“There is no such thing... in America, as an independent press... If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes... Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
John Swinton, New York Times Chief Editor 1880
unprecedented power in the media.
"At the recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Brussels a few days ago, I warned that a 'global population awareness,' was threatening a revolution towards their governments."
"Human Mind Control. Human minds affect the planet...."
William Van Duyn, Opening Remarks 2014 Bilderberg Meeting which plotted the attempts at regime changes in Syria and the Ukraine.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty 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 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.”
David Rockefeller, speaking at the June 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden, Germany.
“All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions –aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical — for so long, of course, as the constitution exists… Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will in fact follow the flag which we hang out for them.”
"(SRA)–This is used to represent all categories of ritual abuse which would... destroy something worthwhile in a person, especially their freedom of thought."
THE CIA-CONTROLLED MEDIA: PROPAGANDA AS TERROR
Hillary's Long History with Propaganda
There is no better form of information warfare than truth. It will always put your opponent on the defensive. Propaganda is, by definition, deception when dealing with the American public because truth would have them all condemned. Hillary admits RT has been proven informative and is unusually popular. "I've seen it in quite a few countries and it's quite instructive." Since we live in a world of Orwellian doublespeak where stupid means smart and smart means stupid, let's look at the dictionary meaning of "instructive": serving to instruct, conveying instruction, knowledge, or information; enlightening." Or rather, everything our own press whores detest more than actual journalism or self-respect. Witness these donkey dicks at 60 Minutes, which proves the propaganda war is not just aimed at countries abroad but our own people:
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 1, 2015
CBS embeds PSYOPS teams at its affiliates.
And then again not too long afterwards, we see none of this is true...
This is propaganda, manufactured consent, PSYOPS, and here is CNN doing everything they said they would never do again...
How to Kill Free Will: Conceal Reality of Choicesee below). She's trying to wag the dog, or manufacture consent by continually citing planted stories and press assets ("unofficial cover"), which in turn begin to cite each other and thus a big lie becomes over 44 million dollars of "truth." It is like Hitler used to say "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to swallow." The Clintonion tactic is infamous and a movie by the same name was made because of it. Primary Colors is another one.
A cursory glance at her body language and her eyes as she smiles and boasts of "winning" the debate reveals she doesn't believe a word she is saying (her eyes don't match the smile); moreover that she is well-aware of the social conditioning and is actively involved. It is a true pity she has to engage in cult practices to keep her supporters. The clear objective of this corporate PSYOP campaign is to demoralize the left and present Hillary as the only "electable" Democratic candidate.
When you see a false consensus in the media, something you believe is innately untrue, you will see this:
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
Last night’s coverage and panel analysis of last night’s Democratic Debate on the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR) was proven correct once again. Despite the Democratic Debate host CNN and other mainstream media outlets claiming the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had ‘won the debate’, the polls numbers told another story – of an absolute rout by Vermont’s US Senator Bernie Sanders over the embattled former Secretary of State. The CNN Facebook post-debate poll Tuesday evening at one point showed 80% of voters choosing Bernie Sanders as the winner, with the final figure settling in around 75%. Hillary Clinton came in with a poorly 18%. Embarrassed by its own futile attempt to inflate Clinton’s poor showing last night in Las Vegas, CNN only flashed its Facebook poll result up on screen once, and only for 3-4 seconds, before flushing it down the memory hole. Other major polls reflected this same result. At the end of the debate last night, Time Magazine showed 64% favored Sanders, and the leftist outlet MSNBC showed Sanders blowing out Clinton, taking 84%of the winning endorsements, while liberal outlet The Slate gave Sanders 75% of winning votes. Hillary registered only slightly higher than unknown Maryland governor Martin O’Malley.
Will a Monolithic Corporate Media Wag the Dog?
In England, when the center, left and right wing press went after socialist Jeremy Corbyn, voters had seen enough and suspicions of media brainwashing were confirmed even to the most skeptical. He became Labor leader by a landslide, much to the chagrin of Labor members who had been hard core followers of a man widely considered by the British as a war criminal and Bush conspirator, Tony Blair.
