TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label Indoctrination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indoctrination. Show all posts

September 02, 2016

Indoctrination - Inconsistent with Democratic Society



Noam Chomsky
Manufacture of Consent in a Democratic Society
INDOCTRINATION

Inconsistent with Democratic Society


VIEW 1 - Rhetoric press/media
societal purpose of First Amendment (freedom of press) enabling public to assert political control over political process
  • information
  • opinion
  • access
  • opportunity to act
VIEW 2 - Historic & Present
contrary view = dominant view
re modern democracy
traced to 17th Century English Revolution
civil war / king supporter v. parliament supporters
plus:  big popular movement - populist radical democratic movement
defeated 1660
lost:  question whose slaves the poor shall be, king or parliament

John Locke
lower classes must be told what to believe

Clement Walker
deep concern of liberal elements (agitators)
were revealing mysteries of govt - that lower classes will be too arrogant to submit to civil rule

Reinhold Niebuhr
moralist, political thinker
rationality belongs to the cool observers
stupidity of average man he follows not reason but faith
and the naive faith of the proletarian requires necessary illusion
and emotionally potent oversimplifications which have to be provided
by myth-makers to keep the ordinary person on the right course

Walter Lippman
'dean of American journalists'
wrote about what he called the 'manufacture of consent'
- has become a self-conscious art
- and a regular organ of popular govt in a revolution of the practice of democracy
- thought it appropriate b/c common interests allude public opinion entirely
- and can be managed only by a specialised class
- whose personal interests reach beyond the locality
- post WWI
- like Niebuhr's 'cool observers'

WWI timing important
During WWI John Dewey's circle of intellectuals were extremely impressed
with having imposed their will on a reluctant and indifferent majority
with the aid of propaganda fabrications about 'Hun atrocities' and jingoistic over-simplifications

/ as usual, the population was pacifistic and did not want to go to war
Woodrow Wilson, in fact, won the 1916 election
on the slogan peace without victory
- a mandate which he predictably interpreted as meaning victory without peace very quickly
- with the aid of the intellectuals, they felt that they had whipped the population into a war fever
- historians also joined enthusiastically in the cause

- formed the National Board for Historical Service
- founder of it said what was needed was what he called 'historical engineering'
- method to serve the state by 'explaining' the issues of the war to that the Americans might better win it
- Wilson administration established the first government official propaganda agency in the US
- called the Creel Commission (Committee on Public Information, CPI - aka Creel Committee)

- a straight propaganda agency to try to turn reluctant and indifferent majority
- into a willingness to fight the war and succumb to jingoistic fanaticism
- a predecessor of a much more ambitious program developed during Reagan Administration
- Reagan's Office of Latin American Public Diplomacy - theoretically under State Dept.
- but actually under National Security Council
- Congressional General Accounting Office later concluded this was an illegal operation
- an illegal operation which had intent of intimidating critics
- & controlling debate and discussion re Central America
- goal:  demonize Sandanistas & build up support for the US client state / US terrorist states in region
- exposed during Iran-Contra hearings
- officials described propaganda efforts to Miami Herald journalist as spectacular success
- "the kind of operation that you would carry out in enemy territory"
- expresses attitude of Reaganite political leaders and fact of state leaders generally towards their own populations
- ie. that own population is the 'enemy' - the domestic 'enemy' that you must control & marginalise
- and you want to ensure that they do not become so arrogant as not to find humility enough to submit to civil rule
- Out of Creel Commission, but going back to WWI, a number of consequences
- one of members of Creel Commission went on to become leading figure & patron saint of modern PR industry
- Edward Bernays, who later went on to write about the 'engineering of consent'
- 'engineering of consent', the essence of democracy, in Bernay's view

- PR industry devoted to controlling the 'public mind'
- educating the American ppl about the economic facts of life, to ensure favourable climate for business and
- a proper understanding of the common interests
- the public mind is the only serious danger facing the company (ATT exec) - it's got to be controlled
- Edward Bernays went on to demonizing the democratic govt of Guatemala
- working for the United Fruit Company when the US was planning to overthrow Guatemala govt
- as it did in 1954, turning country into a [???] which it has remained since
- a major theme in academic social sciences for decades
- Harold Lasswell, US political scientist & communications theorist, academic
- wrote article on propaganda in International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (1933)
- says we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests
- they are not.  According to him, the best judges are the elites.  The smart guys.  The cool observers.
- He says we must be ensured the means to impose our will, for the common good
- said this would require a whole technique of control, largely by propaganda, b/c ignorance & superstition of masses
- same theme all the way through, comments Chomsky
- basic problem:  if you have a society in which the voice of the ppl is heard
- YOU HAVE GOT TO ENSURE THAT VOICE SAYS THE RIGHT THING
- in totalitarian societies - threat of physical force
- so in that society it does not matter so much what they think
- what matters is what they do, and that you control by force
- AS CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO CONTROL BY FORCE ERODES
- it is necessary to control what ppl think
- as society becomes more free, there is more sophisticated concern for thought control
- eg. public relations, academia, journalism
- state has limited resources to control the public by force
- US undoubtedly most sophisticated in the reliance on techniques of indoctrination and control (public relations)
- PR industry an American creation
- close similarity to Leninist ideology - to Bolshevism
- which also assumes that the radical intellectuals are the specialised class, the vanguard, and they've got to lead the
- stupid and ignorant masses to a better society
- Chomsky says the two conceptions are very much alike
- one of the reasons why there has been such an easy transition from to another
- move from being Leninist enthusiast to a passionate supporter of state capitalism
- and working for American [capitalist] aims; Chomsky remarks "that takes place overnight"
- it's been going on for years:  it's called 'the god that failed transition' (?)
- in early stages had some authenticity - examples Ignazio Silone
- Ignazio Silone - long-term informer for Mussolini’s regime—the Italian Orwell as a fascist spy
- in recent years just a farce; a technique of opportunism
- transition is easy b/c not much of a difference in ideological change; just a matter of where you think power lies
- eg. if you think there's going to be popular revolution
- & you can ride revolution to state power & hold whip over masses
- equals:  Leninist enthusiast
- if, on the other hand, you don't see that happening
- but see power lying in state institutions which you must serve as an ideological manager,
- you do that
- in last century or so since there has been an identifiable secular intelligentsia
- intelligentsia fall typically into one or other of these two categories
- associate themselves with one or other system of power & hierarchy & subordination
- it is only if you submit to those systems that you are counted as a 'respectable' intellectual

