The David Icke Newsletter, October 7th, 2012
SELLING YOUR SOUL ...
... SEE NO TRUTH, HEAR NO TRUTH, SPEAK NO TRUTH
How refreshing it was this week to see former CNN reporter Amber Lyon putting her profession to shame by revealing that she is a real journalist in a mainstream media alive with frauds, fakes, liars and cheats.
Lyon was an award-winning investigative reporter with the Criminal News Network and was trying to tell the truth about the tyranny and mass murder in Bahrain when she realised the true extent of the corruption in control of CNN - as with all the mainstream corporate news operations come to that.
The Global Cabal would not be anywhere close to where they are today in terms of the Orwellian nightmare without the actions and inactions of the fundamentally controlled mainstream media across the range of print, radio, Internet and television.
David Rockefeller, one of the pillars of the conspiracy for the best part of 70 years, told 'media facilitators' at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, in 1991:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is more sophisticated now and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.
This statement was reported by two French newspapers and Hilaire du Berrier, the vehemently anti-communist publisher of the Monte Carlo-based Hilaire du Berrier Reports and a long-time researcher of the Bilderbergers.
Lyon compiled interviews and evidence exposing the killing, imprisonment and harassment of peaceful demonstrators and how others were just disappearing. She did this despite extreme intimidation directed at her and her film crew by the Bahraini regime, including forcing them to the ground with guns at their heads, and vehement complaints to CNN executives by the Khalifa dictators.
Bahrain is home to the US Fifth Fleet and many American multinationals. It has a highly significant banking sector and petroleum production and processing account for 60% of Bahrain's export receipts and 70% of government revenues.
King Killer Khalifa welcomed by British Prime Minister Cameron.
For this reason the American and British governments support Bahrain no matter what and so while the Khalifa regime kills, maims and tortures its own people nothing is said or done by the glove puppet 'leaders' of the 'free world'. But while atrocities in Bahrain are ignored, target countries like Libya and Syria are condemned and invaded for 'attacking their own people' when in truth the 'rebels' involved have been largely non-Libyan and non-Syrian mercenaries trained mostly by Britain and America and armed by through countries such as Qatar and Turkey.
It was estimated this week by Daoud Khairallah, professor of International Law at Georgetown University, that some 95 per cent of Syrian 'rebels' are not Syrians at all, but foreign mercenaries. This fits with the whole picture of the so-called 'Arab Spring' (Arab Winter) in which regimes are being targeted through fake 'rebels' as a prelude to 'Western' (Cabal) takeover.
'Syrian' rebels - I hope they're writing home.
Her Bahrain report was aired just once by CNN in the United States, but not by CNN International (CNNi) which continued to refuse even in the face of complaints from CNN staff. Lyon was also told to add statements to her reports that she knew were lies. 'I couldn't believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting', she said.
Then Lyon also realised that CNNi was being paid by the Bahrain regime to air propaganda 'documentaries' about the fascist state under the heading of 'sponsored programming' and the same was being done with countries such as China, Georgia and Kazakhstan.
So here we have a 'news' organisation (owned by the corporate giant Time Warner) making state-sponsored programmes to promote the image that the sponsoring states demand for their buck. At the same time, CNN is preventing its own journalists from telling the truth about those countries by blocking their air time and insisting on tampering with their scripts.
Lyon was never sent back to Bahrain after her suppressed report and she was made redundant by CNN in March 2012. She was threatened with losing severance payments and health insurance if she spoke out against the broadcaster and exposed its deceit and journalistic corruption, but she has done so anyway to her great credit.
CNN's state-sponsored propaganda for Kazakhstan, but the viewers were not told who was paying the bills and the CNN profits.
I have heard people say so often over the last two decades that if what I was saying was true the media would be reporting it. When you have worked inside the mainstream media and seen it in all its 'glory' from the other 'side' that statement threatens death by laughter. The biggest suppressor of truth by journalists is not censorship, but sheer, undiluted ignorance of what is really happening in the world and how everything connects to a specific goal. Then comes censorship, which takes the form of both executive censorship and, by far the worst, self-censorship.
