Mainstream Media Manipulation, Societal Engineering & Government Propaganda

Mind Control Through Emotional Domination: How We're All Being Manipulated By The "Crisis Of The NOW"
May 14 2015 | From: NaturalNews

What you're about to read here is a revealing look at the psychological mechanism presently being used by government and media to achieve near-absolute control over the population.



I'm calling the concept the "crisis of the NOW," and understanding this is a lot like taking the RED pill. The "crisis of the now" involves an incessant, strategic bombardment of the population with a never-ending stream of contrived crises that demand immediate attention in the present.

This psychological bombardment is waged primarily via the mainstream media which assaults the viewer by the hour with images of violence, war, emotions and conflict.

Because the human nervous system is hard wired to focus on immediate threats accompanied by depictions of violence, mainstream media viewers have their attention and mental resources funneled into the never-ending "crisis of the NOW" from which they can never have the mental breathing room to apply logic, reason or historical context.

To protect the propaganda from scrutiny, no person is ever allowed the luxury of reflection. Logic and reason are condemned.

Critical thinking is derided. Historical context is obliterated by the repeated intrusion of the now, and whatever happened just a few short years or months ago is actively rejected (or memory holed) if it does not reinforce whatever present-day delusion is being pushed as "fact."

Similarly, the future is entirely off limits and never allowed to be explored in the mainstream media because doing so would require reason and forward thinking... two things which are never tolerated because they would reveal the inevitable failures of today's insane policies, such as running the country on debt and hoping it will somehow not matter down the road.


Mentally corralled like cattle

Another example of history you're never allowed to remember: The gunpoint rounding up of U.S. citizens

What this proves is that when the United States government wants to, it will round up and imprison a selected group of Americans at gunpoint, denying them all due process, even if they are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong.

You, the modern-day news viewer, are not allowed to remember this history because it might provide you with the necessary context to understand the concern over JADE HELM, a military operation being illegally conducted on U.S. soil, in open violation of established U.S. law.


Not allowed to apply logic to any crisis

"[I]n order to sustain gigantic false realities, there are honest debates that must never happen," writes Rappoport in Matrixology 101: debates that never happen. "They would reveal too much. They would shine a spotlight on vast contradictions. They would expose official storytellers to withering criticism."

"Millions and millions of antibody tests have been given to people around the world," writes Rappoport. "The antibody test is just one of a number of enormous issues in modern medicine that, if opened to real debate, would cause a seismic shift in society…assuming there were enough listeners who could track the lines of reasoning."

, CNN's green screen faked location shots from the Middle East, the wildly faked narrative of polar bears being "stranded" on floating pieces of ice (polar bears are great swinners), staged White House photos from the "war room" as America's former CIA buddies are hunted down and executed by special ops teams, and so on.

Creating crisis where none exists

Sometimes the crisis of the day must be so wildly exaggerated and overhyped that the exercise strains the bounds of believability... such as the CDC-directed measles panic waged by the mainstream media over a mild infection that killed no one and was never even considered a crisis until just the last few years when the vaccine industry shifted into "totalitarian science" mode.

The point of the exercise was to instill extreme fear in the population, followed by the introduction of a vaccine mandate law which we now know is called SB 277 (California).

Once again, the crisis of the NOW shut down all reasonable thinking and even encouraged the public to abandon their own core human rights principles such as the idea that people have the right to decide what medical interventions they wish to endure, and that no government can force an injection on a parent or their child without informed consent.



Through fear and crisis, the media even persuaded pro-choice women to become anti-choice on the issue of vaccines. No government has any right to interfere with a woman's body, it seems, unless that government is pushing a vaccine.

Thanks to the crisis of the NOW, every argument in favor of medical choice was steamrolled into oblivion: ethical arguments, scientific arguments, human rights arguments, legal arguments and the entire realm of reason.

But the classic crisis of the NOW which caused Americans to abandon all reason and surrender to police state totalitarianism was, of course, 9/11.

9/11 as the ultimate crisis of the NOW

The 9/11 attack was seized upon by the media and the government to wage what can only be called a psychological warfare assault upon the American people as preparation for the passage of the original Patriot Act. That's the Bush-era law that legalized government surveillance of the American people, turning America into the totalitarian police state it remains today.



In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent media campaign of instilling extreme hatred among the citizenry, Americans were ready to wholly support almost any law that claimed to "stop terror," even if it meant surrendering key liberties in the process.

Key to achieving all this was the elimination of selected facts from the memory of the American public. To this day, for example, almost no American remembers that three buildings, not two, were destroyed in New York City on 9/11, and the third building was not struck by any airplane at all.

All questions about this third building - WTC 7 - have since been banished from any public discussion. No one is allowed to ask how a concrete-and-steel building could suddenly collapse, in perfect symmetry, with the kind of precision that can only be achieved with carefully engineered and pre-planned demolitions.

The laws of physics are never allowed to be applied to the events of 9/11, because if they were, logic and reason would bring too many people to the inescapable conclusion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, not by airplanes. Thus, the easiest way for the propagandists to avoid this entire discussion is to delete the third building from the national memory.

Illusionist Uri Geller once made the Statue of Liberty seem to disappear from the New York skyline, but the media propagandists have deleted an entire high-rise building from America's collective memory.

Explore the real science and physics behind the events of 9/11 at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The next "crisis of the now" is being planned right now

To achieve almost any desired political outcome, all the global controllers have to do is wait for the right crisis (or stage it themselves), then roll out a pre-planned wave of mental assaults structured around a crisis of the now.

If they want to outlaw local police departments and roll out a national, federally-controlled Gestapo police force, for example, all they have to do is wait for police brutality to target an African-American male - brutality against white victims doesn't count - then wait for the inevitable riots to unfold. In the midst of the riots, Al "the informant" Sharpton can easily be directed to call for a federal takeover of all police.



If they want to force every American to be vaccinated or medicated against their will, all they have to do is rush in a wave of illegal immigrants carrying infectious diseases, then wait for an outbreak to happen.

As the outbreak spreads, they can blame unvaccinated Americans and use the crisis to push mandatory vaccine compliance. All logic and reason, of course, are not allowed to enter the discussion,

.

See: National media wages psychological terror campaign against Americans to set stage for government destruction of medical choice.

If they want to completely disarm the American public and outlaw private gun ownership, it's a simple matter to set in motion a series of events that result in a mass shooting somewhere. In the aftermath of the shooting, lawmakers can seize on the emotional intensity of the crisis of the now to demonize all firearms owners and call for national disarmament.



This very nearly happened following the Sandy Hook shooting in late 2013, after which Obama and Eric Holder aggressively tried to crush the Second Amendment in America.

Why The Hobbit movie makes absolutely no sense but is a sensational film to watch

A perfect example of being trapped in the NOW is found in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies motion picture released in 2014. This film is little more than a series of sensational video game-style battle scenes involving hobbits, dwarves, elves, dragons, witches and wraiths, all tied together with no logical story whatsoever.



The script is a random jumble of high-impact scenes of violence, tension, fear, conflict, magic and celebration. The film has all the elements of Lord of the Rings - yep, there's Gandalf and there's Agent Smith dressed like an Elven King - but it utterly lacks a soul that gives those elements meaning.

Propaganda is the art of overwhelming logic

Psychological "deletion" of the real threats to your life, liberty and happiness

For example, if I told you that ISIS terrorists wielding swords were killing 44 Americans a day with gruesome beheadings, you would totally believe that because you've been programmed to do so by the media. You'd get angry about it and call for more "national security" forces to protect us from those scary ISIS people.



But when you learn the truth that 44 people really are being killed each day from something else - prescription drug overdoses, according to the CDC - you have no reaction at all.

Prescription drug overdoses are quiet and non-violent. They aren't scary and they haven't been portrayed by the media in a manner that promotes extreme fear.

"Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone," writes Dr. Singh Gurkirpal is his study, "Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy", The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S.

Unless an emotional reaction is constructed for something, it doesn't exist in the minds of the masses

All this leads to a fascinating realization about mind control in the world today: Until something is associated with a strong emotional response, it doesn't exist in the consciousness of the masses.

Everything that's "real" is first constructed out of pure emotion, then pushed into the minds of the masses via the crisis of the NOW. Only then does it count as real, and from that point forward it can be leveraged to pass new laws that further erode the rights and liberties of Americans, and thus everyone else shortly afterwards.

This is why the No. 1 tool of mind control from the mainstream media is emotional manipulation of the viewers. Emotional coverage can be authentic in cases where the crisis is real and attention is justified, but emotional manipulation is usually contrived in order to evoke a response for the sole purpose of manipulation.

