How the spooks took over the news

In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale

Onthe morning of 9 February 2004, The New York Times carried an exclusive and alarming story. The paper's Baghdad correspondent, Dexter Filkins, reported that US officials had obtained a 17-page letter, believed to have been written by the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war.

The letter argued that al-Qa'ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis."

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about The New York Times report: "We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously... It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society." The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake – and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

They must know

we know what the media are pumping out is a big fraud. Fortunately newspapers are on the rocks, and hopefully some of these disinformation networks like the New York Times and Associated Press will be shut down. A lot of papers were trying to get out of AP, citing the high prices for their services, but I think I remember reading it takes about three years to shake them loose, so a paper has to make a major strategic decision to get out of their contract. Obviously many think that AP is not worth the price, and some have successfully stopped using the wire service.

Reuters is probably not much better.

Don't forget to read Carl Bernstein's piece on this topic, written in 1977, but as true to day as it was then. The problem must have gotten several orders of magnitude worse under successive administrations. Here's an excerpt:

"The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements."

The entire lengthy article is at Bernstein is a "credible" journalist. How he came to write this I don't know, but my thoughts are that he had pangs of guilt for being manipulated by the number 2 at the FBI to set up Nixon.

Rupert Murdoch

(U)surper of

(R)ight vs. Left


The U.S. Government Owns the Major Media

As President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted in a private letter only published after his death:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson--and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States--only on a far bigger and broader basis.

(From President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933; contained in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], pg. 373.)

The history which Franklin Roosevelt invokes in his above comment is quite telling, and all the more relevant to the current economic ills which the world is experiencing. President Andrew Jackson was a staunch critic of central banking, and he led the movement that ended the Second Bank of the United States. So in writing the above, Roosevelt was criticizing the Federal Reserve System and the monied families (e.g., the Rockefellers) which put it in place, whom Roosevelt refers to as the actual owners of the U.S. government and whom Prof. Carroll Quigley would later write about.

Roosevelt in the above letter mentioned President Woodrow Wilson ("W.W."). Below is what Woodrow Wilson himself wrote concerning this same matter:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.


[A]nd we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

(From Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People [New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913] .)

Obviously if these monied families outright own no less than the U.S. government as President Franklin Roosevelt maintained (and he was in a position to know), then the major media must also be their servants, since the major media would presumably represent a far easier target for control (at least going by the popular assumptions regarding the danagers of monopolies which government is somehow supposed to protect us against, forgetting that government is itself the largest and by far the most dangerous monopoly). But that this is indeed the case has been revealed in many official U.S. government documents, which demonstrate that all news agencies and media outlets (e.g., in the fields of television or movies) of almost any significance around the world are firmly under the control of the U.S. government or its allied governments.

The below is video of the testimony by expert witness, Attorney and Professor Emeritus William Schaap in the November-December 1999 Memphis, Tennessee wrongful death lawsuit trial of Loyd Jowers and co-conspirators in the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Schaap gave his testimony on November 30, 1999. The jury of six whites and six blacks found Jowers guilty of involvement and that the U.S. government was involved in carrying out the assassination.

William Schaap's testimony concerns the U.S. government's near-total control over the major media (i.e., news agencies, newspapers, etc.) and its extensive use of disinformation campaigns (i.e., outright lying on a massive scale) targeted against the U.S. public. His testimony is based upon U.S. government primary-documentation divulged in U.S. Congressional hearings and the resulting reports, as well as by the testimony of named government officials involved in the disinformation operations.

All the parts below were posted by reprehensor on March 8, 2008:

"William Schaap - Part 1/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 2/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 3/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 4/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 5/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 6/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 7/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

"William Schaap - Part 8/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo."

For the trial transcript of the above, see:

Proceedings, November 30th, 1999, Volume IX, Case No. 97242-4 T.D., Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee

For more on this almost totally complete control which the U.S. government has over the major media, see the below interview of William Schaap and Louis Wolff by Harold Channer:

"William Schaap & Louis Wolff - Air date: 07-13-98," haroldchanner, April 10, 2007

See the below article regarding U.S. military PsyOps personnel being employed by CNN. (Although I here point out that even this article attempts to discredit the use of sarin nerve agent in Operation Tailwind during the Vietnam War, of which all the evidence available demonstrates that sarin was used, but the media exposure of it was burried due to U.S. government pressure. Which, once again, demonstrates just how much control the U.S. government exercises over the major media.)