- for obvious reasons
- post WWII
- deep concern again over need to control & deceive the public / to control the public mind
- presidential historian Thomas Bailey, wrote 1948, when setting off on 'Cold War'
- wrote:

"because the masses are notoriously short-sighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. Deception of the people may in fact become increasingly necessary, unless we are willing to give our leaders in Washington a freer hand."

- 1981, as US was launching a new crusade for 'freedom'
- Professor Samuel Huntington, Harvard, said in private (but published) discussion:

"you may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union that you are fighting. That is what the United States has done ever since the Truman Doctrine"

- giving insight into nature of the 'Cold War' and the nature of the war against Nicaragua
- concerns re controlling the public mind
- rise to surface esp. after wars and turmoil - eg. 17th Century Revolution, England
- eg. like WWI when Woodrow Wilson launched the 'Red Scare'
- major example in all of American history of state repression
- large-scale and effective in destroying unions and
- destroying independent politics and eliminating independent thought
- same thing after WWII - phenomenon mislabled 'McCarthyism'
- actually initiated by the Liberal Democrats in late 1940s / McCarthy just at tail end & vulgarised it
- reason:  periods of war & turmoil tend to arouse ppl from apathy
- making them think, organise / so you have repression - eg. Red Scare etc.
- same thing happened after Vietnam War
- elites concerned re what they called 'crisis of democracy'
- book:  The Crisis of Democracy, published by Trilateral Commission, put together by David Rockefeller 1973
- representing the liberal internationalists from three major centres of modern capitalism
- USA, Western Europe and Japan (hence 'trilateral')
- this is the liberals - eg. Jimmy Carter
- 'Crisis of Democracy' - during 1960s large groups of ppl normally passive & apathetic
- began to try to enter political arena to press demands / that is 'crisis' to be overcome
- naive might call that 'democracy'
- but the sophisticated / the elites / understand that as a 'crisis of democracy'
- American spox, Samuel Huntington, wrote in his report Harry Truman had been able to govern country
- with cooperation of relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers & bankers
- but in 1960s, turmoil - youth, women, labour etc - began to get involved
- same crisis that arose in 1700s and same crisis that repeatedly arises when ppl begin to take advantage of
- formal opportunities that exist
- problems:  VALUE ORIENTED INTELLECTUALS - concerned with 'truth', 'justice' nonsense
- delegitimising the institutions that are responsible for the indoctrination of the young
- eg. schools, universities
- opposed to the 'good guys', the technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals / the commissars
- their proposal: more 'moderation' in democracy to mitigate the 'excess' of democracy to over come the 'crisis'
- plain terms:  public has to be reduced to their proper state of apathy & obedience
- & public must be driven from the public arena, if democracy is to survive
- with the specialised class, the cool observers, smart guys, technocratic and policy oriented intellectuals
- doing job in interests of the ppl
- that's the liberal side
- not going into what reactionary side says
STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - View 1.  Rhetorical View
- view of Justice Powell - the view he expressed:
- view that the public ought to assert meaningful control over the political process
CONTRARY VIEW - View 2.  View Actually Held
- the public is a dangerous enemy and has to be controlled, for own good, like you control children
- Evident that View 2 is the actual held view, can be seen when a 'crisis of democracy' arises
- and unwashed masses begin to enter into political arena & have to be somehow REPRESSED
- said force and mentioned Red Scare (but isn't that propaganda ?) or other means
- media play a big role in this
- STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - same Justice Powell discussion
- claims it is the crucial role of the media to effect the societal purpose of First Amendment
- ie allow the public to assert control over the political process
- STANDARD VIEW OF DEMOCRACY - also expressed by Judge Gurfein
- permitting the New York Times to publish The Pentagon Papers
said:

"We have a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press, and it must be suffered by those in authority, in order to preserve the even greater values of the freedom of expression and the right of the people to know"
That's the standard view.