All this gets back to the work of America's original propagandist Edward Bernays. (See History is a Weapon to learn more about Bernays.)

He understood decades ago that you don't sell cigarettes by touting their benefits; you sell them by anchoring them to powerful emotional states reflecting positive self image. Similarly in 2015, you sell vaccines not by discussing anything resembling real science, but by catapulting emotional stories involving poor, innocent children who were stricken by the chicken pox - the horrors! - even if such stories are entirely fabricated.



The truth behind the propaganda is irrelevant. What matters is its emotional impact. And because emotions override reason, those of us who attempt to cite the real science on issues like vaccines are fighting a losing battle.

As the CDC has long proven, the real science doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative painted by the vaccine industry to evoke a charged emotional response as a form of mind control.

The answer to all this, of course, is to highlight vaccine-damaged children and show those who have been brainwashed by the vaccine industry that they are grieving for the wrong side.

The real human cost is found in all the children damaged by vaccines - children who will never lead "normal" lives again because their neurology has been permanently compromised by the toxic preservatives and chemical adjuvants found in vaccines.

See: Hundreds of children brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine to receive $90 million in financial compensation from UK government.

On both fronts - emotions or logic - the vaccine industry as operated today is a fraud. It only turned to emotional marketing because it couldn't survive any real scrutiny of its flawed science.

Meanwhile, in the realm of real science, autism rates have skyrocketed 296% over the last few years as the vaccine push has grown more aggressive. See the rising rate depicted in the red line of the bar chart below, as shown in the newly published study:

"Trends in the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cerebral Palsy, Hearing Loss, Intellectual Disability, and Vision Impairment, Metropolitan Atlanta, 1991 -- 2010."

See more discussion of the rise of autism at Age of Autism.


Solutions and defenses

Do you know anyone who can still think critically?

Demons Behind The Music Industry (Ex Illuminati Explains) &
Illuminati - The Music Industry Exposed
May 13 2015 | From: JohnTodd / Farhank

John Todd, former member of the Illuminati and music industry insider speaks out, plus a truly excellent documentary on what really goes on within the music industry.



Related: The Record Industry Pushed Gangster Rap As a Favor to Friends in the Prison Industry

I made an interesting discovery which may back up my video Demons Behind The Music Industry.

In the video John Todd mentions the album Destroyer by KISS. If you look on the cover of the album you can see the KISS members standing on rocks (or coals) above what looks like a lake of fire with smoke in the background, and it has a dark sky.

The Bible says in Revelation 9:2 -

"And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit."

In verses 7 and 8 it goes on to say that the faces of the locusts that came out of the pit had faces of men and hair as the hair of women. If you look at the KISS album cover Destroyer they have faces of men and long hair like women.

The king of these locusts from the pit is called Apollyon.

Now if you check the name Apollyon in the dictionary guess what it means? It means the DESTROYER which is the title of KISS's album. Coincidence? You decide.


Demons Behind The Music Industry (Ex Illuminati Explains)




Illuminati - The Music Industry Exposed

Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies To Censor News
April 29 2015 | From: Mercola

You can choose to ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Most of us rely heavily on the media for information, not realizing that 90 percent of it is controlled by a mere six media giants.



Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist whose television career spans more than three decades is one of my personal heroes. She was the reporter who, in 2009, blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was completely unfounded and manufactured.

She recently left CBS to pursue other avenues of investigative journalism, and has authored a highly praised book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington, which exposes what goes on behind the scenes in the media that gives you the information you come to think of as real and true.

"I left CBS about a year ago when it seemed I had met with so many dead ends in trying to continue the original investigative reporting that I've done for so many years there," Sharyl says. "My producer and I just kept hitting brick walls in the last two years or so in trying to get this reporting on television. We certainly weren't alone. Reporters are complaining about this across the board at many print organizations and broadcast outlets... The watchdog reporting that the government values so much is simply not desired for a variety of reasons as much as it once was at the national level. I think also this is a problem in local news... There was no point [in staying]. I was never in a position to turn up better stories; I have more information, more sources, more whistleblowers, and more I felt might produce terrific stories than ever before after 20 years in CBS News, and yet, utterly lacked the ability to get any of it on television. I could've stayed and done weather stories and stories of the day but that's just not where my interest was."

What Led to the Downfall of Watchdog Reporting?

Unfortunately, the trend of diluting the depth and scope of investigative journalism can even be seen in high-quality programs like CBS' 60 Minutes, which has been a favorite show of mine since its inception over four decades ago.

As noted by Sharyl, the reasons for the decline of investigative journalism are complicated. But a big part of it is due to commercial concerns; basically, commercial and corporate influences came into play, and media outlets grew to accept commercialization as part of the news process.

"I call it soft censorship," Sharyl says. "When you know you have a sponsor and you know it's important to the corporation, are you really going to offend the sponsor by going after stories that they don't like? But I do think it's more overt than that sometimes. The sponsors explicitly complain and argue at the corporate level that certain stories and topics shouldn't be done. We know this is true based on one anecdote I put in the book, but there are other anecdotes and experiences that reporters have had, where they've been told that this is the case. Additionally, there are political factors. There were managers at CBS in those last two years that inserted their ideology into the reporting of producers and reporters, who by and large were very fair. That can change the whole tone of the reporting."

One of the examples in Sharyl's book that really hit home for me was when Hillary Clinton ran against Obama for president, and while on the campaign trail told reporters she had dodged sniper fire on a trip as First Lady, 12 years prior, when she visited Bosnia.

It seems like a silly thing to lie about, but lie she did. Sharyl and other journalists had been on that trip, and they all knew no one had dodged sniper fire, least of all the First Lady. Fortunately, Sharyl had archived videos of the event to prove it.

"It couldn't be farther from the truth, the idea that we had been shot up by sniper fire," Sharyl says. "There are a couple of choices – just being untruthful for her own benefit, or was she delusional, which is a little frightening. But I think the public got past that because they accepted her as the Secretary of State."

"Too often, I think they don't want to cover a major controversy unless others have already covered it, like the New York Times or the Washington Post; then it's safe. They don't want to cover certain stories for ideological reasons. They don't want to cover certain stories against corporate partners that might harm corporate relationships."

Intimidation and Harassment of Journalists

True investigative journalists, such as Sharyl, have also become targets of intimidation and harassment. For example, at one point her computer and phone lines were hacked to find out what she was working on.

"I assume there are a handful of journalists who do that sort of critical reporting on the government, and on this administration in particular, that they wanted to watch. They never dreamed I would luck upon the resources to have the computer examined by experts that could find the software they deposited in my computer. This software was proprietary to a government agency, either the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)... They had my keystroke data... They could look at all my files. They used Skype audio – I didn't know this was possible – but they could turn it on invisibly, without you knowing it, to listen into conversations. They could also remove files using Skype... We were able to confirm these highly sophisticated long-term, remote intrusions."

Another interesting book for anyone interested or concerned about matters such as these is Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It by Marc Goodman. The book discusses in great detail how this type of hacking can occur, and more importantly, what simple measures we can do to protect ourselves. It's a reality. And if they're doing it to top-notch investigative reporters, certainly everyone is a candidate.

On Astroturfing...

"Astroturf" is the effort on the part of special interests, whether corporate or political, to surreptitiously sway public opinion and make it appear as though it's a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a groundswell of public opinion might not exist. Sharyl explains:

"They turn to things like social media – Facebook and Twitter – using pseudonyms and multiple accounts to spread things around. They use their partners who blog for them, write things, and pick up on one another's work until sometimes it's been picked up in the mainstream media as if it's a fact. It's all intended to make you feel as though if you hold a certain opinion that they don't want you to have, you're the outlier. Everybody else agrees with 'X' except you, and that may not be the truth. This is a huge business... There are actually PR firms that specialize in these sorts of tactics. Astroturfing is now more important, I am told by lobbyists and PR firms, to many clients than the direct lobbying of Congress because it's so effective to reach out to the public. They may have someone write a letter to the editor and you don't know that person is being paid by a special interest to advance a certain opinion. They may start as a nonprofit without saying out front that they're behind the nonprofit. The nonprofit may then look like a charity that's advancing a certain opinion, which is actually acting on behalf of the corporate interest or the special interest. Again, it's very widespread..."

Hallmark signs of astroturfing include using key language - words such as crank, crack, nutty, pseudo, conspiracy, and other language that's effective with the public to try to make you dismiss an argument they don't like. Another hallmark of an Astroturf campaign is attacking those who are questioning authority, such as reporters who are exposing the truth, whistleblowers who dare to step forward, and people asking tough questions.