"Army 'psyops' at CNN: News giant employed military 'psychological operations' personnel," Geoff Metcalf,, March 3, 2000

This U.S. government stronghold over the major media also extends to Hollywood and the entertainment industry:

"A mix of movies and military: Hollywood often seeks Pentagon's advice, guidance," Jennifer Brown, Associated Press (AP), November 2, 1996

"Projecting Positive Military Image: Some Filmmakers Accept Pentagon Guidance, Support; Others Reject It," Jennifer Brown, Associated Press (AP), November 3, 1996

"Pentagon weighs in on some Hollywood movie scripts," Associated Press (AP), October 31, 1996

"Pentagon provides for Hollywood," Associated Press (AP), May 29, 2001

"Top Gun versus Sergeant Bilko? No contest, says the Pentagon; Scripts can often be the first casualty in Hollywood's theatre of war," Duncan Campbell, The Guardian (U.K.), August 29, 2001,4029,543821,00.html

"Pentagon plays Hollywood censor," Guardian News Service, August 29, 2001

"Hollywood Helping Out Pentagon?!," Josh Grossberg, E! Online News, October 8, 2001

"Hollywood Went To War On September 11th"

"Hollywood and the Military," David Robb, (American Movie Classics, a Cablevision holding)

"Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon bullies movie producers into showing the U.S. military in the best possible light," David Robb interviewed By Jeff Fleischer, Mother Jones, September 20, 2004

"The Lone Gunmen: 1AEB79 Pilot," March 4, 2001

From the above website discription of the X-Files spin-off show The Lone Gunmen, which aired March 4, 2001:

Hacking the raw data on the computer hard drive, Langly finds file directories of what appear to be government files, including one named scenario_12_d.txt. ... Langly's friend helps the Gunmen hack into the DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] computer and find the 12D scenario file. As they begin to download, a DOD worker detects the download and begins blocking it, accessing the Gunmen's computers. ... The 12D plan is for a small group of government operatives to crash a jetliner into New York City in order to keep tensions high and increase arms sales. ... They realize that the airplane will be remote controlled, just like Bert's car was. Talking by phone to the Gunmen's office, Byers asks Langly and Frohike to hack into the aircraft controls. They do and discover that the plane is programmed to crash into the World Trade Center.

One of the three leading actors of The Lone Gunmen, Dean Haglund, is interviewed about the above pilot episode of the show, and about the U.S. government's influence over Hollywood:

"Alex Jones Interviews X-Files/Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund," Prison, January 12, 2005

Below is an excerpt from the above article:

Haglund stated that after years of writing the X-files, the FBI and NASA would approach Chris Carter with plots for stories. He also discussed the fact that the CIA have since the 80's hired informants posting as psychics to attend Hollywood parties and report back the the CIA on general trends and talking points.

In the following link one can view a video clip wherein Dean Haglund makes a number of the above revelations:

"Alex Jones Interviews X-Files/Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund," Prison, January 12, 2005

See also:

"Police State Product Placement," Alex Jones, Prison Planet, January 6, 2003

"Neoconservatism: a CIA Front," Gregory Pavlik, The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, 1997

And see the below New York Times report, which got almost no coverage in the major media and what little coverage it did receive was almost completely obsequious to the U.S. government:

David Barstow, "Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand," New York Times, April 20, 2008

"How the Pentagon Spread Its Message," New York Times, April 20, 2008

"Parts of the Message Machine," New York Times, April 19, 2008

"Q & A With David Barstow," New York Times, April 21, 2008

A number of the documents used in the above New York Times report can be obtained from the below Department of Defense webpage:

"Military Analysts: These documents were released to the New York Times regarding the Pentagon's Military Analyst program," Department of Defense

For an analysis of the major media coverage which the above New York Times revelation received, see:

"EXPOSED: Media ignore Pentagon Pundits scandal," videofreepress, April 24, 2008

I highly recommend that everyone read the below Guardian article. Although the article contains the throwaway canard "The CIA is often credited with 'advice' on Hollywood films, but no one is truly sure about the extent of its shadowy involvement" in its title, it goes on to demonstrate that the U.S. government's control over the Hollywood film industry is nearly total.

"An offer they couldn't refuse: The CIA is often credited with 'advice' on Hollywood films, but no one is truly sure about the extent of its shadowy involvement. Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham investigate," The Guardian (U.K.), November 14, 2008

The article also details rationally conclusive evidence that the C.I.A. assassinates prominent Hollywood film-industry people if they get too close to certain truths, specifically in regards to the case of screenwriter Gary DeVore.