We are seeing that here too. Hillary was chosen by the Bilderbergers to be our next president in this year's meeting in Bavaria, and they're not Americans. They weren't expecting Corbyn and figured their absolute control of the print and broadcast media would mean business as usual. Corbyn was an especially painful loss for the establishment press in England, where the Rothschild bankers still tacitly reign behind the Crown and hide behind the human shield of the Israeli people, as Corbyn has always been anti-war and supported human rights, even if they were Palestinian. That's why it was such a big deal when Corbyn didn't attend the Queen's creepy and ritualistic privy counsel, because the Crown had been controlled by the same "black nobility" since Waterloo. It had never been declined by a Labor leader, and signaled the republic came before royalty.
“You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” – CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle propaganda. In election years, here or abroad, such propaganda goes to sell a candidate or smear the opposition.
Regardless, early polls are meaningless and polls close to the election are far more accurate because they reflect a long-term pattern. That's why pundit fortune telling is so annoying, and so transparently geared towards corralling your choice towards a "sure" establishment candidate.
This disconnect from reality is because cable news pundits are paid off shills and, again, established and known propagandists (assets). As for the major papers The Wall Street Journal is owned by right-wing nut job Rupert Murdoch and the "leftist" New York Times IS the military industrial complex, etc. So how do you fight something so monolithic? All of the print and broadcast media saying one thing means it's an illusion and the candidate paid for it, and it appears at this point at least $44 million. A lot of people, now, are catching on simply via social media. Regardless, early polls are meaningless and polls close to the election are far more accurate because they reflect a long-term pattern. That's why pundit fortune telling is so annoying, and so transparently geared towards corralling your choice towards a "sure" establishment candidate. Proof that behind he scenes she's worried is that suddenly she's parroting positions Sanders had from even before the election:
- eradicating private prisons (a lobby presently bundling her money!)
- eliminating money in politics (while still relying on super pacs)
- opposing the TPP (the people who gave us the TPP, bankers, are backing Hillary)
She's starting to realize that is what made Sanders popular, but she doesn't have any credibility. An even bigger show of force is the number of contributers. Over 1.3 million have contributed to Bernie's campaign, and he's collected over $45 million, but Hillary's $100 million plus comes mostly from a handful of Wall Street donors and wealthy contributers, and it's the number of voters that win elections. After all, all that money goes to making sure the largest number of voters favors you, and it obviously isn't working here. Bernie's average donation is about $34, and Hillary's is $225. How many poor or middle class citizens do you know that donate $225 before primaries? how many do you know that donate $20 to $40? See the real picture now, as to the income level of her donors? This is literally Hilary's 1% versus Bernie's 99%.
Maybe another $100 million will make her lead disappear completely. Aside from radio and televisions ads that are not really negative yet, that money doesn't go to attack ads directly, but in paying off mainstream right and left wing broadcasters from FOX News Corps to CNN, to columnists, popular bloggers, and publishers like The Huffington Post to write favorable coverage and disparage the opposition and other not-ready-for-prime -time foolishness we saw with Corbyn; where you had otherwise respectable publications like The Guardian wage some vicious personal attacks to avoid discussing the issues.
The Washington Post, for example, did the same thing by asking if a man with messy hair like Sanders could ever get elected, and then they compared his hair to the messy hair of failed candidates of the past. This is why, at least for millennials who don't follow television, you can ask around and nobody talks about Hillary but the pundits. You can't pay off the bloggers and tweeters and the only currency that matters there is one of ideas. See that Facebook screen grab up there? Case in point. That's what $44 million got her. So, Hillary, please, don't change anything you are doing. You're doing just fine. Ask the pundits.
On November 9, 2007, the Clinton campaign admitted to planting questions at her appearance at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, four days earlier. The ABC News article, “Clinton Camp Admits To Planting Questions,” makes an ironic reference to an earlier accusation by Hillary that an audience member who caught her off guard her had been planted. (He hadn't.)