Mainstream journalists are not on the whole hired for their intelligence and knowledge of the world as it really is. They are hired as compliant repeaters of the official and corporate line. Report events within the strict parameters of 'acceptable' perception and you'll do fine. You may even be seen to have 'made it' by getting your own show like former Israeli lobbyist, Wolf Blitzer, former CIA intern Anderson Cooper or pseudo-journalist Piers Morgan.
But expose conspiracies to destroy America, like Lou Dobbs, or, as with Amber Lyon, expose the outrages in a country like Bahrain which sponsors programming on your network, and one way or another the door comes into view.
The corporate media is structured in basically two ways. Mostly you have the pompous and delusional 'quality journalism' operations like CNN and the BBC which ludicrously claim to be impartially reporting events. Then, especially in the United States, you have apparent polarity 'news' stations like Fox News ('The Right') and MSNBC ('The Left') whose role is to perpetuate the illusory 'choice' of two-party politics.
Fox supports the Republicans and MSNBC supports the Democrats, but the key point, of course, is that both support and promote the system in which 'Republicans' and 'Democrats', as with 'Labour' and 'Conservative' in the UK, are merely masks on the same face. The late great American comedian Bill Hicks was spot on when he said ...
To 'The Right' it is good for Bush to go to war and kill lots of people with brown faces on the other side of the world, but nothing like as good when Obama does it. To 'The Left' it is bad for Bush to go to war and kill lots of people with brown faces on the other side of the world, but nothing like as bad when Obama does it.
Common denominator: lots of people with brown faces on the other side of the world being killed.
Even a lot of the anti-Bush or anti-Obama coverage is only 'anti' on the surface. An MSNBC talk show hosted by Iraq war opponent, Phil Donahue, was conveniently dropped around the time of the invasion in 2003 and later an internal NBC memo came to light which said that Donahue had to go because he would be 'a 'difficult public face for NBC in a time of war'.
These media frauds may appear to disagree on the surface, but they are as one when the fundamentals of the global agenda are at stake - in this case eliminating more people with brown faces.
MSNBC was created by US media giant NBC in league with the Microsoft Corporation of big-time Cabal front man, Bill Gates. Fox News is owned by Cabal front man, Rupert Murdoch. So why does anyone think that they would not, in the end, be singing the same song?
We received an order from one of Murdoch's apparatchiks ... that we should cut away from our newscast and start carrying a fawning tribute to Ronald Reagan that was airing at the Republican Party Convention. We were stunned because up until that point we were allowed to do legitimate news and suddenly we were ordered from the top to carry propaganda, to carry Republican right wing propaganda.
O'Donnell said they were ordered to run a long uncut report attacking Democrat Ted Kennedy, a long-time opponent of Murdoch, which had no news value. He said they were ordered to broadcast the whole thing uncut and Jon Du Pre, a former Fox News presenter with the West Coast Bureau, said the stated practice was also to embarrass, humiliate, challenge or disrupt anything connected with black Democrat, Jesse Jackson:
We were told on many occasions that he was one of our targets. Anything we could do or say that would embarrass him, discredit him, we were encouraged to find the information and we were encouraged to report the information.
I am no supporter of Jesse Jackson who I consider on the evidence that I have picked up over the years is a monumental fraud, but the fact that he was targeted by a 'credible' news organisation because he was a Democrat or because Murdoch didn't like him shows how the 'news' business really works.
Former Fox contributor and CIA intelligence analyst, Larry Johnson, told how the daily diktat would include 'a detailed list of subjects to talk about and not talk about' and 'edicts to the reporters to control what they could say and how they could say it'.
Presenter Jon Du Pre said that a memo would arrive from Fox headquarters every day saying 'we want to touch on the following issues, we want to cover the following stories, we want to do them in this particular way'.