It's important to be aware of these kinds of concerted efforts to distort the truth, and to understand how they're done, because these "faux concern" campaigns can have a profound influence on your perception of reality.

Astroturfing in Action

A perfect example of astroturfing just occurred when a GMO front group attacked Dr. Oz after he reported on the now scientifically established hazards of glyphosate, and the media swallowed and regurgitated the propaganda without any critical thought whatsoever. Slate magazine publicized the attack with the headline “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.”

The letter accuses Dr. Oz of repeatedly showing “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.”

The letter was signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller and nine other “distinguished physicians.” What the media has failed to address is that Dr. Henry Miller is hardly a concerned physician. He’s actually a now well-known shill for the GMO industry.

In his capacity as its front man, he was caught misrepresenting himself during the Anti-Prop.37 campaign in 2012, pretending to be a Stanford professor opposing GMO labeling, when in fact he is not a professor at Stanford. The TV ad had to be pulled off the air because of this misrepresentation.

Aside from that, he has a long and sordid history1 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to defending Big Tobacco. Some of the other nine physicians are also less than distinguished. As noted by US Right to Know:

“One was stripped of his medical license in New York and sent to federal prison camp for Medicaid fraud. Yet Dr. Gilbert Ross plays up his M.D. credentials in his role as acting president of the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH). Ross was joined on the Columbia letter by ACSH board member Dr. Jack Fisher. So what is ACSH? Though some reporters treat it as an independent science source, the group has been heavily funded by oil, chemical, and tobacco companies, and has a long history of making inaccurate statements about science that directly benefit those industries – for example claiming that secondhand smoke isn’t linked to heart attacks, fracking doesn’t pollute water... These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired. We urge reporters and editors to take a closer look at the sources selling them story ideas, and to act as better watchdogs for the public interest”.

Dr. Henry Miller and American Council for Science and Health Are False Fronts for the GMO Industry

Indeed, Henry Miller and ACSH are false fronts for the GMO industry, plain and simple. They are part of a PR hack strategy of astroturfing, and the mainstream media are too inept to look behind the curtain to see what’s really there.

The fact of the matter is that this attack on Dr. Oz is orchestrated not by concerned physicians or scientists but rather by industry shills whose job it is to attack anyone who embraces a more natural approach to health and/or raise damning questions that might hurt the industry’s bottom-line.

Why Conventional Media So Rarely Tells You the Truth About Health

One industry that wields a great deal of power within the media today is the pharmaceutical industry. It's rare to sit through an evening of television without viewing several drug ads. They also advertise heavily in print and online media.

The advertising dollars they spend not only generates sales, it also gives them the power to influence what's being reported in the news. Here's just one example:

"There's a story in my book about former executive producer of mine who got a phone call from the sales division, which was very inappropriate. He said the sales person from CBS was kind of screaming at him because we'd been doing a lot of stories looking at side effects and problems with the very popular and billion-dollar-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins. The advertisers didn't like that. Therefore, someone from the CBS corporate apparently didn't like that, and called down and said something like, 'If you keep doing these stories, it's going to be really, really bad for CBS...' I think that happens more often than we know explicitly. But this time, it was followed by what I see as all of the media backing down on pharmaceutical-related stories. We were doing very aggressive coverage of problems within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – not just me, but all the networks and a lot of print publications – about vaccines side effects, and about other medical issues. That all has virtually stopped. You can almost point to a time period when it seems someone made a phone call and said, 'That's it fellas. There are advertisers.' And you won't see these stories now even when there's a multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement against drug companies for mismarketing drugs that are commonly used. That's a huge story that should be leading the news in my opinion. But most people probably never heard of it because those are things that offend the sensibilities of advertisers, who now control to some degree the editorial content of networks, publications, and print publications that are advertising. And, as you know, they have several lobbyists for every member of Congress on Capitol Hill so they can make sure certain hearings don't happen. As recently as last year, they were able to stop a planned vaccine-related hearing. The control is almost total in my view. That's just one example of a corporate influence."

According to Sharyl, if journalists would simply cover the news with facts and fairness, topics like vaccine side effects would receive far greater coverage. The reason it doesn't is because that topic has been deemed "untouchable." Other emerging health issues that you don't hear about in the news include the emergence of enterovirus EV-D68. It's a polio-like virus, but it's not polio.

Thousands of people were stricken with it last year, and the virus appears to be linked to cases of paralysis. At least a dozen children also died from it, yet you didn't hear about this on the news because it was not, unlike the measles vaccine, something the government was interested in promoting.

"Too often reporters wait for the government to tell them what's a story and what's not a story. They won't do the digging on their own, which I think is a very bad trend. But I tried to find out about this [enterovirus] and asked the CDC some questions, to which they replied they didn't gather certain data. I searched the web and found that the CDC had published a paper with the data that I've asked for! So it was completely false what they told me..."

Sharyl's book exposes many of the inside strategies that go on to suppress this type of information. Since leaving CBS News and finishing her book, she's been writing freelance, publishing a number of stories she would have had a hard time telling before, such as the story of how a government experiment on premature babies misled parents with an unethical consent form to enroll their premature babies in the program.

This study was conducted at prestigious research institutions by the government across the country. After some of the babies died, the study was stopped. Even the government's own ethics body concluded that the consent form was unethical because it didn't actually inform the parents that their babies were being entered into a study.

They were just told that this treatment would be good for their baby. In reality, the babies were randomly placed into high-oxygen or low-oxygen groups - not what was best for them individually.

The parents were unaware that their child was being given treatment based on the flip of a coin. The parents also didn't know that their child was placed in an oxygen machine that had been disabled to give false readings.

"That story was published in Daily Signal,3 which is a heritage foundation news organization that started last year. They've done some excellent reporting and haven't tampered with my stories," Sharyl says.

Another story Sharyl believes has been underreported is that of HealthCare.gov. "The US government is still hiding public documents that have been under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a long time," she claims.

And the media simply reports whatever the government says, even though the government has been caught providing false information, including providing false statements under oath to Congress. There are still details of this health care program that we don't know anything about, and why is that?

"For millions of Americans, I think, this law is turning out to be disastrous and too expensive," she says. "There's now a new class of uninsured people who had insurance, but who've been bumped off or have gone off because they can't afford it now. The insurance isn't covering what people need. Certainly, there are people who have benefitted, people who couldn't get insurance before. There's no doubt about that. That's going to be reported on, but what's not reported is that many people are suffering severe consequences..."

In her book she also exposes the debacle of how HealthCare.gov was developed, so if you're interested in learning more about that, please pick up a copy of Stonewalled.

Sharyl has donated proceeds from Stonewalled to the University of Florida to put on a Freedom of Information forum for students and professionals, in which they brainstormed to come up with ideas for making the government more responsive to public information request; how to fix the freedom of information process, "which is entirely pointless and useless now," as Sharyl says.

So, when you buy her book, part of the proceeds are going towards ongoing efforts to help influence a more open and honest government, which is clearly something that needs work.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
April 12 2015 | From: BusinessInsider

This infographic created by Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources. [This is relevant to the rest of the world given their international holdings and influence.]



That’s consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983. Comment: And while it is US-specific, it portrays global trends in virtually every industry as the cabal roll out their centralist agenda, which would be vital if they were to be able to implement their New World Order - which is failing now in real time.

Note: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them.

But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates “the illusion of choice,” Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren’t owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.

Will it take a complete collapse and bloody reset before we have a chance at putting the world back on a rational course?

How can anyone actually think terrorism should be Obama and Congress’ top priority? Are Americans really that stupid? WTF do they want Obama and Congress to do? Double the DHS budget? Increase electronic surveillance on our communications? Give local police more military hardware? Ban guns? Repeal the 4th Amendment?

Do the ignorant masses know their actual chances of being killed by a terrorist? To say the chances are astronomically miniscule is an understatement. See for yourself:

You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

You are 23,528 times more likely to die from obesity than from a terrorist attack

You are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

You are 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

You are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.

You are 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

You are 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.

You are 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack.

You are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism.

You are more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.

You are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism.

See here for more statistics.

What policies do Americans want Obama and Congress to prioritize in 2015? According to the Pew Research Center’s policy priorities survey, 76 percent of people in the United States believe tackling terrorism should be the nation’s top priority this year.

It is the first time in four years terrorism has made the top of Pew’s list and its appearance for 2015 can be attributed to economic improvement as well as persistant terrorist threats.

Despite considerable improvement, the economy is still an area of concern for Americans and 75 percent of them want President Obama to give it attention. Job creation is closely linked to economic improvement so it comes as little surprise that it rounds off the top three with 67 percent of respondents expecting it to be prioritized.