THE DEBATE

- given that standard view, we have debate:  whether the media has gone too far in defiance of authority
- right wing claims they've gone too far & they are overcome by liberal bias; must do something
- the liberals - as in the Trilateral Commission [capitalist] - AGREE
- THEY SAY THAT THE MEDIA THREATENS GOVT AUTHORITY
- by their adversarial stance and they've got to be curbed
- if they can't curb themselves; the govt is going to have to move in to curb them
- Executive Director of 'Freedom House' Leonard Sussman
- asked:  must free institutions be overthrown by the very freedom they sustain
- rhetorical:  meaning we need to do something re excess freedom that press is using to attack govt
- Sussman was writing re Freedom House study of the  Vietnam War's 1968 Tet Offensive
- (two-volume study accusing the press of virtually losing the war)
- a classic showing that the press allegedly lost the war by unfair criticism of USG during Tet Offensive
- study a total fraud; falsified data & when analysed PRESS WAS SUPPORTIVE OF USG POLICY
- and PRESS WAS WORKING WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF GOVT PROPAGANDA
- nevertheless they claimed press was too 'pessimistic'
- by which standard? 
- obvious standard is internal US intelligence assessments
- which we have, thanks to the Pentagon Papers
- TURNS OUT THE PRESS WAS MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN USG INTEL
- b/c press believed public statements and did not know re private USG intel statements
- so FREEDOM HOUSE complaint reduces to the fact that the press
- though totally supportive of the USG propaganda, DID NOT DO IT IN UPBEAT ENOUGH FASHION
- it would not have surprised George Orwell that that should be criticism of the press
- by an organisation called 'Freedom House'
- but that has become the benchmark since, that 'proves' that the press was too 'adversarial'
- THAT'S THE DEBATE
- then the DEFENDERS OF THE PRESS say maybe we're too adversarial but you have to tolerate us
- even though we're cantankerous etc
- OUTSIDE OF THAT DEBATE - which debate constitutes virtually the entire mainstream discussion
- outside debate, there is another position:  it challenges the factual assumption that's taken for granted
- according to this alternative view, the MEDIA do indeed fulfil a societal purpose
- ie. TO INCULCATE AND DEFEND THE ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL & POLITICAL AGENDA
- OF THE PRIVILEGED GROUPS THAT DOMINATE THE DOMESTIC SOCIETY
- by selection of topics; by distribution of concern; by frame of issues; by filtering of info; by emphasis & tone;
- by simple fabrication, sometimes; CRUCIALLY, BY THE BOUNDING OF DEBATE
- to ensure that debate does not go outside of certain limits
- binding in both news columns and in opinion columns
- because news columns embody all sorts of assumptions and ideological presuppositions
- to the extent that there is, a liberal bias,
- it serves primarily to bound thinkable thought (according to this outside view)
- ie. to INSTIL THE UNCHALLENGEABLE ASSUMPTIONS which reflect narrow elite consensus
- LIBERAL BIAS PERFORMS A REAL FUNCTION:  SAYS 'THUS FAR' AND NO MORE
- but as far as the liberal bias goes, it is still accepting the presuppositions as unchallengeable
- within those bounds, there's ample controversy
- it reflects the tactical divisions among elites how to achieve generally shared aims
- BUT THESE LIMITS ARE VERY RARELY TRANSCENDED
- so Western media functions in accordance with the:  PROPAGANDA MODEL

PROPAGANDA MODEL

- propaganda model has a prediction about how the press is going to behave
- Propaganda Model has a further prediction
- ie. no matter how well confirmed the Propaganda Model, it cannot be taken seriously
- and therefore must be effectively excluded from mainstream discussion
- that follows from the model itself
- THE MODEL REJECTS CERTAIN PRINCIPLES THAT ARE SERVICEABLE TO POWER
- Propaganda Model of press falls out of the spectrum that is defined by the presupposition
- that the media are adversarial and cantankerous, perhaps excessively so
- THAT PRESUPPOSITION IS A SERVICEABLE ONE, to the established institutions
- to believe that what you are reading is actually criticism if it's in fact support
- it's a SOPHISTICATED TECHNIQUE OF INDOCTRINATION
- of course, the presupposition / technique of indoctrination is serviceable to media themselves
- nice to pride yourself on being a 'courageous' and 'independent' adversary of power
- since those assumptions are serviceable, they're going to be upheld according to the propaganda model
- NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE WILL BE PERMITTED
- that prediction is very readily confirmed
- the Propaganda Model is never taken seriously:  it cannot be considered
- Propaganda Model has disconcerting feature to it: 
- as a matter of logic, it is either VALID or INVALID
- if it's invalid, you can dismiss it
- if it's valid, you MUST dismiss it (because it is saying the wrong thing)
- ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, PROPAGANDA MODEL MUST BE DISMISSED
- truth is no defence
- very much like traditional of the doctrine of seditions libel
- ie it is a crime to criticise state authorities because that undermines power
- doctrine runs up to modern times
- truth was never a defence against seditious libel
- truth heightened the enormity of the crime of calling authority into disrepute
- same is true here (re Propaganda Model)
FACTUAL QUESTION
- are the standard presumptions correct?
- ie - is it true that the press is independent, cantankerous, adversarial & maybe excessively so?
- OR are the assumptions of the Propaganda Model correct?
- Propaganda Model has certain prior plausibility to it
PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 1
- ie. if you simply accept controversial free market assumptions
- about how society works
- you are led almost automatically to the propaganda model
- you can see that pretty simply
- Ask yourself what the media are.
- ie. THE AGENDA SETTING MEDIA - media that sets the frame that others adapt to
- ie. NYT, WaPo, and 3 TV channels, + couple others - not much else
- those set framework that everyone else pretty well adapts to
- agenda setting media:  what are they?
- AGENDA SETTING MEDIA = VERY LARGE CORPORATIONS that are INTEGRATED WITH or often OWNED by EVEN LARGER CONGLOMERATES
- like other businesses, they have product that they sell to market
- MARKET = advertisers / other businesses
- PRODUCT = audiences
- MEDIA do not finance themselves on audiences - audience is usually a loss
- AGENDA SETTING MEDIA makes money from ADVERTISERS
- advertising rates go up if you have the right kind of audience
- only a relatively privileged audience raises advertising rates
- SO WHAT MEDIA ARE AS AN INSTITUTION is major corporations selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses
- what would you expect to come out of such a system
- you expect to come out something that reflects interests of the:
    - sellers
    - buyers
    - product
- it would be amazing if it were not true
- many other things apart from that press in the same direction
- centres of power in society (state, corporate sector, & others)
- can impose punishments when things go wrong (or rewards)
- therefore GAIN when adapting to CENTRES OF POWER
- gains:  less costly
- top managerial positions - editors, columnists etc
- if you make it into those positions you are PART of the privileged elite
- at the very top / that's where your associations are / perceptions / friends
- it would not be surprising if PERSONNEL reflected the SAME INTERESTS
- many other pressures, leading immediately to the assumption that Propaganda Model is highly plausible
- even without any evidence  /  it has prior plausibility & would be surprising if it were not true
PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY - NO. 2
- Media has a lot of elite advocacy
- represents position intellectual elites thought the media OUGHT to serve
- and the whole system of education and so on ought to serve
- that is the position since the 17th Century / the dominant position
- it is the position necessary to manufacture consent for the general good because of the stupidity of the average man
- and we have to put aside these democratic dogmatisms
THUS we have a position of (1) PRIOR PLAUSIBILITY & (2) ELITE ADVOCACY and (3) PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
- it is very striking that the debate over the media is determined by the intellectuals
- AND THEY'RE THE MOST INDOCTRINATED SECTOR OF SOCIETY
- for them the ONLY debate is whether the media are too adversarial or not
- public, on the other hand, generally think the media are too conformist & too subordinate to power
- they automatically accept something like the propaganda model
- these 3 factors do not prove that Propaganda Model is valid, but do suggest that Propaganda Model
- ought to be part of the 'debate' / discussion
- IT IS NOT A PART OF THE DISCUSSION, EXACTLY AS THE MODEL PREDICTS
- thousands of pages of detailed, close documentation on the Propaganda Model
- tested in just about every conceivable way
- Propaganda Model is by now one of the best confirmed thesis of the social sciences
- if there is any serious challenge to it, Chomsky has not seen it:  it is generally just ignored
- or caricatured
- what you have is very well confirmed thesis (not proven) & no serious challenge to it
- it has (1) prior plausibility (2) is advocated by elites (3) is generally supported by the public
- but it's not part of the discussion, exactly in accord with its predictions
NEXT TASK IS TO LOOK AT ACTUAL DETAILS
- any set of examples will be misleading because its predictions are essentially universally confirmed
- with only statistical error, so giving examples is misleading because you might argue that the examples are not properly selected
- that's why you have to look at a range of tests to make sure that they are properly selected
- let ppl who think the media are adversarial pick their own grounds
- that's the harshest test that the model can face, so let them pick the grounds
- well they have picked their grounds:  things like Tet Offensive
- it turns out everything you go to, Tet Offensive, Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings
- you take them and they show precisely the subservience of the press to established power
- compare coverage of historical atrocities committed by clients and enemies
- compare good deeds, like elections, carried out by clients and enemies
- look at comparative coverage
- tests conclude, PROPAGANDA MODEL is VALID as a first approximation to way media functions
- eg 'freedom of press'
    more NYT coverage re Nicaragua than in rest of world combined re freedom of press Nicaragua
June 1986 - World Court condemned USA re unlawful use of force & US violation of treaties
World Court:  called to desist
Congress responded to this by:  voting $100-million in aide to increase/accelerate the unlawful use of force
Reagan Admin announced that this is for real and that this is a 'real war'
there was enthusiastic media coverage of that
the World Court decision was simply dismissed as an annoying bit of nonsense; either ignored or falsified
media presented the World Court as criminal, not the United States
in response to this virtual declaration of war, as the Reagan Admin described it, the Nicaragua govt
suspended La Prensa and that led to virtual hysteria in the US:
the Neimann Fellows, the journalism fellows at Harvard
immediately gave the owner of La Prensa, Violeta Chamorro, an award;
WaPo immediately wrote an editorial that she deserves ten awards;
New York Review 'Newspaper Headline' liberal left columnist, issued plea for funds for La Prensa to keep its equipment going (that those funds could be added to the rather substantial CIA subvention to La Prensa, ever since 1979); and on and on.
WHAT IS:  La Prensa
La Prensa is probably unique in history - it is often believed that La Prensa opposed the Somoza dictatorship
- if you read the press that's what you'd believe
In 1980, right after the Sandinista revolution, the owners of La Prensa fired the editor and 80% of the staff left with him
because the edtor and the staff refused to support their pro Contra policy
/ the editor and staff formed another newspaper - and if a newspaper is constituted of its editor and its staff, that's the old La Prensa
/  if a newspaper is constituted of the money that's behind it, is it the new La Prensa
WHAT IS A NEWSPAPER
- is it the staff and the editor
- is it the owners & equipment