Consider the following detail from the article:

He [Gary DeVore] was travelling back to California when, at 1.15am on June 28, he called Wendy, a call she says has been excised from phone records. She told CNN she was "terribly alarmed" because he was speaking as though he were under duress. She was sure "someone was in the car with him". That was the last time Wendy DeVore heard from her husband.

The vital element in the above excerpt is that Gary's aforesaid call was excised from the phone records. No one has the power to excise phone records of calls made in the U.S except the U.S. government or, in a very trivial sense, the telephone company through which the call was made. The latter case is a trivial matter of fact, since the phone company would have no reason to excise such a phone call unless it was doing so at the behest of the U.S. government.

Nor would it be rational to attempt to explain away this detail as being the fault of a computer error, for the reason that this call specifically was deleted, evidencing purpose and lack of randomness. If this were some computer glitch then we would expect many people and many calls to be affected by it; or, in the case of some bug that only evidences itself when utterly rare conditions are met, then in that case we're talking about astronomical odds against this call in particular being deleted: which, especially when combined with the other details surrounding this case, makes such a notion irrational to believe.

For example:

DeVore's laptop computer containing his unfinished script was missing from his vehicle, as was the gun he customarily carried on long trips; after his disappearance, a CIA representative allegedly showed up at DeVore's house to request access to his computer; Hollywood private investigator Don Crutchfield noted that previous drafts of DeVore's script were inexplicably wiped from said computer during the same timeframe; police claimed that DeVore's vehicle careened off the highway, yet DeVore's widow was troubled by the absence of visible damage to the guardrail at the scene of the alleged accident; and how come no one noticed an SUV sitting in the water beneath a busy highway for a whole year?

If the above details regarding the computer from DeVore's house are correct, then this along with the phone-record excision completely nails the coffin lid on this case vis-à-vis it being foul play by the U.S. government.

But even the phone-record excision by itself is conclusive proof beyond any reasonable doubt of U.S. government foul play, since one must resort to irrational explanations in order to attempt to get around this detail.

For Wendy DeVore's CNN interview referred to in the above, see the following (note also the video file URL linked to below):

"Screenwriter's wife seeks answers in his mysterious death," CNN, July 15, 1998

And see:

"On the take and loving it: Academic recipients of the U.S. intelligence budget," Julian Assange, Wikileaks, October 7, 2007

"Terrorism is the health of the State."--James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," SSRN, May 3, 2009 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001)



Interesting, thank you for all those links.

I wonder, do you have any idea what it was about Gary DeVore's screenplays that would have given the CIA the motive to off him, as is speculated above? Was there one screenplay in particular that was controversial? Then again, maybe it was nothing about the actual content of his work; maybe he just 'knew too much' and they were afraid he was going to blow the whistle.

Alan Pakula also died in '97, in an accident on the Long Island Expressway. Because he was the director of 'The Parallax View' (which must have taken incredible chutzpah to make), I've wondered whether it may not have been simply an accident--but can't say anything beyond that, and truthfully haven't looked into it any further.

For my money, the most subversive Hollywood film of recent years is 'The Shooter' ('V for Vendetta' was also a major release, but I guess I think of that as more British than Hollywood).

I Suspect Most Post 9/11 Al Qaeda Info Is Cooked

Can we be certain that all of the tales of shadowy terror figures reportedly doing this or that in central Asia wasn't cooked for public consumption and for the creation of the official legend?

I pay no attention

to the MSM. It's all BS and a pack of lies. I think people are beginning to realize this and are turning to the net for their info. Even on the net one has to be careful but don't worry. The truth is self evident.


Monday, 11 February 2008

important article and informationclearinghouse just posted it, but is there something new about this?

article dateline is "Monday, 11 February 2008"

Flat Earth News - a must read

In her recent interview with Barrie Zwicker, Annie Machon recommended this book.
(As I knew about Machon's story with David Shayler, I feared the worst, but my suspicions were completely wrong.)
I recommend both the interview and the book:
Nick Davies FLAT EARTH NEWS - An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media.
John Pilger: "This brilliant book by Nick Davies, unrelenting in its research, ruthless in its honesty, is a landmark exposé by a courageous insider. All those interested in truth - outsiders and insiders - should read it."

The idea is not so outlandish

as one of the main neocons shills promotes the idea of bringing civil war to iraq as a good one- it still stands on his blog.