Du Pre was suspended for not being enthusiastic enough in his all-day reporting on the birthday of Ronald Reagan. He reported to the Fox audience that Reagan admirers had 'been streaming in from all over the country and even parts of Canada and Mexico ...'
This simply wasn't true but he said it to watch his back and protect his job in the face of pressure from Fox News executives furious at the tone of his reporting which reflected the truth of what was happening and not their desired 'line'.
Excuse me, a moment ...
.. Okay, that's better.
'Expert' interviewees are chosen according to the political perception that Fix News wishes to promote and not for the intelligence of the contribution. How could that not be the case when one of the regular Fox News contributors is William Kristol, founder of the Neocon Project for the New American Century and editor of The Weekly Standard, the propaganda sheet once owned by Rupert Murdoch and which, together with Kristol and his Neocon buddies, played a major role in pressing for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Former Fox News producer, Clara Frenk, said the Republican ('Conservative') contributors were well known and 'very, very strong people', while the Democrat ('Liberal') guests included only one person she had ever heard of.
Republicans appeared 5 times as often as Democrats on one-on-one newsmakers interviews. That means that Republicans made up 83 per cent of the partisan guests while Democrats made up just 17 per cent. In addition, the few Democrats that were interviewed for the show tended to be centrists and conservative Democrats often brought on to affirm Bush Administration policies.
... if Fox were the bastion of fairness and balance that it claims to be we'd see a lot more balance in this prominent interview segment on the network's most prestigious show. Instead the numbers indicate that Brit Hume and Special Report choose their guests based on political considerations rather than news judgment.
Even if you are asked to appear you had better keep to the party line. Contributor Larry Johnson says that he was dropped after he answered basically 'no' to the question posed by Fox News mouth-for-sale Sean Hannity in the run up to the invasion of Iraq about whether the Bush administration could fight two wars at the same time:
And Sean Hannity, being the right-wing cheerleader that he is, was just, you know, incensed that I ... had the temerity to suggest that we couldn't. Facts don't seem to have any effect upon him. What was unusual is it was after that appearance that, even though I was under contract to Fox for another eight weeks roughly, they stopped using me.
This is what is called 'fair and balanced' news when it is really undiluted propaganda.
Sean Hannity: barely one-dimensional.
Boy Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke got the Fix News treatment when his book, Against All Enemies, criticised the administration's actions before 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq.
The book also contradicted the official stories of people like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers with regard to what they were doing on the morning of September 11th. Jeff Cohen, a former Fox News contributor, said:
When Richard Clarke emerged it was obvious this was a danger to the Administration because he had worked at the highest echelons of the Bush Administration and it was almost like Fox News was working off the playbook coming out of the White House - that he had to be torn down, that he had to be turned into a Democrat, a Liberal ...
The same modus operandi of targeting and seeking to discredit people telling the truth is happening all over the world every day. Fox News was the first US network to announce that Boy Bush had been elected president on the night of his rigged election 'victory' against Al Gore in 2000. The announcement came from John Ellis, who ran the Fox News 'election analysis' division and was a first cousin of George W Bush.
Ellis made his move when the data from Florida clearly made the vote too close to call, but this Bush relative went ahead and announced a Bush victory. This prompted the parrots at ABC, NBC and CBS to do the same. John Nichols, a Washington correspondent for The Nation and author of the Cheney book, Dick: The Man Who Is President, said:
When Fox made the call that Bush had won and the other networks followed on, that created the perception that Bush was the winner, when in fact he wasn't. But that perception was what really held for the next 37 days and I would suggest to you that call on election night had more to do with making George Bush president than any recount or ballot design issue.
'Congratulations Georgie. Phew, that was close, eh? I almost won when I wasn't supposed to. They've given me the global warming brief and I am going to win a Nobel Prize.'
