy into it or just buy it out. Government deregulation in the 1980s enabled the transformation of our media into today’s corrupt, homogenized, neutered, seedless industry. After deregulation, the guardian of democracy, our hallowed and formerly highly regarded press, became an easy target for hostile takeover and control.

The current United States media is controlled by only half a dozen owners and CEOs. These six individuals have complete control over what you see and how the world’s news and information is shaped and presented to you. See for yourself in the graphic below. (Click here to see it in full)

illusion of choice

The top graphic is a bit older but nothing has changed except the logos (below are the current ones). Each of these corporate giants has numerous other media holdings, television, radio, Internet, film studios, magazines and newspapers. These six companies alone account for the majority of all American media. And much of it (just Hollywood, etc.) is distributed and consumed worldwide.

media ownership

Ce sont les PDG actuels de ces six sociétés :

NewsCorp: Rupert Murdoch , Disney: Bob Iger, Comcast: Ryan L. Roberts, WarnerMedia: John Stankey , Viacom: Robert Bakish , CBS: Joseph Inniello, after his predecessor was ousted for multiple counts of sexual harassment

media consolidation
With six people in charge of our current media, it is now all too easy to propagandise and manipulate people through the press. Until people give up their longstanding naive faith in our controlled corporate news media, they will never find a way out of disillusionment or find the real truth.

With six people in charge of our current media, it is now all too easy to propagandize and manipulate people through the press. Until people give up their longstanding naive faith in our controlled corporate news media, they will never find a way out of disillusionment or find the real truth.

All it took to get total control of the media was money and 20 years of time. From 50 major media companies, we’ve shrunk to just 6. (Since CBS and Viacom split again, there are six again).

In addition, most news papers only copy from news agencies like Associated Press, Reuters or in Germany from the dpa, in order to ‘facilitate the work’. And these texts are then printed word for word by all local papers and read off the transponder by all local news presenters, as if they were robots. And in the exact same ‘anchor-speak’ they learned in training. When the news agencies lie, everyone is lied to.

Une main lave l'autre

Like any corporation, these media groups are profit-oriented and are therefore dependent on their advertising contracts with other corporations. There the truth must stand sometimes already times behind.

Thus there was once the incident that Monsanto prevented the US television station FOX from broadcasting a critical report about a growth hormone called rbGH for cows, which Monsanto wanted to bring to market. Regardez ici.

The safety studies that Monsanto had done were seriously flawed, and either Monsanto misrepresented the studies to the FDA or the FDA didn’t bother to look at them. That the FDA is riddled with corruption from top to bottom is a story all its own, which I will report on in more detail another time. In contrast to the FDA, ‘Health Canada’ (the Canadian counterpart to the FDA) came to completely different conclusions. They did not approve the substance and pointed out that the hormones could be absorbed by the human body and cause health problems (up to cancer). Monsanto, through its lawyers, sent a threatening message to the head of FOX NEWS in New York. The report was unscientific and tendentious. They threatened to cancel the advertising contracts for the entire FOX network. Fox withdrew the report and went through the script again. They determined that every statement was scientifically accurate and not tendentious. Monsanto immediately sent another letter threatening that the report, if aired, would have serious consequences for FOX and severe financial damages for Monsanto.

They then sent their lawyers to go over the script with the general manager and the news manager of Fox’s Florida site, who wanted to substantially tone down the text, removing words like cancer entirely. This was despite the fact that even their own rbGH studies showed that there were serious health concerns, which of course was in stark contrast to their PR campaign (‘the same safe wholesome product we’ve always known’). When FOX employees refused to play along, they were offered a full year’s salary if they took the show off the air. They continued to refuse on the grounds that this was more important than money, and were fired. And they were not allowed to say anything about rbGH to other news stations. Of course, they didn’t comply, and the two of them spilled the beans. In the meantime, the script was rewritten 86 times (!) until Monsanto was satisfied with it.

In the end, it contained clear false statements and yet it was broadcast. This case is really frightening and it is worth to have a look at the whole story. Lire ici.

However, it is only one example of many how corporations influence reporting. Especially pharmaceutical companies use really shady methods in the USA to promote their drugs, but that’s another story. And the question is: How high is the number of unreported cases? How many such cases will come to light in the end? How many journalists are brave enough to risk their financial security?

With the unification of the media under consolidated corporate ownership, literally in lockstep with each other, it has become much easier to spread disinformation, such as the infamous 9/11 connection to Iraq and non-existent weapons of mass destruction, to promote entry into an oil war.