NEW LA PRENSA supports the overthrow of the government by a foreign power and it does it quite openly, and it's funded by the foreign power that is trying to overthrow the government

Chomsky cannot think of a parallel in the history of Western democracies

eg.  during WWII, England did not permit Nazi Germany to fund and run a major newspaper in London and the United States did not permit Japan to invest in and run a major newspaper coming out of New York

in fact, England and United States imposed harsh censorship and they wouldn't even let tiny little dissident newspapers go through the mail or appear and so on

There's no remote parallel in Western history.

This is never mentioned in media commentary.

Nevertheless, a true civil libertarian will defend La Prensa from harassment, even though this is unique in human history, because if you're a real civil libertarian you think that US should have allowed Japan and Germany to dominate the American media during WWII.

WE NOW ASK WHETHER THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL HYSTERIA OVER LA PRENSA REFLECTS THEIR LIBERTARIAN PASSIONS or because they're serving power as the Propaganda Model predicts.
/ obvious test.  test we apply all the time when we look at our enemies.

look at WORLD PEACE COUNCIL
Communist Front Organisation
read their publicity and you will see that they have a lot of criticisms of USA
often very valid criticisms
in fact, their critical discussion of the repression in USA and US dependencies
not only is often valid but it's OFTEN THE KIND OF THING THAT IS NOT REPORTED IN USA
/ do we honour them for that?
/ we regard them with contempt

[UNCLEAR TO ME]
/ and the reasons is we apply a very simple and obvious test
=  we ask what they say for the repression and atrocities for which they are responsible

  • El Salvadore there were 2 small independent papers
  • / independent
  • / not particularly left-wing
  • / run by businessmen
  • / challenged distribution of power (eg. land reform or something like that)
  • not around any more
  • govt that US arms, funds, trains and supports sent its security forces to destroy them
  • One newspaper eliminated:
  • editor and photo-journalist taken outside of restaurant and hacked with machetes by security forces & left in ditch
  • / owner fled
  • Other newspaper eliminated:
  • took several bombings
  • three assassination attempts on editor
  • machine gun attack that killed newsboy  / editor fled
  • finally army surrounded premises with tanks and then smashed place and destroyed it

THIS HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE WORD OF MENTION IN THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS COLUMNS, IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ONE EDITORIAL MENTION IN ALL OF THESE YEARS

THE SAME IS TRUE OF OTHER MEDIA

IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER:  THESE ARE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY OUR CLIENTS, THE GUYS WE PAY AND TRAIN TO DO THAT SORT OF THING, SO SUDDENLY OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS' DISAPPEARS

Let's take another major US client, ISRAEL, which receives by far the major US aid and is again not a small country under attack by a superpower.