The fact Americans think terrorism is our top priority proves that Edward Bernays was an evil genius.

The combination of mass media and propaganda can convince the willfully ignorant and dumbed down populace of anything. Facts are unnecessary when fear and feelings are far more powerful. We are truly doomed.

The reason for is that the bankers that now own the world’s media companies, and the higher executives in these multinationals that control the media, and therefore set the policies of the presenters and programs, have a vested financial and political interest in keeping the masses continuously dumbed down and mind-controlled like this so that ordinary people don’t ever wake up and truly understand how the world is being taken over by this handful of corrupt oligarchical misfits at the top in the City of London Corporation.

For nearly a thousand years the filthy white monkey in the Vatican and his un-Holy See and band of deviants, cardinal thieves and black Jesuits ingeniously controlled most of the world’s tangible riches and land, censored the Bible from ordinary people, enforced a list of Forbidden Books, to keep the working classes and peasants totally ignorant and subservient under their wicked control, torturing and burning everyone at the stake who disagreed with them or wouldn’t comply.

But Henry 8th changed all that in the early 16th century when he broke with Rome, which has now grown into a particularly nasty Fascist gang of apostate Protestants, headed by the Queen and the “King’s Jews” bankers in the city of London Corporation taking over the assets and wealth world, repeating the same sins as the Vatican, but on a much greater scale and with much ingenuity and cunning, using the United Nations as the vehicle to usurp and wrest political control from nation states.

British control of the media (and global intelligence agencies that are allied to it) goes back hundreds of years, but really accelerated from the beginning of WW1. Unfortunately, though, they are having teething problems getting the Russian bear to jump into line, and may I say, “good job,” and great to see someone’s got the guts to put their foot down!

The employees in these organisations already know they would lose their jobs if they publish anything that they know is out of line. You will note, Newstalk ZB and Radio Live, the two prime talkback shows in New Zealand, have degenerated into talkback formats now where they pre-advise the subject they want callers to talk about which is always trivialities, and limit the timespan of all calls so anyone who really does have something serious or important to say is suppressed by time restraints.

Most people have difficulty in understanding that Queen Elizabeth II is in actual fact a modern NAZI, no different than Hitler and his FASCIST Third Reich. Google: “Gold State Coach – photos” and you will see that on the rear of the coach are two statues of the sons of Neptune, carrying the old Roman FASCES (a bundle of rods bound with the helve of an axe) which was the symbol of the Emperor’s dictatorial power to decapitate and rule in ancient Fascist Rome.

The Nazi Fascist Third Reich based its form of National Socialism on the FASCES and so to now the United States of America, where the two fasces on the Queen’s Gold State Coach have been replicated and mounted on the rear wall behind the Speaker’s Rostrum in the US House of Representatives in the US Capitol!

This specially includes university professors, doctors and the very wealthy or leading businessmen, who most of the time know very little other than what they have been indoctrinated with through convention. And the truth is, if the world keeps on its current, conventional course , without some major new ideas or change in navigation in the near future – we are all doomed!

So one must conclude, that any profound change will only come in the future from the non-conformists. Not the university-educated mainstream or orthodox view. All those people out there who would be protesters, or those who have alternate views other than the mainstream, even if we don’t necessarily all agree with them. They are the ones who will save us. But certainly not the unethical band of sewer rats we currently have running the show now!

If you write to politicians or the media, don’t threaten them or defame them. But do use the truth, be forceful, with strong language and send copies of your letter personally to a few of them, so they can’t individually screw it up so no body else knows they are in fact deliberately prostituting themselves to mammon.

Many years ago, when I was secretary of a national childcare organisation involved with submissions on new childcare regulations in NZ - we were sending letters to the appropriate Government Minister without any success, other than “thank you for your letter” or a short letter not even addressing the issue raised.

Later we found out that the minister was so incompetent and unethical, the letters were all read by his secretary who more often than not simply screwed them up and threw them into the wastepaper basket, or replied to them himself.

But after we discovered this, I thought well, let’s send our letters to the Minister as we always had done, but also to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and all leaders of the Opposition. My, my, what a DRAMATIC change in response from these parasites!

I received a personal telephone call immediately from the Minister, inviting me to fly to Wellington, all expenses paid, with other executives to quietly discuss the matters personally with him. I could write a book about how inept and unethical most politicians really are.

I remember a leading bureaucrat once told me;

'“We run the show, not these common pick-pockets and political bed-bugs who often jump from one party to the other, who are usually only in power for a short time and preoccupied with the next election, while we are not. Ask a politician a question and you will get a politician’s answer, and invariably it will be a lie aimed at helping them win the next election.”

Mind you, we shouldn’t be surprised. This charade has been going on for hundreds of years! Sad, I know, but there you are!

Here a nice little snippet from the newly leaked Snowden papers. You think what happened to Nicky Hager (Now a Gobal Fund raiser you can’t give money too) was bad? Think again. We’re talking a total shut down of investigative journalism here.

This from No Right Turn:


TPPA Would Criminalise Journalism

Wikileaks leaked the latest version of the TPPA intellectual property chapter last night. There’s some nasty surprises from the US, including its efforts to revive the defunct Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by the backdoor and its efforts to ensure poor countries fighting, say, ebola can’t violate patents to save lives and prevent an epidemic (because in American eyes, the profits of big pharmaceutical companies come before human lives). But there’s another nasty sting: the TPPA would criminalise investigative journalism:

The draft text provides that TPP countries will introduce criminal penalties for unauthorised access to, misappropriation or disclosure of trade secrets, defined as information that has commercial value because it is secret, by any person using a computer system. TPP countries may criminalise all such disclosures or, if they wish, limit criminal penalties to cases that involve “commercial advantage or financial gain”; are directed by or benefit “a foreign economic entity”; or are “detrimental to a [TPP] party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defence or national security.” There are no public interest or free speech exemptions. Criminalisation of disclosure would apply to journalists working for commercial media organisations or wherever the leak was considered harmful to the “economic interests” of any TPP country.

Unmentioned: It also criminalises leaks which are detrimental to a party’s international relations or international security. So, the US is trying to US the TPPA as a backdoor to silence WikiLeaks, the Snowden files, and the entire enterprise of journalistic criticism of power.

The TPPA was bad enough when it was merely a secret deal being negotiated against our interests. But now its actively anti-democratic as well. Which I think shows us the danger of allowing our governments to negotiate such deals in secret: because we may find out at the end of it that they’ve signed away our democracy.

There is nothing new about this except the extent. Always there have been media, reporters, and columnists who published false information in order to help the CIA advance undeclared agendas. The difference is that today the CIA’s influence is pervasive. Objective reporting is a thing of the past.

Bought Journalism: How Politicians, Intelligence and High Finance Control Mass Media

Dr Udo Ulfkotte, German journalist speaks out.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air:

“Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor:

“The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a thousand are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot. Do the Chinese doctors know what they’re doing? Crowded cities. Maybe more cases all of a sudden. Ten thousand, a hundred thousand.”

The anchor:

“A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut, school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? People in small towns. I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor:

“Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against Autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. Germs. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned almost nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When the researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about Autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context small and narrow—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Billions of dollars are spent by the networks to build a reality the size of a room in a cheap motel.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says:

“The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

How about this: two-day-old footage of runners approaching the finish line of the Boston Marathon. A puff of smoke rises at the right of the screen. A runner falls down in the street. The anchor is saying: “The FBI has announced a bomb made in a pressure cooker caused the injuries and deaths.”

Must be a pressure cooker. Ban pressure cookers. We saw the pictures and heard the voice explain.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a followup, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news, planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before, it (whatever “it” is) must be okay.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

At some point in time, the television audience begins to experience an itch. “If reality is the news, then maybe I could become a visible piece of reality. Maybe I could get on the news. What would I have to do? How can I stand out? What outlandish thing could I cook up?”

Anyone’s face could appear on the screen and flicker there and be driven into the minds of millions of people.

If not fortune, then at least fame.

An honest television news anchor, if one existed, would say:

“The battle over the government shutdown and its funding continue as a piece of planned chaos. Events like this are shaped well in advance by men who manipulate the One Political Party With Two Heads, and you, the viewer, are reacting predictably. You’re choosing sides. You’re angry. And I’m sitting here on most nights adding fuel to the fire. The fix is in, and I’m going along with it. Here in the studio, I’m staging the news about staged reality.”

The news is a movie of a movie.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products takes over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.” Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

Which devolves into: reality is an advertisement for itself.

“Hello. I’m staged reality and I’m doing ads to promote me.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same no-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you three minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the NBC experts.

Brian Williams (NBC), the current champion of network anchors, seems to have downed one cup of coffee and half a Valium. He’s balanced. He’s neutral, he reveals a bit of an edge now and then, but we know he really cares, he just can’t show it because that would imply bias. And somehow (lighting, makeup), he’s forever young. He’s riding his bike down a country road tossing rolled-up newspapers on porches. It’s still morning in America…

Diane Sawyer (ABC) is for the weepers. If she’s not shedding a tear, she’s ready to. It’s there, in reserve. Her next gig should be on General Hospital.

Scott Pelley (CBS) is always ready to put on Dan Rather’s old tan bush jacket with the many pockets. And go out in the field, where it’s really happening. He’s the field surgeon who’ll do operations without an anesthetic if he has to. CBS producers keep beating him about the head and telling him he has to appear more human. They don’t have a drug for that yet.

This is the main cast of actors.

They deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

I’ve published the essence of this article before. I continue to reprint it, now and then, because it illustrates a basic fact about the mainstream press:

Not only are they part of the problem; not only are they creating problems; not only are they sold out; the reporters themselves, who should be able to work up astonishment at mind-boggling facts, have lost that capacity.

They’ve lost the very urge that got them into the journalism trade in the first place. They’ve offloaded the ability to be shocked and outraged. They’ve forgotten how to be surprised.

If, for example, you told them you had hard evidence that a small group of men, unelected and unappointed, was directing the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, they would yawn. If you showed them the evidence, they would yawn again.

There is a natural elasticity of spirit in human beings. It allows them to be shocked, surprised, delighted, horrified, outraged. Most mainstream reporters have lost that spirit.

Many humans have lost it. Wilhem Reich, the breakaway student of Freud who went on to research fundamental energies of living things, called this loss “the emotional plague.”

In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications. Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one in the press protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself an agent of that shadow group, a willing pawn, and despite his proclaimed religious values, was nothing more than a rank con artist, a hustler.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

By the way, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists. Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

David Rockefeller

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay. Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying:

"What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…” NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]? COOPER: Yes, they have met three times. NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of? KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings. COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy]. NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]? COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it. NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know. COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue. Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff. Mainstream reporters have no interest in this story. It means nothing to them. It barely registers on their radar when they learn about it.

Yes, they understand their editors would never let them touch it with a ten-foot pole. But making excuses is really beside the point.

Turning the profession of mainstream journalism into a land of walking zombie reporters speaks for itself. Occasionally, a zombie rebels, but otherwise the scene remains gray and undisturbed.

A whole nation’s political and economic policy taken over? Yawn.

The mainstream media is aging and collapsing under the weight of its own hubris and arrogance.

Now entirely formulaic in presentation and predictable in substance, the ‘major’ outlets of news, which are monopolized under only a small handful of corporations, serve the purpose of misleading the public on important issues and manufacturing consent for government and the oligarchs.




A recent example: July 11 2014 - ABC airs Gaza bombing devastation images - says it's in Israel

The public is still largely numb to this reality, and in a wicked catch-22 for modern man, many people are still addicted to the very media that serves as the primary weapon of social control against them.

The tide is turning, however, and to help break the spell we bring you this comprehensive list of 14 tactics used against the public by the mainstream media to coerce consensus, divide, conquer, ridicule and stifle truthful or meaningful conversation about the state of our world

1. Lying by Omission – What is not on the nightly news?

This is the most important question to ask when consuming mainstream media.

The average hour long broadcast consists of 48 minutes or less of actual news programming, minus, of course, the chit-chatting, the expensive motion graphics and the bumpers, highlights and story recaps. With a formula like this, full of pomp and grandstanding, the impression given is that if does not make it on the nightly news, the it is not of significance.

The most obvious way in which the mainstream media manufactures consent for policy makers and advertisers is by omitting from the news reel those stories and perspectives which may compromise the broadcasters agenda, whatever that may be.

2. Controlling the Debate – Who is arguing, and for what cause?

News programs are businesses just like anything else, and as such news executives keep a go-to list of contacts to fulfill any necessary role in a program or segment. If the government needs credibility, they roll out an ex-president and remind you that he has ‘gravitas.’

If the military industrial complex needs a voice, then they roll out a familiar think-tanker to interject in a debate with a common-sense perspective in favor of national security. If something is too complicated for public consumption, then they open the rolodex to the ‘experts’ page and shuffle some know-it-all in front of the camera.

The media is laden with groomed pundits, so-called opinion leaders, and commentators, and each one has a definite reputation, each one resonates with a specific target audience, and each one fills a predictable role in a conversation. Program guests are very well vettehing else, and those at the forefront are the best at playing the role.


3. Selecting the Right Anchors, Casters and Presenters

Our lives have been pegged to the dollar, and as such, a ‘good job’ is valued above many genuine virtues. People like to keep their jobs, as do news anchors and news casters, and since news is, again, a business, the voices and faces on news programs are hired to perform a role, a job description, a task.

They are not employed to pursue morally driven journalism for the benefit of society. If they perform as they are required, they advance and gain more exposure. If they rock the boat, there are a thousand other hungry job-seekers chomping at the bit to replace them and do exactly they are hired to do. News anchoring is a job like anything else, and those at the forefront are the best at playing the role.

4. Scripting and Synchronizing News

One of the creepier and more blatant efforts to homogenize thought and manufacture consent is to script the news at high level, then distribute these scripts to many different locales and anchors to read verbatim, while they feign authenticity.

This is partially a result of the business decision to save money by employing as few actual news gatherers as possible, but is also a key part of the strategy to achieve conformity amongst people of different backgrounds and interests. The government has also been known to interject itself into the chain of command for selecting which news scripts are to be disseminated to the public.

This is the most fundamental characteristic of propaganda, and is rather embarrassing to witness once you realize just how disingenuous your local news presenters are and just how easily duped most people are.

6. Politicizing Everything

Language is the greatest weapon of social control, and with mainstream media, powerfully debilitating language is pushed into every corner of our consciousness. Conservative vs. Liberal. Democrat vs. Republican. Right-winger vs. Left-winger. Good vs. Bad. Left vs. Right. Right vs. Wrong. White vs. Black.

And so on. Ad nauseam.

The truth is that ideas and opinions are as vastly different as grains of sand on a beach, yet the media intentionally frames every issue in terms of a phoney left-right paradigm that has been constructed to pigeon hole complex ideas and interests into a cheapened thought prison.

No unorthodox idea or point of view can reach critical mass because everything is automatically framed in a ‘with us or against us’ mindset, turning people against each other for no reason other than to appeal to our desire to be on the winning team.

The mainstream media is the chief party responsible for creating the constructs of ‘left’ and ‘right,’ which have been tightly integrated into our social consciousness as a means of achieving divisiveness and disagreement among the populace.

This is the chief tactic of divide and conquer, and when people are compelled on any issue to ‘pick a team’ and fight the rivalry to it’s bitter end, many opportunities for true progress are lost and the populace is easily goaded into a position favorable to the elite.

8. Using the Language of Separation and Labels

Sometime in the 1990′s, the mainstream media stopped referring to people as ‘people’ or even as ‘citizens’ and began calling everyone ‘consumers.’ Once again, language is important to shaping reality, and as ‘consumers’ our role in the affairs of business and state are reduced to hapless bystanders whose job it is to choose and reject, not interject and affect.

We’ve all heard the label ‘conspiracy theorist,’ which is the most popular label used when an idea or story is unfavorable to the mainstream media and the interests that back them up. You are a ‘conspiracy theorist’ if you ask questions, assimilate facts in a logical manner, or pursue justice outside of the main flow of public discourse on a popular issue.

This type of language is also part of the process of politicizing everything, and by also labeling people in accordance with their country of origin, religion, skin color, economic class, or whatever else, more wedges of division are driven into the populace, deflating our inherent power in numbers.

9. Asking the Wrong Questions

Press access to ‘important’ people in our society is tightly regulated, and the powers that be don’t like to be confronted with unexpected and hard questions. For this, the mainstream media dutifully uses its access to people in high places to ask softball, trivial, nonsensical, ignorant questions about irrelevant and superfluous issues.

Independent media is winning the long race against corporate/fascist propagandized media because people are naturally inclined to resonate with common sense and truth, which is not at all what corporate mainline media is involved with. White house correspondents shouldn’t waste our time and insult our intelligence by asking a war time president about his pet dog or a recent golfing trip. But they do, all the time.

11. Closing the Book Too Soon

Moving an important or complicated issue from the front page as quickly as possible is a common strategy to remove touchy subjects from the public conversation.