Fake News - Vraies guerres

Since then, fake news stories have been broadcast from time to time on otherwise “mainstream” networks, often with little or no indication that the “news” story being broadcast is entirely fictitious.

Sometimes the fake news is deliberately disseminated into the public consciousness through a carefully coordinated PR campaign. For example, in 1990, the Kuwaiti government hired the public relations agency Hill & Knowlten for $10 million to colocate the so-called “incubator lie” in the United States Congress. Wiki.

They were hired by the bogus organization ‘Citizen for a free Kuwait’. Nayirah as-Sabah tearfully told members of Congress that during the invasion of Kuwait earlier this year, Iraqi soldiers ripped premature babies from their incubators and left them to die on the ground. This story was widely reported by media outlets and had a major impact on the public debate over whether the U.S. would intervene militarily on behalf of Kuwait. Then-President George H. W. Bush (Rest in Piss) mentioned the story at least 10 times, and even Amnesty International reported on it twice. Ultimately, the U.S. entered the 2nd Gulf War largely because of this story. However, it was only after the war, 35000 dead Iraqis and a uranium contaminated country later, that it became known that this story was completely fabricated and the crying girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. This shows how important it is to question even supposedly reputable sources, especially when they evoke very strong emotions and are promoted as a reason for going to war. For as it is so aptly said:

“The first casualty of war is truth.” – Hiram Johnson.

This has always been true, even in today’s war operations. Propaganda is an indispensable tool to keep the public on the war track. The Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War – all U.S. military adventures since ’45 have been based on tall tales (and if you dig deeper, so was the entry into WWII). Strictly speaking, the truth must die BEFORE the war. Their dying is a condition, that war can be thought of at all.

It is the story of the USA-led West as a beacon of freedom and democracy, which casts its shining light over the dark realm of cruel despots. In the run-up to war, an image of the enemy must always be created. The world must be squeezed through the black and white grid. The state leader who runs counter to one’s own interests must be demonized, declared the incarnation of evil. He must be denied his humanity, his mere being human. Thereupon it is much easier to kill him.

The thousands and thousands of innocent people who inevitably go to their death with him are then also reified. They are degraded to faceless collateral damage – to be regretted, yes, but still worth it. It is the oft-cited women, children and the elderly for whose protection the war was supposedly fought in the first place. In the run-up, they are hypocritical justification; afterwards, they are degraded to mere statistics.

Before every war, we are assured that it is the last resort, that all diplomatic options for conflict resolution have been exhausted. To stop barbarism, war must be resorted to as the ultimate “solution.” Good has the moral obligation to stand against evil. We must kill to protect life. Attack becomes self-defense, minus becomes plus.

Lies about lies: The Vietnam War

In 1964, a civil war rages in Vietnam, with the communist north fighting the U.S.-affiliated south. Washington is watching the goings-on closely, because according to Cold War paranoialogy, no further country should fall to communism and thus trigger a possible chain reaction (domino theory). Suddenly, the USS Maddox comes under fire from hostile North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. The headline is quickly in people’s minds. It took President Lyndon B. Johnson only two days to whip the ‘Tonkin Resolution’ through the cogress and U.S. bombers were already flying toward Vietnam.

Agent Orange. Napalm bombs. Images of burned corpses. Eleven years of bloody war followed and claimed 5 million dead Vietnamese and 58000 dead US soldiers. To this day there are deformities due to the 76Mio liters of dioxins dropped.

And everything is based on a lie: the attack on the USS Maddox by the North Vietnamese never took place.

In 2003, Robert McNamara – Secretary of State under Johnson and Kennedy – confirms the speculations that had been circulating for a long time, and finally in 2005, with the publication of previously secret NSA documents, comes the final proof: the US entry into the Vietnam War is based on lies, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never took place. The U.S. leadership had merely been looking for a pretext to justify entering the war, which had been planned and decided long before. Military officials even openly admit that the Maddox was sent to the Gulf of Tonkin solely for provocation. And again media played along, did not question. A mockery for the victims!

Lies upon Lies: The 2003 Iraq War

On February 5, 2003, Colin Powell delivered his historic speech on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to the UN Security Council.

“My distinguished colleagues, every statement I make today is backed by sources, solid sources.
They are not mere assertions. Every fact and every conclusion we present today is based on
solid intelligence work.”

With these confidence-inspiring words, Powell begins his 76-minute PowerPoint lecture, presenting to the world his watertight case, based on a multitude of evidence, all of which supported only one conclusion: Saddam Hussein must disappear from the world stage for good. The accusation: Saddam was working steadfastly to produce biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons of mass destruction, thus posing an acute threat to the Middle East and the Western world. Lire ici.

Powell really hammered this message into the global consciousness: he used the word “weapon” a full 96 times, on average every 47 seconds. Since then, the diffuse fear of weapons of mass destruction has been brought into Western living rooms on a continuous loop. Once again, all the media played along as if they were tuned in.

The evidence Powell brought into the field were a few meaningless satellite recordings, wiretapped telephone calls, self-made graphics of bomb kitchens hidden in trucks, and a small vial of anthrax he had with him. The accompanying photograph went around the world. The vial was a skillfully placed prop. It goes without saying that the tube could at most have contained baking soda and that Powell did not bring anthrax to the United Nations Security Council. Photographed at the right moment and placed on page one of newspapers worldwide, however, a harmless vial can become the most dangerous weapon in the battle of images. It intimidates, stirs up fears, and thus poisons judgment.

Today we know it was all a lie. For 76 minutes, Powell lied to the world’s face. They didn’t exist, the weapons of mass destruction. And U.S. intelligence agencies knew this at the time of the invasion. The Bush regime didn’t care; it stuck to its preconceived plan to invade Iraq. Powell’s speech to the world served solely to market this war.

A small tube of white-yellow powder was crucial to the world’s inaction as Bush and Blair invaded Iraq in an illegal war of aggression, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The chaos created was the breeding ground for the rise of the Islamic State (IS). Bush and Blair are thus directly responsible for the devastating situation in Iraq today, as then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan analyzed in an interview with Russia Today. Lire ici.

powell
Colin Powell is lying through his teeth to the world

It makes no difference that Powell later admitted the lie. Lire ici.

He is and remains responsible for the misery the U.S. has brought on Iraq. His lies paved the way for the mass murder of Iraqi civilians. He is a war criminal and should be tried, sentenced and put behind bars for life. However, one must not forget that this only happened because the media spread the lie unquestioningly en masse and partly even inflated it further. They are thereby crucial accomplices, had they instead done their job properly or at least questioned the statements, Powell could have lied himself silly and it would not have had such a strong effect on the mass consciousness.

The past should teach us to be very careful as soon as a new enemy image is spread by the media again. These proven war lies should teach us to be highly skeptical of any justification for going to war and to be more than critical of the underlying reasoning. Blindly trusting notorious liars is not advisable.

Lies about lies until today

Currently, we find ourselves once again in many theaters of war, where we were most likely knowingly lied to in order to justify war policies. The circumstantial evidence is getting more and more overwhelming, the ultimate proofs are still missing. A selection:

In 2013, an attack using the nerve agent sarin killed more than 1,400 civilians in agony in the Syrian civil war. The disturbing images went around the world. It quickly became clear to the U.S. government that President Assad had ordered the attacks. President Obama thus justified increased U.S. military intervention in an attempt to topple Assad. That Washington lied about this, too, is all but certain. A large body of circumstantial evidence suggests that it was not Assad’s troops but the opposition that used the sarin. Lire ici.

In July 2014, Malaysian passenger plane MH17 is shot at and crashes over Ukraine. All 298 occupants die. Again, the culprit is quickly identified: Putin did it! MH17 was the justification for increased Western intervention in the Ukrainian civil war and also for massive economic sanctions against Russia. Evidence of Putin’s perpetration was never presented. Again, there is much to suggest that it was Ukrainian forces themselves who took the plane out of the sky.

In addition, there are various terrorist attacks in the U.S. of whose true background we are also left in the dark and which are also ideally suited to justify war operations or to push through laws. I don’t even want to start with 9/11, that would go beyond the scope of this article. More about that another time. But one thing is certain:

Politicians who talk about war are lying. Every time. And the mass media are keeping a lookout.

But what makes us believe these stories every time anew?

Crude propaganda. Insecurity. The power of images. Blind trust. The vague feeling that everything will be right.