At exactly the same time that Nicaragua suspended La Prensa after the virtual declaration of war, in violation of the World Court proceedings, ISRAEL CLOSED DOWN PERMANENTLY TWO JERUSALEM ARAB NEWSPAPERS, on the charge that security claimed that they were supported by a terrorist/hostile group.

Supported by Supreme Court of Israel on basis that no state, no matter how legitimate the business, will permit a business that is supported by hostile elements and that freedom of speech does not extend to activities that may threaten the security of the state.

How much coverage did that get?  One mention in US press: ie in letter by Noam Chomsky in Boston Globe, commenting on the hypocrisy of the Nieman Fellows - they did not give a prize to these editors and, in fact, it was never reported.

After the Central American Peace Accords, La Prensa was opened, and right at that time, Israel closed a Nazareth newspaper on grounds, again, that it was supported by hostile elements.

Editor pleaded that everything that appeared in newspaper passed through censorship; but that was disregarded by Israel Supreme Court, on the grounds that if the state says it's supported by hostile elements, that's all that's required.

YOU NEVER NEED ANY EVIDENCE WHEN THE STATE COMES ALONG AND SAYS 'SECURITY REASONS', THE COURTS JUST ACCEPT IT.

Israel also closed a news office in Nablis - editor was already in prison without charge on the claim that he had contact with hostile elements.

How much coverage did that get in the US press?  Answer, as far as Chomsky could find:  zero.

Guatamala early 1980s, US enthusiastically supported outbreak of terror and violence
  • Reaganites positively passionate enthusiasm for this
  • maybe 100,000 ppl slaughtered
  • after sufficient massacre had been carried out
  • had 'democratic election
  • and there's supposed to be a 'democracy' in Guatamala; that's what they tell us
  • during period of US-backed slaughter, they did not have any censorship
  • the problems of the press were taken care of simply by murdering journalists
  • 50 journalists were murdered, including TV journalists right in the middle of broadcasts
  • "for some reason, you didn't need any censorship when that was going on"
  • Chomsky:  that was never discussed; you will find bare mention of it in the press

After the return of 'democracy' on which we pride ourselves
  • one of the editors who had fled and was living in Mexico
  • decided to return and he opened a small newspaper, called 'La Epoca'
  • it wasn't calling for overthrow of govt; it wasn't supported by a foreign power
  • it was just kind of a small left-liberal journal
  • immediately death threats from death squads, adjuncts of the security forces
  • warning him that you're going to be killed or flee
  • he nonetheless went ahead and published a couple of issues
  • 15 armed men broke into the offices
  • fire-bombed office
  • kidnapped night-watchman
  • destroyed the premises
  • editor held press conference next day - no attendees, except European press
  • said that there is no freedom of expression
  • received another death threat warning him to get out of country
  • taken to airport by European ambassador to ensure he could get out alive
  • fled to Mexico

How much coverage did that get in America?  Answer:  zero.

Nothing in The New York Times and nothing in Washington Post in the last year.

It's not that they didn't know about it.  It was on international wires.

But we also know that they themselves referred to it obliquely 1 month later.


-------------------------

Office of Public Diplomacy
officially known as the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean
part of a White House ordered propaganda plan in the 1980s
to provide cover for the secret CIA war in Nicaragua
CIA director William J. Casey initiated the propaganda campaign
on advice of private sector PR men:
Walter Raymond, Jr., a CIA propaganda expert, transferred to National Security Council to get program running
Raymond picked Otto Reich to run the new OPD
housed in the State Department
a covert, illegal, inter-agency propaganda campaign aimed at US citizens and Congress
never received full public scrutiny

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Public_Diplomacy

Thomas A. Bailey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey

https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zbooks/www/chomsky/ni/ni-c01-s06.html

The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto)
The Powell Memo was first published August 23, 1971
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

Murray Irwin Gurfein, federal judge
The Pentagon Papers
During his first week as a judge, Gurfein was assigned the Pentagon Papers case and gained national prominence when he refused the government's initial prior restraint motion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gurfein
-----------------------------------------

Walter Lippman 
'dean of American journalists'
coined term 'Cold War' in book of same name
{responsible for coining other terms also}

Lippmann was an early and influential commentator on mass culture, notable not for criticizing or rejecting mass culture entirely but discussing how it could be worked with by a government licensed "propaganda machine" to keep democracy functioning.   [wikipedia]
Walter Lippman:   associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, social engineering of the masses, funded by US-Anglo capitalists.


Edward Bernays

Also associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London.


No time to focus on the notes I did, to make sense of them.


August 30, 2016

US-Anglo Capitalism - International High Cabal - Preparing for World War III - 'War on Terror' Lie



WWIII

Mujahid Kamran, Prof
b. 1951
Gujrat, Pakistan
theoretical physicist
vice-chancellor University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
professor physics, PhD
a former Fulbright Fellow (University of Georgia, Athens, USA, 1988–89)
father -  political correspondent for the Pakistan Times

2012 - wrote:  95% of the US media is owned by only six corporations:

...  top echelons are dominated by Zionists allied with the banking cabal:

"With the US military and intelligence apparatus in their control, with their ownership of the media, and with their control of academia, it is easy for them to direct assassinations and false flag operations, such as the murder of JFK and 9/11."