Sadly, our national attention span is at an all time low, mostly because we’ve been trained to move from issue to issue with lightening speed, never soaking up any one thing for too long. With such a short term memory, it is easy to protect a politician, forget a genocide, ignore the long-term effects of a bank bailout, and so on, just by moving onto to something new.

Once the media has signaled that a story has been resolved or adequately discussed, then any after thought, individual investigation, or further inquiry is labeled as extremist and ignored.

12. Triviality and Distraction

With all of the important decisions being made daily by powerful people, decisions that genuinely affect quality of life for many people, the news outlets are steadfastly devoted to engaging in gossip, entertainment, murders and acts of violence, car accidents, disasters and other pablum.

The body politic is kept confused by celebrity happenings, endless sports contests and other such pageantry, and the media uses these many forms of distractions to fill time and brain space so that important issues are seen as a drag or as a downer, and never given proper reflection.

This is so ubiquitous in our society nowadays that there really is no escape.

13. Outright Lying

When all else fails, just lie, make it up as you go along, sell your air time to the highest bidder, and never look back. In the internet age, people are pretty keen on fact checking, rebutting, arguing, and gathering stats, and there are enough facts available to prove any side to any story. In fact, this has become an art form for major media, and the ability to gather facts in accordance with an agenda is a profitable skill for the mainstream media.

Lying has always worked, and the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.

14. Bonus – Eye Candy and Mind Melting

This one is a bonus and part of the new era of network news. Rather than employ virtuous gumshoes and hardcore reporters of truth, mainstream media instead invests in graphic artists to make each frame of the broadcast an over-designed motion collage of brain-melting info overload.

Staying focused on what the anchor or guest is actually saying is impossible. By design, the news is presented in a mad shotgun blast of competing signals, and your attention is split in ten directions with tickers, bubbles, stock footage, gyrating lights and special effects.

The point here is to exhaust the mind with over-stimulation so that the brain cannot function methodically and cannot process an issue beyond the shallow surface. This is also known as hypnotism, or mind-control.


Conclusion

News is a commodity just like everything else these days, and although many still believe the point of news is to inform, it is important to accept the hard truth that the purpose of the news is really just to sell something, be it a product, an idea, a candidate, a public image, a war, or whatever.

For this, the mainstream media is focused on first deciding which issues are to be discussed in the public forum, then by using a bagful of tricks to shape people’s perceptions of an issue, the media divides us and pits us against each other while leading us into consent for an underlying and hidden agenda.

What starts out as a typical Weird Al Yankovic parody music video - this time of Lorde's 'Royals', quickly starts to jump into some interesting 'Conspiracy Theory' material - with a particularly excellent ending!

Did you know that when Obama signed the 2013 NDAA, it effectively made government propaganda LEGAL for the first time since 1948 when the Smith-Mundt Act was passed (not that they weren't doing it anyway, but...ya know...the gloves are officially off).

"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
— George Orwell

"All news is lies and all propaganda is disguised as news."
— Willy Munzenberg (Stalin's propaganda chief)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
— William Colby, former CIA director

"The media is a Counter-Intelligence organisation. The media backs every war. The role of the media and embedded historians is to surround the truth with a bodyguard of lies. "
— Greg Hallett

"The media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies; but we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no! Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers."
— Burning Man, "Waking Life"

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
— Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

"Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion. We should never accuse them of doing a poor and sloppy job of reporting. If anything, with great skill they skirt around the most important points of a story. With much finesse they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power. It is enough to take your breath away."
— Dr. Michael Parenti

"No one outside America any longer believes the US media or the US government... You can't believe a word the American media says. If they say anything correct, it's just an accident."
— Paul Craig Roberts

"Newspeak was the official language ... The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits ... but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought should be literally unthinkable."
— George Orwell

Guilt By Insinuation: How American Propaganda Works
July 22 2014 | From: PaulCraigRoberts

Why hasn’t Washington joined Russian President Putin in calling for an objective, non-politicized international investigation by experts of the case of the Malaysian jetliner?

The Russian government continues to release facts, including satellite photos showing the presence of Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missiles in locations from which the airliner could have been brought down by the missile system and documentation that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet rapidly approached the Malaysian airliner prior to its downing.

The head of the Operations Directorate of Russian military headquarters said at a Moscow press conference today (July 21) that the presence of the Ukrainian military jet is confirmed by the Rostov monitoring center.

The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area. The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.

Turning to Washington Putin stated: “In the meantime, no one [not even the “exceptional nation”] has the right to use this tragedy to achieve their narrowly selfish political goals.”

Turning to Washington Putin stated: “In the meantime, no one [not even the “exceptional nation”] has the right to use this tragedy to achieve their narrowly selfish political goals.” Putin reminded Washington: “We repeatedly called upon all conflicting sides to stop the bloodshed immediately and to sit down at the negotiating table. I can say with confidence that if military operations were not resumed [by Kiev] on June 28 in eastern Ukraine, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.”

What is the American response?

Lies and insinuations.

Yesterday (July 20) the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words: “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.”

Kerry’s statement is just another of the endless lies told by US secretaries of state in the 21st century. Who can forget Colin Powell’s package of lies delivered to the UN about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” or Kerry’s lie repeated endlessly that Assad “used chemical weapons against his own people” or the endless lies about “Iranian nukes”?

Read the full story at: PaulCraigRoberts

Also see:

RT: 10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash

Infowars: Whistleblower: U.S. Satellite Images Show Ukrainian Troops Shooting Down MH17

In January of 2014, former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson described the Obama administration as “the most secretive White House she’s ever dealt with.”





Then, during a speech Wednesday at the Chautauqua Institution, Abramson revealed to the audience even more insider information on how Obama officials handle the media, according to Newsbusters.

“I have heard Obama officials say more than once, ‘You will have blood on your hands if you publish this story,”

It’s a question of balancing competing interests, the government’s claims versus the public’s right to know. “When someone says, ‘You’ll have blood on your hands,’ you pause and take it very seriously,”

Next, Abramson explained how her views shifted after 9/11. Because President Bush’s former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer requested that the NY Times and other major media outlets not publish sources or methods the intelligence community was using after the attacks took place. Her publication followed the order for a “few years.”

However, they eventually went against it by running a story about warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorist contacts.

Abramson then pointed out a big difference between President Bush and President Obama. She said Bush never launched any investigations after they leaked the story, but that Obama has launched eight criminal investigations into whistleblowers’ actions.

In addition, Abramson exposed the Obama Administration for their secret subpoenaing of phone and email records of reporters at Fox News and the Associated Press.

As far the origin of the “blood on your hands” remark, according to Abramson, one of the individuals she heard it from was Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Abramson shared an experience in which Clapper argued with her over the phone about a potential story.

Clapper claimed the story could hinder efforts to stop a terrorist plot and told Abramson she would have “blood on her hands” if she published it. Abramson responded by agreeing to Clapper’s request.

For one reason or another, telling someone that publishing a story would cause them to have blood on their hands seems as logical as prosecuting a gun for murder. And, it’s pretty telling when an influential liberal like Abramson helps put to rest Obama’s bogus claim that he would have “the most transparent administration ever.”

The mainstream media is aging and collapsing under the weight of its own hubris and arrogance.

Now entirely formulaic in presentation and predictable in substance, the ‘major’ outlets of news, which are monopolized under only a small handful of corporations, serve the purpose of misleading the public on important issues and manufacturing consent for government and the oligarchs.




A recent example: July 11 2014 - ABC airs Gaza bombing devastation images - says it's in Israel

The public is still largely numb to this reality, and in a wicked catch-22 for modern man, many people are still addicted to the very media that serves as the primary weapon of social control against them.

The tide is turning, however, and to help break the spell we bring you this comprehensive list of 14 tactics used against the public by the mainstream media to coerce consensus, divide, conquer, ridicule and stifle truthful or meaningful conversation about the state of our world

1. Lying by Omission – What is not on the nightly news?

This is the most important question to ask when consuming mainstream media.

The average hour long broadcast consists of 48 minutes or less of actual news programming, minus, of course, the chit-chatting, the expensive motion graphics and the bumpers, highlights and story recaps. With a formula like this, full of pomp and grandstanding, the impression given is that if does not make it on the nightly news, the it is not of significance.

The most obvious way in which the mainstream media manufactures consent for policy makers and advertisers is by omitting from the news reel those stories and perspectives which may compromise the broadcasters agenda, whatever that may be.

2. Controlling the Debate – Who is arguing, and for what cause?

News programs are businesses just like anything else, and as such news executives keep a go-to list of contacts to fulfill any necessary role in a program or segment. If the government needs credibility, they roll out an ex-president and remind you that he has ‘gravitas.’

If the military industrial complex needs a voice, then they roll out a familiar think-tanker to interject in a debate with a common-sense perspective in favor of national security. If something is too complicated for public consumption, then they open the rolodex to the ‘experts’ page and shuffle some know-it-all in front of the camera.

The media is laden with groomed pundits, so-called opinion leaders, and commentators, and each one has a definite reputation, each one resonates with a specific target audience, and each one fills a predictable role in a conversation. Program guests are very well vettehing else, and those at the forefront are the best at playing the role.


3. Selecting the Right Anchors, Casters and Presenters

Our lives have been pegged to the dollar, and as such, a ‘good job’ is valued above many genuine virtues. People like to keep their jobs, as do news anchors and news casters, and since news is, again, a business, the voices and faces on news programs are hired to perform a role, a job description, a task.

They are not employed to pursue morally driven journalism for the benefit of society. If they perform as they are required, they advance and gain more exposure. If they rock the boat, there are a thousand other hungry job-seekers chomping at the bit to replace them and do exactly they are hired to do. News anchoring is a job like anything else, and those at the forefront are the best at playing the role.

4. Scripting and Synchronizing News

One of the creepier and more blatant efforts to homogenize thought and manufacture consent is to script the news at high level, then distribute these scripts to many different locales and anchors to read verbatim, while they feign authenticity.

This is partially a result of the business decision to save money by employing as few actual news gatherers as possible, but is also a key part of the strategy to achieve conformity amongst people of different backgrounds and interests. The government has also been known to interject itself into the chain of command for selecting which news scripts are to be disseminated to the public.

This is the most fundamental characteristic of propaganda, and is rather embarrassing to witness once you realize just how disingenuous your local news presenters are and just how easily duped most people are.

6. Politicizing Everything

Language is the greatest weapon of social control, and with mainstream media, powerfully debilitating language is pushed into every corner of our consciousness. Conservative vs. Liberal. Democrat vs. Republican. Right-winger vs. Left-winger. Good vs. Bad. Left vs. Right. Right vs. Wrong. White vs. Black.

And so on. Ad nauseam.

The truth is that ideas and opinions are as vastly different as grains of sand on a beach, yet the media intentionally frames every issue in terms of a phoney left-right paradigm that has been constructed to pigeon hole complex ideas and interests into a cheapened thought prison.

No unorthodox idea or point of view can reach critical mass because everything is automatically framed in a ‘with us or against us’ mindset, turning people against each other for no reason other than to appeal to our desire to be on the winning team.

The mainstream media is the chief party responsible for creating the constructs of ‘left’ and ‘right,’ which have been tightly integrated into our social consciousness as a means of achieving divisiveness and disagreement among the populace.

This is the chief tactic of divide and conquer, and when people are compelled on any issue to ‘pick a team’ and fight the rivalry to it’s bitter end, many opportunities for true progress are lost and the populace is easily goaded into a position favorable to the elite.

8. Using the Language of Separation and Labels

Sometime in the 1990′s, the mainstream media stopped referring to people as ‘people’ or even as ‘citizens’ and began calling everyone ‘consumers.’ Once again, language is important to shaping reality, and as ‘consumers’ our role in the affairs of business and state are reduced to hapless bystanders whose job it is to choose and reject, not interject and affect.

We’ve all heard the label ‘conspiracy theorist,’ which is the most popular label used when an idea or story is unfavorable to the mainstream media and the interests that back them up. You are a ‘conspiracy theorist’ if you ask questions, assimilate facts in a logical manner, or pursue justice outside of the main flow of public discourse on a popular issue.

This type of language is also part of the process of politicizing everything, and by also labeling people in accordance with their country of origin, religion, skin color, economic class, or whatever else, more wedges of division are driven into the populace, deflating our inherent power in numbers.

9. Asking the Wrong Questions

Press access to ‘important’ people in our society is tightly regulated, and the powers that be don’t like to be confronted with unexpected and hard questions. For this, the mainstream media dutifully uses its access to people in high places to ask softball, trivial, nonsensical, ignorant questions about irrelevant and superfluous issues.

Independent media is winning the long race against corporate/fascist propagandized media because people are naturally inclined to resonate with common sense and truth, which is not at all what corporate mainline media is involved with. White house correspondents shouldn’t waste our time and insult our intelligence by asking a war time president about his pet dog or a recent golfing trip. But they do, all the time.

11. Closing the Book Too Soon

Moving an important or complicated issue from the front page as quickly as possible is a common strategy to remove touchy subjects from the public conversation.

Sadly, our national attention span is at an all time low, mostly because we’ve been trained to move from issue to issue with lightening speed, never soaking up any one thing for too long. With such a short term memory, it is easy to protect a politician, forget a genocide, ignore the long-term effects of a bank bailout, and so on, just by moving onto to something new.

Once the media has signaled that a story has been resolved or adequately discussed, then any after thought, individual investigation, or further inquiry is labeled as extremist and ignored.

12. Triviality and Distraction

With all of the important decisions being made daily by powerful people, decisions that genuinely affect quality of life for many people, the news outlets are steadfastly devoted to engaging in gossip, entertainment, murders and acts of violence, car accidents, disasters and other pablum.

The body politic is kept confused by celebrity happenings, endless sports contests and other such pageantry, and the media uses these many forms of distractions to fill time and brain space so that important issues are seen as a drag or as a downer, and never given proper reflection.

This is so ubiquitous in our society nowadays that there really is no escape.

13. Outright Lying

When all else fails, just lie, make it up as you go along, sell your air time to the highest bidder, and never look back. In the internet age, people are pretty keen on fact checking, rebutting, arguing, and gathering stats, and there are enough facts available to prove any side to any story. In fact, this has become an art form for major media, and the ability to gather facts in accordance with an agenda is a profitable skill for the mainstream media.

Lying has always worked, and the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.

14. Bonus – Eye Candy and Mind Melting

This one is a bonus and part of the new era of network news. Rather than employ virtuous gumshoes and hardcore reporters of truth, mainstream media instead invests in graphic artists to make each frame of the broadcast an over-designed motion collage of brain-melting info overload.

Staying focused on what the anchor or guest is actually saying is impossible. By design, the news is presented in a mad shotgun blast of competing signals, and your attention is split in ten directions with tickers, bubbles, stock footage, gyrating lights and special effects.

The point here is to exhaust the mind with over-stimulation so that the brain cannot function methodically and cannot process an issue beyond the shallow surface. This is also known as hypnotism, or mind-control.


Conclusion

News is a commodity just like everything else these days, and although many still believe the point of news is to inform, it is important to accept the hard truth that the purpose of the news is really just to sell something, be it a product, an idea, a candidate, a public image, a war, or whatever.

For this, the mainstream media is focused on first deciding which issues are to be discussed in the public forum, then by using a bagful of tricks to shape people’s perceptions of an issue, the media divides us and pits us against each other while leading us into consent for an underlying and hidden agenda.

Over three dozen journalist organizations including the Radio Television Digital News Association, National Press Foundation, and the Society of Professional Journalists, have asked the President to drop the "excessive controls" on public information by federal agencies, branding it "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."





There has been an ongoing tension between broadcast, print and online journalists and the Obama administration, with complaints that the Administration has limited access to events, while providing its own "coverage" through official channels.

In a letter to President Obama, the groups complained about policies that require journalists to go through public information officers (PIOs) before talking with staff and that have PIOs vetting interview questions and monitoring interviews with sources.

"You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government," the letter began. "You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in." “The practices have become more and more pervasive throughout America, preventing information from getting to the public in an accurate and timely matter,” said David Cuillier, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, in announcing the letter. “The president pledged to be the most transparent in history. He can start by ending these practices now.”

Among the general practices the groups identify, saying some consider it censorship, are:

"Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people; "Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines; "Officials conveying information 'on background,' refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking. "Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them."

The letter also cited a host of specific examples of those practices.

The White House had not responded to a request for comment at press time.

Announcing its third annual Free the Press campaign to highlight censorship and oppression of journalists “around the world,” the US State Department made clear it doesn’t consider press freedom issues in the United States the same way it does abroad.

The aim of the third annual Free the Press campaign is to focus attention on “journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise harassed because of their reporting.

”But, apparently, the US' own crackdown on journalists, particularly those involved in whistleblowing, is a completely “separate category” to be highlighted by such an event, as Jen Psaki, the spokesperson for the US State Department made clear.





Announcing its third annual Free the Press campaign to highlight censorship and oppression of journalists “around the world,” the US State Department made clear it doesn’t consider press freedom issues in the United States the same way it does abroad.