Staging: The power of images

In other cases, the fake news consists of staged or manipulated interviews that give the false impression that the reality on the ground is different than it really is. Here, for example, CNN is faking a protest, a very small grouper of people looks so in correct camera angles as a street procession.

point de vue

Ben Works, president of the Strategic Issues Research Institute and military affairs analyst for Fox News and CNN, exposed a hoax during the Bosnian War. The Serbians set up a first aid post at the time to receive Bosnian refugees. They were not treated princely there, but were given food and allowed to leave when they wanted. The head of the camp showed the international press around, and a British film crew promptly turned it into a concentration camp story. The film crew placed themselves in an animal pen on the camp and filmed refugees standing outside the pen through barbed wire. Their intention was to make it look as if these refugees were standing in a camp surrounded by barbed wire. And to emphasize the concentration camp look, in the middle stood a topless man who looked like he was extremely emaciated due to a birth defect. No emaciation, no imprisoned prisoners, just a crude trick.

This shows how easy it is to create a completely false impression with pictures. Nevertheless, the next day the photo was on all the front pages, including the cover of TIME Magazine with the suggestive title “Must it go on? It achieved the effect it was supposed to, the world was outraged. And this outrage paved the way for popular support for the (illegal) war of aggression in Kosovo. One reporter even won the Pulitzer Prize for it, even though the whole story was completely fabricated and had nothing to do with the truth, and if there weren’t brave people who came clean, the fraud would never have come out and would be in the history books, never forget that!

time magazine
A picture goes around the world – is however an impudent staging

All these methods of psychological warfare are only as effective as they are credible. For a jaded audience, or even just an audience that has learned not to trust news from a particular source (which is known to be very biased against certain entities), the effectiveness of such propaganda is severely limited. However, this is where a new and altogether more insidious form of misinformation comes into play: the video news release.

The VNR, or video news release, is a short video production designed to look like a news report. The VNR, which often uses actors or PR specialists to stand in for the “reporter” and even the interviewee, has been used as a way for companies to integrate their products and services into the evening news as a “news” broadcast.

More troubling than the widespread use of this PR ploy by companies such as Microsoft and Phillip Morris, is the federal government’s use of VNRs.

Pousser les boutons émotionnels

For example, many American (and presumably European) news outlets are said to use so-called ‘crisis actors’ in their reports of rampages and terrorist attacks, so that the events trigger stronger emotions in viewers. These can be ordered by broadcasters from casting agencies like this one, CisisCast. Lire ici.

Officially, these are only supposed to be used in emergency services exercises to simulate realistic conditions. However, others believe that they are also used for news. Some independent journalists believe that in several mass shootings in the USA (Sandy Hook, Auora, Oregon) and in terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon, the same people were interviewed by the media as witnesses and relatives. Always under different names and slightly different appearances, but with extremely similar facial features and stature. The persons tell mostly under tears what happened. Also very many of these interviewed persons were proven in their curriculum vitae much theater and acting experiences or government connections.

I know that this topic is very sensitive and should be treated with caution. But one should not immediately dismiss this possibility with the accusation of impiety, because the past has shown that this is certainly within the realm of possibility (see incubator lie). On the other hand, one should not immediately accuse every traumatized relative who is interviewed on television of acting. For example, the parents of a child shot at Sandy Hook, sued Alex Jones after he called them ‘Crisis Actors’. Try to take a step back and watch this video with emotional distance and decide for yourself. There is some stuff on Youtube about it, but due to shadow-cencoring it is hard to find by now. On LiveLeak, however, it still is.

Some will wipe away the fears of VNRs with a wave of the hand. They will argue that psychological warfare is, by definition, something used against one’s enemies and not one’s own people. However, this is in fact a false assumption and one that we have already covered in this article (see CIA Operation Mockingbird).

Another method of implanting fake news is to merely make large-scale allegations that can later be revealed to be completely baseless (see Iraq War, U.S. election meddling by Putin). The wide dissemination of the original allegation and the almost non-existent dissemination of the correction are sufficient to ensure the effectiveness of this classic psyop tactic. The fat headline on the front page sticks, but no one reads the corrective statement that appears three days later in a small paragraph on page 6. Most read only headlines anyway. According to a study, in 59% of all cases the article behind the headline remains unread. The news houses know this very well and exploit it. Lire ici.

But no, you don’t fall for such things, after all you only read upscale literature and only watch selected programs on TV? That makes no difference.

The War Propaganda Web – Le site Conseil des relations extérieures

People seem to have completely forgotten that if you walked into a newsstand 100 years ago, you would have seen dozens of completely different ways of presenting foreign policy issues. Today, there is a gigantic mass of print media in a newsstand, but only one viewpoint on a current world political event is represented. The wide selection is just an illusion. Of course, the preparation of the information is adapted to the respective target group, but the information content and the general conclusions are (almost) the same everywhere. What is the reason for this?

As we have seen above, 90% of all media in the USA are in the hands of 6 people (in Germany, by the way, it is very similar). But among them there is disagreement, isn’t there? And within the companies there is plurality of opinion, isn’t there? And the media are only neutral observers of world events.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. As Swiss Propaganda Research has found out, key leaders of each of the media and Internet corporations sit in political think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, and especially the Council on Foreign Relations, as this graphic clearly illustrates. (Click here to enlarge)

cfr media network hdv spr

For those who may not know, the CFR is a primary member of the Washington think tank circuit. The private think tank focuses on foreign policy issues and was founded in New York in 1921 by Edward M. House and a number of influential bankers, politicians, journalists and businessmen. Since its inception, the Council has been credited with a ‘prominent function in the formulation process of foreign policy strategies’ and, along with Chatham House and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which are closely intertwined with the CFR, is currently among the top four most important and influential private think tanks in the world.

The Council has an average of 4500 members and among the names on the Council’s board are many that should be familiar to truth seekers: Banker Paul Warburg, CIA Director Allen Dulles, Presidential Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, President and ex-CIA Director George H. W. Bush, U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger & Dick Cheny, and billionaire George Soros to name a few.

You can see a nice enumeration of important presidents, vice presidents, CIA directors, military officers, journalists, Hollywood media moguls, NGO’s, congressional delegates, UN ambassadors etc. who are/were members of the CFR. Voir ici.

As described by former Army Major Todd Pierce, this group acts as “principal provocateurs” who use “psychological suggestiveness” to create a false narrative of pervasive danger from a foreign entity, with the goal of creating in the U.S. constant paranoia of “an imminent threat of attack or takeover.”

In order to continue to finance the military-industrial complex, which had ballooned to gigantic size during World War II and was designed for expansion, and to ensure a long-term raison d’être, a constant threat of imminent attack had to be created in the collective consciousness of the population.

Without the blind support of the taxpaying population, which again and again willingly and fearfully sent their sons into wars, the geopolitical power aspirations of the USA would not be enforceable. This could only happen if fear and associated enemy images were created in the minds of the population. Without a media landscape that would pull together in foreign policy positions, this would not be possible. And that is where consensus-building think tanks come into play.

Robert Kagan, a senior member of the CFR and an outspoken warmonger for the neoconservatives, has even proclaimed that the U.S. should create an empire.
For a long time, the fight against communism provided the appropriate basis for this, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new intangible enemy had to be created against which to act globally. The war against Islamist terror.

The created narratives of the CFR and their cohorts are picked up by their secondary communicators, the mainstream media, who foist them on the population without analysis or questioning. This is because the ordinary journalist knows exactly what to write and what to expect as a headwind. The pressure from above is great, and no one wants to be sidelined in front of his colleagues. Few have the courage to ask critical questions about foreign policy issues that are outside the narrative, and those who do have it are unlikely to make a career.

As Swiss Propaganda Research points out, Richard Harwood, former editor-in-chief and ombudsman of the Washington Post, wrote of the Council on Foreign Relations that its members are most likely the “ruling establishment of the United States.”

Harwood continued, “This Council’s membership in the Council, whatever they may think of themselves, is a recognition of their active and important role in public affairs and their ascension into the ruling class of America. They don’t analyze and interpret United States foreign policy; they help make it.”

Let’s let that sink in. U.S. government foreign policy – you make it.

Although only five percent of CFR members work in the media, this is all they need to enforce the will of their members.

-Several U.S. presidents and vice presidents of both parties;
-nearly all Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury;
-most of the chiefs of staff and commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;
-nearly all national security advisers, CIA directors, U.N. ambassadors, Fed chairmen, World Bank presidents, and National Economic Council directors;
-Some of the most influential members of Congress (especially foreign and security policy makers);
-Numerous media executives and top journalists, as well as some of the most famous actors;
-Numerous prominent scholars, especially in the key areas of economics, international relations, political science, history, and journalism;
-numerous leaders from think tanks, universities, NGOs, and Wall Street;
-and key members of the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission (JFK).

Already Harvard economist and Kennedy supporter John Galbraith stated, “Those of us who worked on the Kennedy campaign were tolerated in government and allowed to have a say, but foreign policy was still in the hands of the Council on Foreign Relations people.”

And John J. McCloy, former chairman of the CFR, high commissioner to Germany, co-founder of the Atlantic Bridge, president of the World Bank, and advisor to several U.S. presidents, explained in retrospect, “Whenever we needed a man in Washington, we just leafed through the Council’s membership list and made a phone call to New York [the CFR headquarters].”

This reveals why the news magazine Der Spiegel once called the CFR “the most influential private institution in America and the Western world” and a “politburo for capitalism.” In this sense, the Roman-inspired logo of the Council as well as its motto should be understood: “ubique” – omnipresent.

cfr logo 2

Political journalist Richard H. Rovere put it in these words:

“The directors of the Council on Foreign Relations form a kind of presidium for that part of the establishment which holds our destiny as a nation in its hands. … Rarely do they fail to get one of their members, or at least one of their allies, into the White House. In fact, they usually succeed in making the candidates of both parties acceptable men from their point of view.”

Until recently, this assessment was largely true. In 1993, for example, former CFR director George H.W. Bush was succeeded as U.S. president by CFR member Bill Clinton, who was followed in 2001 by CFR “family member” George W. Bush. In 2008, CFR member John McCain was defeated by CFR preferred candidate Barack Obama, who already received the list with the names of his future cabinet one month before his election from CFR Senior Fellow Michael Froman, who negotiated the TTIP and TPP free trade agreements under Obama and then returned to the CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.

It is only in the 2016 presidential election that it appears the Council, apparently, did not prevail. Trump himself is not affiliated with the Council however he placed some Council individuals in positions in his Trump administration. No matter which ballot is thrown into the ballot box, the CFR always wins. And if it doesn’t, the CFR press is used for smear campaigns (see Trump, more on that maybe another time).

Commission trilatérale

Similar agendas can be seen in the think tank ‘Trilateral Commission’, which is more business oriented. Founded by David Rockerfeller and Zbigniew Brzeziński (hello again!) at a Bilderberg conference in 1973, this private, policy-advising think tank has about 400 highly influential members from the three major economic blocs of Europe, North America and Japan. The goal is to improve cooperation among the three economic powers and connect policymakers with the private sector. Founder Brzezinski was also military advisor to the three presidents Clinton, Bush jr. and Obama and has already written a book in 1996 in which he writes about the invasion of the Middle East by the USA, just as it took place in the 20 years after, mind you BEFORE justifications and associated enemy images such as 9/11, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Assad, etc., the war operations were already planned in detail many years before. But I will write about Brzezinski another time.

trilaterale kommission
Logo of the TK- with 666 symbolism

Members of the TC are and were, again old-known:

George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, David Rockerfeller and his brother John D. Rockerfeller II, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz, Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder, Horst Köhler, Helmut Schmidt, Josef Ackermann etc.

The German Group (a German offshoot of the Trilateral Commission) has another 20 members from politics, business and the media, many of whom are also at home in the Atlantic Bridge, e.g. our future Federal President Friedrich Merz. Or will it be Jens Spahn who took part in the Bilderberg conference in 2017, just as (almost) every president and chancellor took part in a conference a year before his ‘election’? Whoever it will be, Rockerfeller has his man in office in any case. And neither of them will bite the hand that carried them up the career ladder.

Conférence de Bilderberg

The same goes for the annual Bilderberg conferences, where David Rockerfeller was also chairman of the board for many years. They have taken place every year since 1952 at a different location and invite important personalities from politics, banking and finance, business, military, media, universities and high nobility from all over the world. All 3 think tanks have in common that one can become a member only on invitation and with all three the exchange of its members takes place in the secret.

davcid rockerfeller
The emperor D.R. in old years
david rockfeller jung
The emperor D.R. in young years

According to the Chatham House Rule no contents may get to the public. David Rockerfeller himself once said (on a 1991 secretly recorded audio):

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for nearly forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been exposed to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and ready to march toward world government. . . . The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is certainly preferable to the national self-determination of centuries past.”

But why all this? Why the secrecy when there is nothing to hide? Why control the media and make them keep quiet? Rockerfeller already addresses the why and the much deeper agenda here, which I will discuss in more detail another time. To the Rockerfeller family I will report likewise another time very in detail. For the time being, however, I do not want to go into the other two think tanks, which would go beyond the scope of this article.

But fortunately we live in Germany, here we are informed decently or? Changes unfortunately nothing, the tentacles of the CFR and co. are long, in addition however more in part 2.

EDIT: Here is again a nice older picture of the giant media octopus.

médias

Finally, a few words of wisdom from a fictional news anchorman from the movie ‘The Network’ (1976):