2013 - supported the 9/11 so-called "conspiracy theories"
- blamed the international bankers
- criticised US think tanks, eg. Council on Foreign Relations / pushing wars
- US a complete dictatorship
- said that ten million homes had been foreclosed in the US
- said tent neighbourhoods had sprouted in US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahid_Kamran






Prof. Mujahid Kamran

The Elite, the ‘Great Game’ and World War III
By Prof. Mujahid Kamran
Global Research, July 30, 2014
New Dawn Special Issue 16, Global Research 7 June 2011
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-elite-the-great-game-and-world-war-iii/25160


This article was originally published in June 2011


The control of the US, and of global politics, by the wealthiest families of the planet is exercised in a powerful, profound and clandestine manner. This control began in Europe and has a continuity that can be traced back to the time when the bankers discovered it was more profitable to give loans to governments than to needy individuals.

These banking families and their subservient beneficiaries have come to own most major businesses over the two centuries during which they have secretly and increasingly organised themselves as controllers of governments worldwide and as arbiters of war and peace.

Unless we understand this we will be unable to understand the real reasons for the two world wars and the impending Third World War, a war that is almost certain to begin as a consequence of the US attempt to seize and control Central Asia. The only way out is for the US to back off – something the people of the US and the world want, but the elite does not.

The US is a country controlled through the privately owned Federal Reserve, which in turn is controlled by the handful of banking families that established it by deception in the first place.

In his interesting book The Secret Team, Col. Fletcher Prouty, briefing officer of the US President from 1955-63, narrates a remarkable incident in which Winston Churchill made a most revealing utterance during World War II:

    “On this particular night there had been a heavy raid on Rotterdam. He sat there, meditating, and then, as if to himself, he said, ‘Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing – this is total war.’ He continued sitting there, gazing at a large map, and then said, ‘Time and the Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are’.”

Prouty further states:

    “This was a most memorable scene and a revelation of reality that is infrequent, at best. If for the great Winston Churchill, there is a ‘High Cabal’ that has made us what we are, our definition is complete. Who could know better than Churchill himself during the darkest days of World War II, that there exists, beyond doubt, an international High Cabal? This was true then. It is true today, especially in these times of the One World Order. This all-powerful group has remained superior because it had learned the value of anonymity.” This “High Cabal” is the “One World Cabal” of today, also called the elite by various writers.

The High Cabal and What They Control

The elite owns the media, banks, defence and oil industry. In his book Who’s Who of the Elite Robert Gaylon Ross Sr. states: “It is my opinion that they own the US military, NATO, the Secret Service, the CIA, the Supreme Court, and many of the lower courts. They appear to control, either directly or indirectly, most of the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies.”

The elite is intent on conquering the world through the use of the abilities of the people of the United States. It was as far back as 1774 that Amschel Mayer Rothschild stated at a gathering of the twelve richest men of Prussia in Frankfurt: Wars should be directed so that the nations on both sides should be further in our debt.” He further enunciated at the same meeting: Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of one world government.”

The elite owns numerous “think tanks” that work for expanding, consolidating and perpetuating its hold on the globe. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and many other similar organisations are all funded by the elite and work for it. These think tanks publish journals, such as Foreign Affairs, in which these imperialist and anti-mankind ideas are edified as publications, and then, if need be, expanded in the form of books that are given wide publicity.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger et al, as well as the neo-con “thinkers,” owe their positions and good living standards to the largesse of the elite. This is an important point that must be kept in full view at all times. These thinkers and writers are on the payroll of the elite and work for them. In case someone has any doubts about such a statement, it might help to read the following quotes from Professor Peter Dale Scott’s comprehensively researched book The Road to 9/11 – Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (University of California Press, 2007):

    …Bundy’s Harvard protégé Kissinger was named to be national security adviser after having chaired an important “study group” at the Council on Foreign Relations. As a former assistant to Nelson Rockefeller, Kissinger had been paid by Rockefeller to write a book on limited warfare for the CFR. He had also campaigned hard in Rockefeller’s losing campaign for the Presidential nomination in 1968. Thus Rockefeller and the CFR might have been excluded from control of the Republican Party, but not from the Republican White House. (Page 22)

The following quote from page 38 of the book is also very revealing:

    The Kissinger-Rockefeller relationship was complex and certainly intense. As investigative reporter Jim Hougan wrote: Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always a protégé of his patron Nelson Rockefeller, even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”


Professor Scott adds:

    Nixon’s and Kissinger’s arrival in the White House in 1969 coincided with David Rockefeller’s becoming CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy of detente was highly congruous with Rockefeller’s push to internationalise Chase Manhattan banking operations. Thus in 1973 Chase Manhattan became the first American bank to open an office in Moscow. A few months later, thanks to an invitation arranged by Kissinger, Rockefeller became the first US banker to talk with Chinese Communist leaders in Beijing.

How They Manipulate Public Opinion

In addition to these strategic “think tanks” the elite has set up a chain of research institutes devoted to manipulating public opinion in a manner the elite desires. As pointed out by John Coleman
in his eye opening book The Tavistock Institute on Human Relations – Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of the United States of America, it was in 1913 that an institute was established at Wellington House, London for manipulation of public opinion. According to Coleman:

    The modern science of mass manipulation was born at Wellington House London, the lusty infant being midwifed by Lord Northcliffe and Lord Rothmere. The British monarchy, Lord Rothschild, and the Rockefellers were responsible for funding the venture… the purpose of those at Wellington House was to effect a change in the opinions of British people who were adamantly opposed to war with Germany, a formidable task that was accomplished by “opinion making” through polling. The staff consisted of Arnold Toynbee, a future director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Lord Northcliffe, and the Americans, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. Lord Northcliffe was related to the Rothschilds through marriage.

Bernays was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, a fact never mentioned, and developed the technique of “engineering consent.” When Sigmund Freud moved to Britain he also, secretly, became associated with this institute through the Tavistock Institute. According to Coleman, Bernays “pioneered the use of psychology and other social sciences to shape and form public opinion so that the public thought such manufactured opinions were their own.”

The Tavistock Institute has a 6 billion dollar fund and 400 subsidiary organisations are under its control along with 3,000 think tanks, mostly in the USA. The Stanford Research Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Aspen Institute of Colorado, and many others, devoted to manipulation of US as well as global public opinion, are Tavistock offshoots. This helps explain why the US public, by and large, is so mesmerised as to be unable to see things clearly and to react.

Bilderberg researcher Daniel Estulin quotes from Mary Scobey’s book To Nurture Humanness a statement attributed to Professor Raymond Houghton, that the CFR has been clear for a very long time that “absolute behaviour control is imminent… without mankind’s self realisation that a crisis is at hand.”

Also keep in mind that currently 80% of US electronic and print media is owned by only six large corporations. This development has taken place in the past two decades. These corporations are elite owned. It is almost impossible for anyone who is acquainted with what is going on at the global level to watch, even for a few minutes, the distortions, lies and fabrications, incessantly pouring out of this media, a propaganda and brainwashing organ of the elite
.

Once your picture is clear it is also easy to notice the criminal silence of the media on crimes being perpetrated against humanity at the behest of the elite. How many people know that the cancer rates in Fallujah, Iraq are higher than those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the use of depleted uranium, and maybe other secret nuclear devices, by US forces? Fallujah was punished for its heroic resistance against the American forces.

The Importance of Eurasia

Why is the US in Central Asia? In order to understand this, one has to look at the writings of the stooges of the elite – Brzezinski, Kissinger, Samuel P Huntington, and their likes. It is important to note that members of these elite paid think tanks publish books as part of a strategy to give respectability to subsequent illegal, immoral and predatory actions that are to be taken at the behest of the elite. The views are not necessarily their own – they are the views of the think tanks. These stooges formulate and pronounce policies and plans at the behest of their masters, through bodies like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, etc.

In his infinitely arrogant book The Grand Chessboard, published in 1997, Brzezinski spelled out the philosophy behind the current US military eruption. He starts by quoting the well-known views of the British geographer
Sir Halford J Mackinder (1861–1947), another worker for the elite. Mackinder was a member of the ‘Coefficients Dining Club’ established by members of the Fabian Society in 1902. The continuity of the policies of the elite is indicated by the fact Brzezinski starts from Mackinder’s thesis first propounded in 1904:

    “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: who commands the World-Island commands the world.”

Brzezinski argues that for the first time in human history a non-Eurasian power has become preeminent and it must hold sway over the Eurasian continent if it is to remain the preeminent global power: “For America the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia… Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”

It is not just the geostrategic location of this region – it is also its wealth, “both in its enterprises and beneath its soil,” that holds such attraction for the elite whose greed for money, and lust for power, remain insatiable, as if there was a sickness afflicting it.

Brzezinski writes:

    “But it is on the globe’s most important playing field – Eurasia – that a potential rival to America might at some point arise. This focusing on the key players and properly assessing the terrain has to be a point of departure for the formulation of American geostrategy for the long-term management of America’s Eurasian geopolitical interests.”


These lines were published in 1997. Millions of people have died in the past two decades and millions have been rendered homeless in this region but it remains a “playing” field for Brzezinski and his likes! In his book Brzezinski has drawn two very interesting maps – one of these has the caption The Global Zone of Percolating Violence (page 53) and the other (page 124) is captioned The Eurasian Balkans. The first of these encircles a region which includes the following countries: Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, all Central Asian states, Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Russia as well as India. The second one has two circles, an inner circle and a wider circle – the outer circle encloses the same countries as in the first map but the inner circle covers Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Turkey and the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia.

“This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbours, is likely to be a major battlefield…” writes Brzezinski.


He further writes:

    “A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem of this unstable region.”

These lines were written at a time when this kind of fundamentalism was not a problemsubsequently the US manipulated things and chose to make it one by its provocative and deceptive tactics. According to its strategic thinkers, the US might face a serious challenge from a coalition of China, Russia and Iran and must do whatever it can to prevent such a coalition from forming.

For Brzezinski, “terrorism” – a Tavistock-type concept – is just a well planned and well thought out strategy, a lie and a deception, to provide cover for a military presence in the Central Eurasian region and elsewhere. It is being used to keep the US public in a state of fear, to keep Russia in a state of insecurity about further breakup (the US has trained and supported Chechen fighters, “terrorists,” throughout) and to justify presence of US troops in and around Central Asia.


The Concocted War on Terrorism

Terrorism provides justification for transforming the United States into a police state. According to the Washington Post of 20 & 21 December 2010, the US now has 4,058 anti-terrorism organisations! These are certainly not meant for those so-called terrorists who operate in Central Asia – the number far exceeds the number of so-called terrorists in the entire world. Unbridled domestic spying by US agencies is now a fact of life and the US public, as always, has accepted this because of the collusion of media and Tavistock type institutes owned by the elite.

The US historian Howard Zinn puts it very well: “The so-called war on terrorism is not only a war against innocent people in other countries, but also a war on the people of the United States: a war on our liberties, a war on our standard of living. The wealth of the country is being stolen from the people and handed over to the superrich. The lives of our young are being stolen. And the thieves are in the White House.” Actually the thieves control the White House and have been doing so for a very long time.

In his outstanding book Crossing the Rubicon, Michael Ruppert points out that much of the violence in the Central Asian region as well as in Pakistan, which has been encircled in two maps in Brzezinski’s book, was “initiated by the US proxies.” “Given that these maps were published a full four years before the first plane hit the World Trade Centre, they would fall in a category of evidence I learned about at LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department]. We called them ‘clues’.” This means that the eruption of US militarism after 9/11, and the event itself, were part of a pre-planned and coherent strategy of global domination in which the people of the US were also “conquered” through totalitarian legislation carried out in the wake of 9/11
.

As Brzezinski puts it:

    America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a popular democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being… The economic self-denial (that is, defence spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation.

Certainly post 9/11 legislation, the extraordinary expansion of agencies and surveillance of the US public is a cause of great satisfaction for the elite – the US can hardly be called a democracy now. As reported by the Washington Post, the National Security Agency intercepts over 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other communications every day and stores them. No wonder Bush called 9/11 “a great opportunity” and Rumsfeld saw it analogous to World War II to “refashion the world.”

In order to achieve the objectives of the elite, the US destroyed Yugoslavia while Russia stood by mesmerised and impotent, carried out regime changes in Central Asia, set up military bases in East Europe and Central Asia, and staged highly provocative military exercises testing Russia’s and China’s will. It set up a military base in Kyrgyzstan that has a 500 mile or so border with China. When the Chinese protested recent naval exercises with South Korea were too close to Chinese territory, a US spokesman responded: “Those determinations are made by us, and us alone… Where we exercise, when we exercise, with whom and how, with what assets and so forth are determinations that are made by the United States Navy, by the Department of Defence, by the United States government.” As journalist Rick Rozoff notes: “There is no way such confrontational, arrogant and vulgar language was not understood at its proper value in Beijing.”

The US has acquired bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Czech Republic – and set up the largest military base ever built in the region, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosovo. According to a report in the Russian Kommersant newspaper on 3 March 2011, a four-phase plan for deployment of a US missile system in Europe is to be fully implemented by the end of 2020. The US is also busy setting up bilateral military ties in Russia’s backyard with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and is pursuing the goal of a “Greater Central Asia” from Afghanistan right up to the Middle East, a great corridor from where the oil, gas, and great mineral wealth of this region will flow to the coffers of the US elite, at bloody expense to the local people.

As remarked by the Indian career diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar: “The time is not far off before they begin to sense that ‘the war on terror’ is providing a convenient rubric under which the US is incrementally securing for itself a permanent abode in the highlands of Hindu Kush, the Pamirs, Central Asian steppes and the Caucasus that form the strategic hub overlooking Russia, China, India and Iran.” The scene for a great war involving the great powers of the time – US, Russia and China – is now set, by design of the elite. It is just a matter of time.

Time and again the US elite has taken its good people into great wars through documented and proven deceptions – the sinking of the Lusitania during World War I, Pearl Harbour in World War II, and so on. The elite considers us “human garbage” – a term first used by the French in Indo-China. It is also generating a good deal of “human garbage” in the US. A World Bank report points out that in 2005, 28 million Americans were “insecure” – in 2007 the number had risen to 46 million! One in every five Americans is faced with the possibility of becoming “destitute” – 38 million people receive food coupons!

Michael Ruppert laments:

    My country is dead. Its people have surrendered to tyranny and in so doing, they have become tyranny’s primary support group; its base; its defender. Every day they offer their endorsement of tyranny by banking in its banks and spending their borrowed money with the corporations that run it. The great Neocon strategy of George H.W. Bush has triumphed. Convince the America people that they can’t live without the ‘good things’, then sit back and watch as they endorse the progressively more outrageous crimes you commit as you throw them bones with ever less meat on them. All the while lock them into debt. Destroy the middle class, the only political base that need be feared. Make them accept, because of their shared guilt, ever-more repressive police state measures. Do whatever you want.

A global economic system erected on inhuman and predatory values, where a few possess more wealth than the billions of hungry put together, will end, but the end will be painful and bloody. It is a system in which the elite thrives on war and widespread human misery, on death and destruction by design. As Einstein said, “I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth – sticks and stones!”

Prof. Mujahid Kamran is Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and his book The Grand Deception – Corporate America and Perpetual War has just been published (April 2011) by Sang e Meel Publications, Lahore, Pakistan.

Copyright © Prof. Mujahid Kamran, Global Research, 2014

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-elite-the-great-game-and-world-war-iii/25160?print=1

http://archive.is/l5vrk



COMMENT

Glad I found this article.

I was reading about the Tavistock Institute and I started wondering if it was a book by someone maybe loopy, so I looked some more.  But it sounds legit if this academic is quoting the author:  Dr. John Coleman, a former intelligence agent of British MI6.

It's a relief seeing an academic confirm some of what I thought. It doesn't sounds as crazy when it's confirmed by an academic.

Finland has introduced conscription for women.
-------/\/\
*The so-called 'conspiracy theory' is probably a false flag.  I would not put anything past capitalists that are willing to bring down a series of governments and destroy a series of countries, drop gazillions of bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia Laos (and a 4-year carpet bombing of Cambodia), enslave, torture and murder surrendered German soldiers and enslave the entire German nation that is still occupied, destroy all of Europe and every single European society on this planet, frame and murder Slobodan Milosevic, send Serbian children graffiti bombs, murder half a million children in Iraq, invade Iraq illegally, arrange sodomy-murder of Gaddafi, destroy Libya, destroy Syria, set up CIA torture sites around the world with willing conspirator capitalist, set up a country in the middle of Palestine, secretly nuclear arm that settlement in Palestine, take themselves off the Rome Statute, commit war crimes, hold open air prisons of Palestinians that are butchered by capitalist bombs, incite illegal war and murder of Iranians.

I bet these c*nts also did the mutilation torture murders in France that got exposed as supposedly 'hushed up' by France, in Murdoch's new venture (that's Murdoch who has invested with Rothschild in the destruction of the region, by virtue of investing in Israeli energy ... with interests in Syrian Golan Heights).  Why not?  What's to stop them?  Why would we trust them:  they arrange invasions of our nations.  If they can destroy our nations, they can do anything.




Wonder if the Stones are Tavistock Institute products?

LOL ... it wouldn't surprise me.
Jagger's so sh*t ... and he's been knighted.
Seriously untalented.

'Commercialness' of them annoys me.
But I love this song.

Keef's the riff king.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNP-x94-SE




LOL ... I'm being hassled for being so abnormal because 'normal women' would have asked for milk to be picked up on the way home.

But I don't drink milk.  LMAO


Like the feel of this.

I like everything.  Maybe I've been awake too long.  LOL
Winner is:  Spiderbait.  Feels so nice.