The aim of the third annual Free the Press campaign is to focus attention on “journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise harassed because of their reporting.”But, apparently, the US' own crackdown on journalists, particularly those involved in whistleblowing, is a completely “separate category” to be highlighted by such an event, as JenPsaki, the spokesperson for the US State Department made clear.

Read the full story and see the video here.

There is no longer any room for sympathy for Lorde. After having a bleat and a cry about media intrusion, she unequivocably shows her true colours by "throwing the horns" in an awards ceremony after a live perfomance.




What a waste

Lorde has won two gongs at the Billboard Music Awards in Las Vegas and performed her song Tennis Court for the first time on television. No one gets world famous, so fast - without subscribing to the illuminati music industry agenda.

The 17-year-old beat Bastille, Capital Cities, Ariana Grande and Passenger to take out the award for Top New Artist.

Her song Royals also picked up the award for Top Rock Song, ahead of tracks from Passenger, Capital Cities and two from Imagine Dragons.





AAP reported Lorde read her acceptance speech for her best new artist award from cellphone: "I really don't want to screw it up."

Too late, love.

Prime Minister John Key has accused TV3 broadcaster John Campbell of falling for conspiracy theories in the wake of Campbell Live show on Tuesday about the unlawful surveillance of internet mogul Kim Dotcom by the GCSB spy agency and the appointment of its chief, Ian Fletcher.

[The Prime Minister may be well advised to have a lay down and a cup of tea before he hurts himself.]

Key suggested facetiously that Campbell turn next to whether US President Barack Obama was born in the United States, whether the American Government was behind the September 11 attacks and who killed the Kennedys.

"I've had some respect for John," Key said to reporters at Parliament, "but when you do, I suppose, two years and come up with absolutely nada, what you do is what he did which was set a whole lot of assumptions to music. "The first I ever heard of Kim Dotcom was the 19th of January 2012."

Tuesday's show pieced together facts, largely already known, beginning with the visit to New Zealand in March 2011 of James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, and ending with the surveillance in December 2011 of Mr Dotcom, which was later discovered to be unlawful because the police and GCSB did not realize he was a New Zealand resident.

Mr Key's active involvement in the appointment of childhood acquaintance Ian Fletcher as the GCSB chief was well established last year by Labour MP Grant Robertson, including a breakfast meeting between the pair in June 2011 at the Stamford Plaza.

TV3 identified another meeting between Mr Key and Mr Fletcher, on December 12, 2011, the week surveillance of Kim Dotcom began.

Mr Fletcher was appointed in September. He did not take up the post until January 30, 2012 but was visiting New Zealand in December.

Mr Key said acting GCSB chief at the time, Simon Murdoch, brought Mr Fletcher over to see him in his Beehive office on December 12.

"I can't tell you exactly everything we talked about because I would never say that," Mr Key said "but I can tell what we didn't talk about. "We didn't talk about Kim Dotcom because it is impossible to talk about someone you don't know." Mr Dotcom tweeted this after that that was "the logic of a liar."

Kim Dotcom insists he has proof that Mr Key is lying when he says he first heard about him on January 19, the day before his Coatesville mansion was raided by the FBI and that the proof will force Mr Key to resign.

Mr Dotcom is facing extradition proceedings by the United Sates where he is wanted on copyright, racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud charges.

He has been giving evidence at the trial of Act MP John Banks who is charged with filing a false electoral return in 2010 by knowingly recording donations by Mr Dotcom and Sky City as anonymous.

Mr Dotcom claimed in court Mr Key had heard about him because Mr Banks told him he had told the Prime Minister about a New Year's fireworks display being put on by Mr Dotcom. Mr Key said he had "no idea what John Banks said to Kim Dotcom but all I know is he has never spoken to me about going to fireworks."

He would never go to such fireworks anyway because he always spent Christmas and New Year in Hawaii.

In February 2009, Soros said the world financial system had effectively disintegrated, adding that there was no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.

Control the environment and you control human behavior and, ultimately, the destiny of humanity



Virtual reality mediated social behavior, designed to appeal to a generation acclimated to the internet and a diverse world of computer generated games and entertainment, may serve as the next step in a larger and more complex control paradigm.

Earlier this week, Facebook dropped $2 billion to buy the virtual reality company Oculus Rift, described by Dave Thier of Forbes as “a bizarre, maddening and beguiling beast” that will reshape “conference calls, virtual tourism, goggle-sized home theaters and more.” The strap-on technology is, as well, Thier adds, “scary.”

Considering the murky history of Facebook, the adjective is appropriate. Facebook received start-up funding from Accel Parnters, a venture capital firm with deep connections to In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s technology investment outfit. It is also connected to the Defense Department and its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.

DARPA was instrumental in building the original internet. Later, when DARPA’s Information Awareness Office, a surveillance technology project, was exposed folks began to ask questions. Congress promised to defund the project and it was quietly rolled into the NSA.

High technology projects with even thin connections to the NSA and the CIA should be suspect. Moreover, Facebook boss, Mark Zuckerberg, has publicly forged a connection between Facebook and the surveillance state when he declared in 2010 the age of privcy is over. He also said sharing information with “people,” and, obviously, the state, with its ubiquitous surveillance and control grid, and large corporations is now a “social norm.”

Read the full story at: Infowars

New Zealand Songstress Lorde - A Key Feature Of The Occult Grammy Awards
January 29 2014 | Source: WakeUpNewZealand & VigilantCitizen

It is always very suspicious when a performing artist rises to stratospheric worldwide fame within a very short period of time. New Zealand's own Lorde is no exception. In an awards ceremony of satanic imagery and witchcraft-esque performances, Lorde appeared with a very spooky set of black-stained fingertips.

See this article from Vigilant Citizen: The 2014 Grammy Awards: Still Pushing the Illuminati Agenda

Even MTV wrote an article about this bizarre affair which included the following:

"The most noteworthy part of her getup, however, were her black fingertips, which were a common symptom of the medieval disease back in the day — one that still occurs in patients nowadays as well.

We're not sure what story Lorde was telling with the dark imagery that accompanied her anti-consumerist jam, but something about it recalls the Ingmar Bergman-directed film "The Seventh Seal," which tells the tale of a medieval knight and his chess game with the Grim Reaper — a game that takes place during an outbreak of The Black Death."

Lorde doesn't have the monopoly on this though. Previously it was Kimbra, another New Zealand Songstress that shot to international fame, partly propelled by her participation in a Gotye track.

Below you see Illuminati imagery incorporated into a Kimbra album cover and music video.

Also see this article on Vigilant Citizen: Kimbra – Come Into My Head = Elite Symbology

Above: Let's play "Spot the All Seeing Eye over the Illuminati Pyramid". This is perhaps the most well recognised Masonic / Illuminati imagery element, the 'all seeing eye' which is most famously typified in the pyramid on the reverse of the United States one dollar note.

Below: The chequered floor is an occult favourite of the Freemasons, which are of course run by the Illuminati. Freemasonry adopts and uses the symbolism of Yin/Yang in a way as to hide the meaning form the "profane". The black and white pavement symbolises "the Good and Evil, principles of the Egyptian and Persian creed. It is the warfare of Michael and Satan ... light and shadow, which is darkness; Day and Night, Freedom and Despotism."

KONY 2012 Scam: African Invasion Psyop: Infowars Nightly News
March 9 2012 | From InfoWars

Alex explains how the establishment is using the foundation controlled left to promote a US Military invasion of Africa.

Fox News Business Show Host Fired for Broadcasting Government Tyranny Truths
February 15 2012 | From: PrisonPlanet.com

Judge Andrew Napolitano signed off on Freedom Watch this week with a salute and a promise to keep “defending freedom– everyone’s freedom, whenever I can,”, following the announcement that the show has been axed by Fox Business News.

The Judge closed the last edition of Freedom Watch in the same way he normally does, with a message regarding adherence to the vision of the founding fathers and the hard fought liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Napolitano flagged up the fact that only a third of Americans supported the revolution and another third expressed no interest in the matter. In a clear message to his critics, the Judge noted “The founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their honor, [but] they were not saints, and originally their cause was not popular.”

From: PrisonPlanet.com

How to Get Fired in Under Five Minutes:




It is time to expose why Napolitano was unceremoniously fired from Fox News:

The New Zealand Media - Watchdogs or Lapdogs?
January 23rd 2012 | From: BreakingViewsNZ By Steve Baron

This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox

Fair Dealing Notice

These pages / videos may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. With reference to The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 such material is made available for critical, review, educational purposes and the reporting of current events. In accordance with The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994, this material is distributed without profit to those with a general interest in such information for research and education.

Fair Use Notice

These pages / videos may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those with a general interest in such information for research and education.