'That's great, Al. I'm going to kill lots of people.'
Once Bush was handed the presidency and officially sanctioned the long-planned invasion of Iraq, Fox News was onside as usual manipulating its audience to support the slaughter of more brown faces whom the viewers knew nothing about except for what Fox News had told them. Dave Korb, a former Fox News freelance writer, revealed how he was ordered to lie about what was happening in Iraq. He said that a Senior Producer told the two or three writers for her segment:
Now just keep in mind, it's all good. This is such a fair and balanced issue. Don't write about the number of dead or troops being under fire or under attack. Not that somebody might have died, you know, keep it positive. We've got to emphasise all the good that we're doing.
Korb described how the producer made a reference to rebuilding schools and bringing democracy to Iraq. She said: 'See big progress. Yoo hoo for us.'
So censorship and manipulation of the 'news' is happening all the time and this creates the structure and environment of fear and intimidation which imposes the worst and most insidious censorship of all - self censorship.
Once your 'journalists' and producers are clear on what the limits and parameters are they simply stop reporting or offering stories that are outside of that blueprint. Whether something should be reported or not reported is no longer even discussed and argued once self-censorship kicks in because nothing outside of the parameters is offered for publication or broadcast.
This is where we are at and have been for a very long time. The media 'in' word for a story being censored is 'spiked' - the story has been 'spiked'. This comes from a spike on the desk of editors, still used when I was in the mainstream media, onto which rejected stories were thrust. Self-censorship means, in effect, spiking yourself before the story is even suggested, let alone written.
When you have this Executive Vice-president and those around him, who are consistently saying, 'no we're not gonna do that story, no this story's bad, this story's good', and it becomes very clear to all the Bureau Chiefs, to everybody involved who have been there over a period of years, there are certain kinds of stories, it's not even worth bringing up, there are other kinds of stories that you know management's gonna love.
I worked for years in this environment as a journalist in newspapers, radio and BBC television and I know how the system operates. I was involved almost entirely with presenting sport for the national BBC, but this included delivering sport bulletins on the national news at weekends which allowed me countless opportunities to observe the main BBC newsroom at work.
There were some good and genuine people there alongside the pompous and arrogant, but they judged everything from the perspective of the system. It was the official version of everything in and the official version of everything reported as the true account of history from then on. Reuters copy came in and Reuters copy was rewritten and delivered as news.
The BBC has a centralised 'news' gathering system for national and world news known by staff as the 'rip n' read'. 'News' bulletins are wired throughout the day to all BBC radio and television outlets throughout the country including local radio stations and it is printed out automatically in their newsrooms.
Someone then rips it off the teleprinter every hour or half-hour and walks into the studio to deliver the contents to their audience as 'truth'. The BBC communication system may be different today in the new electronic era, but the principle will remain the same.
I have asked some of these people how they know that what they are reading is true. There is either silence or a bemused look that says either 'What a strange question' or 'I have no idea'.
The BBC ran a series called Conspiracy Files in which they claimed to investigate the validity of conspiracy claims regarding 9/11, the London bombings of 2005, and other events and circumstances. But you knew before the opening titles ran that the programmes would basically conclude that the official stories were true and the talk of conspiracies was nonsense.
The BBC's news and current affairs bias could not allow the official version of 9/11 to be demolished because of all that would come from that in its reporting of world events and wars in the context of their original trigger and justification - 9/11 - being the work of the very network behind the 'war against terrorism'.
But not content with even that level of bias, the same BBC came up with the idea of a series called Conspiracy Road Trip in which they take a group of people who believe in conspiracies to visit the scene of 9/11 or the London bombings in an effort to discredit their views or get them to change their minds.
The contempt that the BBC has for the subject is confirmed immediately by the employment of a clueless comedian, Andrew Maxwell, to lead the group in an effort to persuade them that there was no conspiracy.
Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts [given to him by the programme producers]. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face [ironic but true].
In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.
Finally they meet a mother who lost her son, to listen to her account of what it was like to live through this monumental tragedy. Andrew believes it is easy to judge world events from the safe distance of a computer screen in your bedroom but not easy when you are brought face to face with the real human stories behind them.
So we mustn't investigate what really happened because only those in some way involved have a valid opinion. How does losing your son on 9/11, tragic and heart-breaking as that is, make you in any way aware, in and of itself, about what really happened that day?
The implication is 'how could you do this to the families who lost loved ones by claiming it was a conspiracy?' So the families don't want to know the truth of why their loved ones died? Many have indeed sought this very truth and been blocked at every turn.
There is no mention by the corrupt BBC of the countless experts in their fields who have said that the official version of 9/11 simply could not have happened due to little details like the laws of physics.
Maxwell and participants on the 9/11 show.
This week the Conspiracy Road Trip, with comedian Maxwell once again in tow, did a similar hatchet job on those who believe that the London bombings, known as 7/7, were not the work of Muslim terrorists but government-military-Intelligence terrorists.
I don't know why anyone agrees to take part in these set-ups. They have asked me and my reply took only two words, both of them with only one syllable necessary. But people still do, despite the experience of a guy called Charlie Veitch, the one with the shades in the picture, who changed his mind on the 9/11 'road trip' in the face of BBC propaganda and agreed there was no conspiracy.
He has no doubt regretted it ever since given that the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job - a fact supported by a wide range of highly-relevant experts including professional building engineers, architects and airline pilots.
I bet the show's producers punched the air when Veitch 'recanted'. That was the idea - not a mature and unbiased investigation of the facts that included the views of experts in their field who have left the official story lying in a heap.
I think that one reason that people still agree to take part in these BBC farces is the belief that at least they will be able to get some truth across, however little. But what they need to appreciate is that anything that they say which is really relevant and powerful in undermining the official story will not get in the edit that the public see.
The BBC has control of the cutting room and so the best way for anyone to make a statement about censorship and bias and the lies of the system is to refuse to take part in any more of these insults to journalism.
The latter are entrapped in a structure of systematic and insidious censorship in which they are the insidious censors being themselves insidiously censored and programmed to believe that they are impartial or, as Fox News would put it, 'fair and balanced'.
Maybe BBC 'conspiracy' producer Riete Oord knows that her programme is disgustingly bias and slanted. Maybe she doesn't. But if she doesn't, well I am glad I don't live in the world that she must do. Actually, ditto if she does, actually.
The BBC has long been a thoroughly discredited organisation for those who have bothered to research the real background to world events and then watched the BBC, along with CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and all the others report what you know to be provable lies as indisputable fact.
The BBC has been the world's leading broadcaster in selling the human-caused climate change lie - to the point where it officially decided that the ludicrous 'science' was proven to such an extent that no alternative view needed to be heard. It was also exposed for publishing a picture of rows of bodies taken in Iraq in 2003 and claiming that it was taken during the current conflict in Syria.
The BBC used the fake picture to blame the Syrian government for what it portrayed, of course, as the corrupt corporation seeks to sell yet another war on behalf of its government masters - as it has so many times before.
This was a picture blazed on the front page of the London Evening Standard purporting to be a large crowd celebrating the bringing down of Saddam's statue in Iraq after the invasion in 2003, but it turned out to be a manipulated image with the same people included several times to make the crowd look far bigger than it really was. ...
I have heard people say so many times in my life: 'Don't believe what you read in the papers'. But I have then seen those who offer that excellent advice go ahead and do just that themselves. The scale of deceit has always been massive, but today it is fantastic and all-pervasive.
The advice needs an urgent update: Don't accept anything unless you have checked it out yourself or, at the very least, the source has a long - a long - track record of accuracy and authenticity.
The world is so awash with lies that finding the truth is one hell of a challenge every day and the mainstream media is a hindrance not a help - exactly as it is meant to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment