Rupert Murdoch

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

Bilderberg group connections (click on image to enlarge)
‘Imporre un governo pro Bilderberg destabilizzando le banche italiane’ (‘Imposition of pro Bilderberg government destabilizing Italian banks’) By Sandro Bulgarella


Arguably the most influential of the bunch, the Bilderberg group was founded in 1954 by handful of the usual suspects with directives from the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (formerly Chatham House ) and the Round Table. These founding members included philosopher, economist, communist Poland’s Charge d’Affaires and European union architect Dr. Joseph H. Retinger, international banker Baron Victor Rothschild, industrialist Laurence Rockefeller, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow and CIA Director General Walter Bedell Smith, and the Netherland’s charismatic Prince Bernhard, husband of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, the richest women in the world at the time. (This was primarily due to her business partnership with Victor Rothschild’s Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. and substantial stock held in Exxon). [1]

Retinger-bernhard

(left) A Young Dr. Joseph H. Retinger; (right) Prince Bernhard

As you can see already, the Rothschilds were in on the act right from the start, once again since it is they who have the overall control over the direction and flow of money.

Though the name “Bilderberg” comes from the Dutch hotel that hosted the first meeting in Oosterbeek, Holland, the German-born Prince had far less innocent beginnings as a card-carrying Nazi and member of the SS. Though he redeemed himself in the minds of many by being a stalwart fighter in the Dutch resistance, it seems he was chosen for his mind-set. Bernhard and his Bilderberg baby is credited with being the cradle of the European Community the ultimate goal of which was – surprise, surprise – a one world government and an Anglo-American empire dominating the globe. [2]

Prince Bernhard was keen to work for British Intelligence during the Second World War and although initially refused he was offered work at the Allied war planning councils. This may have been a cover story. There is little doubt that America’s CIA had a large part to play in the formation of the Bilderberg meetings. In 1952, the agency allegedly financed a trip for Joseph Retinger to persuade Prince Bernhard to form regular, unofficial meetings which would provide a place to solve the problems of the Atlantic community. Dr. Retinger thrashed out the details with his old buddies David Rockefeller, (CFR)  Averill Harriman (Skull & Bones) and then director of the CIA Bedel Smith:

“… Retinger explained his proposal, Smith said, ‘Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?’ He quickly referred Retinger to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become Eisenhower’s special assistant for psychological warfare. It took a while for Jackson to organize the American wing of the group, but finally, in May 1954, the first conference was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg, a secluded hotel in Holland, near the German border. Prince Bernhard, and Retinger drew up the list of invitees from the European countries, while Jackson controlled the American list.” [3]

As with most of the above groupings so far, a cross-fertilization of discussion takes place at regular meetings where geo-political policy is planned for the coming years. All the representatives from the usual spheres are present; the only difference being it has a distinctly European flavour, with an emphasis on Euro-banking. NATO representatives, “The Structural Adjustment Team,” of the IMF, World Bank and WTO, the Rothschilds and the Dutch Royal family’s Queen Beatrix are very regular members. Other attendees have included Bill Clinton, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and the Goldman Sachs and Federal Reserve cartel as represented by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. European Central Bank’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King swap vol-au-vents with Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld and Rupert Murdoch as just some of the luminaries who grace the Bilderberg meetings with their divine presence.

According Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin’s research, Steering Committee rules ensure that:

“… the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends. Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.”

Estulin also states:

“Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications. Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings “are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus.” [4]

There are numerous examples of Bilderberg influence greasing the wheels of progress for those they consider to be potentially useful in the achievement of their aims. Tony Blair was a Bilderberg attendee before becoming UK Prime Minister. Bill Clinton attended a meeting 1991 and made sure the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect when he became President shortly after. NAFTA was a Bilderberg priority and Clinton, Establishment groomed, was considered a good choice to further their agenda. There are many others. Funding for the events is never a problem since several member organisations and companies willingly donate each year. Two of these regular contributors are Goldman Sacs and BP who financially assist the “charity” although since 2008 it has omitted the donator’s names from its accounts. [5]

Estulin is arguably the world’s expert on what is discussed at each year’s Bilderberg meetings. After 14 years of research based on what he calls “… the ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside, as well as outside the Group’s membership,” he has managed to garner a comprehensive picture of the perceptions and plans behind the Bilderberg Group and their aspirations for the world. The True Story of the Bilderberg Group shows convincingly that the suspicions of so-called “conspiracy theorists” are generally correct. Though some will find his breathless: “I’m-about-to bust-their-show-wide open-and-they’re-after-me” pitch a little too much to stomach the author has worked hard to prise open the inner workings of the group and should be commended for that, if not for the English text translations.

Estulin is convinced that the Bilderberg Group and its affiliated nodes are “a shadow world government” who are threatening to take away our right to direct our own destinies by creating “a disturbing reality” which is very far from the public interest. He writes: “Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public.” [6]

It seems at the very start of the Bilderberger project the idea was to build an “Aristocracy of purpose” between Europe and the United States in policy, economics, and strategy.” NATO was to ensure “perpetual war” and “nuclear blackmail” to keep the required fear quota at a premium and for geo-strategic bargaining chips. In David Rockefeller’s Memoirs (2002) he refers to both of these themes, stating: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [7] You can’t fault Mr. Rockefeller for candour when it suits him. Yet, clearly, it much more than merely “a more integrated global political and economic structure” and “one world” as if you imply this is a fuss about nothing and quite natural and benign.

This rare glimpse of “honesty” doesn’t begin to address the institutional secrecy of which he is so “proud”. While these imperatives are set to continue to interfere in global decision-making it is because the Bilderbergers are very aware of both human psychology and the repercussions of the information Age that they will continue to work in secret. They know when information begins to leak progressively into the mass mind dots can be connected and a thinking population is the last thing they want.

In Estulin’s 2007 report – perhaps one of the most pertinent – he offers some possible trends on the energy scene and in particular oil, a resource that is deep interest to the Bilderbergers. He states: “From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world’s financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle.”

membership-list-attendance-bilderberg-group-ottawa-20062

Bilderberg Group leaked attendee list, Ottawa 2009. (click on the image to enlarge)

Whether the “end of oil” is a realistic prediction any time soon, the accessibility of oil reserves is certainly a question which is being asked in the meetings with increasing frequency. Estulin continues: “Goldman Sachs oil report, (another full time member of the Bilderberger elite) published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During the 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US $105-150/barrel. … No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a ‘post-industrial age.’”

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

To bring the world into the post-industrial age, you first need to destroy the world’s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don’t spend money, they don’t travel, and they don’t consume.” [8]

While the “end of oil” and by implication the concept of “Peak oil” may be another instrument from the propaganda tool-kit, the war for resources from water to mineral deposits, oil to foodstuffs will play a large role in the coming conflicts. The “Order out of Chaos” theme can be seen over and over where society is broken and rebuilt, only to be broken and rebuilt again according to how much and how many can be exploited. Whether it is the First or Second World Wars, the balkanization of Iraq, the creation of Kosovo as a narco-state – all have this strategy in common.

Supreme confidence in the Olympian ideals is drawn from the probable high incidence of psychopathy within their ranks. If we strip away the rationalisations and ideological nonsense all that remains is a framework by which they can exert unlimited power and control.

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

  • ““one international identity with one set of universal values;”
  • centralized management and direction of world populations by controlling world public opinion;
  • a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and no democracy;
  • “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
  • The creation of “Union blocks” which will eventually be interlocked into one entity.
  • using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
  • expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
  • the world militarization of NATO;
  • imposing a universal legal system; and manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
  • absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
  • “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;
  • A global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”

What is more, the vast influence that is brought to bear on global power-brokers and their goals is entirely illegal. Under United States law, the Logan Act states that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens in order to develop public policies. (The same principle applies in the UK). Therefore, when US officials have attended Bilderberg meetings, they were breaking federal laws of the United States. As online journalist Jerry mazza reminds us at the 2005 Bilderberg meeting : “… the American government was well represented in Rottach-Egern by Alan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council; William Luti, Deputy Under Secretary of Defence; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq War and incoming president of the World Bank.” [9]

070513groveBilderberg 2013 Conference took place at the Grove Hotel, Watford, UK

The corporate media still refuses to cover the Bilderberg meetings except for the occasional piece by more independent journalists such as the Guardian’s Charlie Skelton. Generally, the meetings remain unknown by the majority. Like the CFR’s total control over the American media CNN, CBS, ABC and other media giants continue to control and filter everything that passes as news to the general public. Many Bilderberg attendees are journalists and newspaper editors who push the required propaganda while agreeing to keep silent about the groups meetings.

The closely aligned Rockefeller family has managed to rapidly exert incredible power over socio-cultural, economic and political discourse in both the US and the UK. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves once again of another example of David Rockefeller’s soul-bearing in this context where he expresses his gratitude 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.” And here we have the truth laid bare, when he states: …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.” [10]  It is the self-proclaimed status as demi-God that characterizes the present breed of psychopaths convinced of their own special “auto-determination” outside the destiny of normal peoples. Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want an all-encompassing and preferably eternal monopoly over every aspect of our lives – that is the endgame.

The UN is busy doing its level best to provide them with that mechanism under a document called “Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)” policy paper No. 24. This may as well have been written by the hand of Rockefeller himself for in this little-known paper we can read how “Governance solutions for reasserting the state monopoly on the use of force” and a helpful, altruistic listing of the options available to governments to re-establish “monopolies of force” against their own people:

  • (Re-) establish state monopoly – Ownership of WMDs – Safety Inspectorates
  • Prohibit business activity – Justice and Execution – Deadly Force?
  • Regulate/limit activities – Private defence/security services, Control of financial transfers – Export controls – Transport and infrastructure safety – Environmental impact

What is more: “The legitimate monopoly of force should not be limited to the nation-state but should be based on the local, national, regional and the global levels.” And further: “At the global level no monopoly of violence exists. The UN Security Council already has a monopoly power to authorize the use of force at the global level, although the UN was never given the necessary means to exercise this authority, such as the capacity to implement sanctions, a police force and armed forces… This deficiency in global governance acts as a bottleneck and a barrier to the creation of the democratically legitimized monopoly of violence that is globally required.” [11]

Pathocrats

See also: The Dark Green series exploring “Eco-Fascism” and “Eco-Intelpro”.


Notes

[1] Queen Juliana: The Story Of The Richest Woman In The World, by William Hoffman, Published by Angus and Robertson, 1980 | ASIN: B000UI94JK.
[2] See: H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands: an authorized biography by Alden Hatch. Published by Harrap, 1962.
[3] The Chairman: John J. McCloy – The Making of the American Establishment, by Kai Bird, Published by Simon & Schuster, 1992.
[4] op. cit. Estulin (p.25)
[5] Applications listed in the Charity Commission annual records: http://www.apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends06/0000272706_AC_20080331_E_C.PDF
[6] Ibid.
[7] Memoirs By David Rockefeller, Published by Random House, 1st Trade Ed edition, 2002. ISBN-10: 0679405887 (p. 490).
[8] ‘Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe’, by Daniel Estulin DanielEstulin.com, May 21, 2007.
[9] ‘I’ll have the Bilderberger, well done!’, by Jerry Mazza Online Journal, Nov 9, 2007.
[10] Quoted from Bilderberg/Trilateral meeting in 1991 in Baden Baden, Germany. (See Daniel Estulin.)
[11] Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) Occasional Paper – № 24 ‘The Privatisation of Security in Failing States – A Quantitative Assessment’ By Željko Branović, Geneva, April 2011.

 

Aussie Rules

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the victims who were abused as part of this network as children can testify to the fact that police officers we’re actually being paid off so that this criminal network remained untouchable.”

Dr. Reina Michaelson


Kangaroo-Springen

Australia surfaces consistently on many paedophile ring investigations with a familiar denial of Establishment involvement. This is made easier by the fact that Australia already has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world care of billionaire Rupert Murdoch, a Pathocrat-friendly media mogul.

In March 2005, after alleged police involvement and protection of the State wide paedophile and child pornography network, a former Young Australian of the year, Dr Reina Michaelson held a press conference in Melbourne, Victoria, on new revelations regarding the controversy. She alleged the paedophile networks involved media personalities, politicians and corporate executives. Nothing new you might say. However, what Michaelson did bring to the proceedings was evidence that should have created a storm of publicity.

She produced a police tape recording from an Ombudsmen meeting in November 2004, where the high level investigator from the Office of Police Integrity (OPI) which was formed precisely for the purpose of addressing the continuing allegations of abuse, told her:  “What I would hope that we can achieve is possibly nothing in relation to that past [paedophile] ring, even if it is still operating”. [1] This, in itself, is a damning statement offering a hefty can of worms to be opened by the media. True to form, almost all of the Australian press ignored the conference as well as this very revealing statement.

r198417_756705

The formation of the Office of Police Integrity was the Victoria Government’s response to fend off calls last year from Dr Michaelson and others for a Royal Commission into links between police corruption, paedophile rings and Melbourne’s gangland killings. The Office dismissed their complaints without having interviewed the copious witnesses or having recalled any Victoria files. The Office continues to be viewed by many as a cover for damage limitation rather than a genuine investigative body.

In Michaelson’s words from her press release:

“… the victims who were abused as part of this network as children can testify to the fact that police officers we’re actually being paid off so that this criminal network remained untouchable. So that’s why we want it to be investigated thoroughly, and for there to be a report of the kind of quality that came out as a result of the last complaint. There is clearly something really bad happening in this State, and it needs to be sorted out. […] It’s organized crime, and it’s being allowed to continue because… There are a couple of bad eggs in the right places.” [2]

A separate report followed from Edward Picton Mullighan QC appointed by the government’s Commission of Inquiry into Children in State Care [3] which was itself, pressured into action from Dr. Michaelson’s efforts. Characteristic of so many “official” reports and inquiries, the author of the report seemed to slip into extremely selective and simplistic bias regarding the overview of one witness testimony of systematic and severe sexual abuse. The testimony of the professionals involved was deemed more important than witness testimonies and where all adult explanations were taken at face value without taking into account hundreds of other reported cases within the South Australian care system.

Dr. Reina Michaelson

Dr. Reina Michaelson

As a signpost for further allegations which the government has steadfastly ignored, it was seen as appropriate to sink the report without further discussions. The nature of the evidence was so disturbing that this automatically engendered disbelief, or as a more likely possibility, the recommendations to cease further investigations.

The only Member of the Australian Parliament, speaker of the House, Peter Lewis MP raised the issue of murder, corruption and organised child abuse thereby taking it straight to the Aussie Establishment door.

The politician gave a statement to police that two gay men murdered in Adelaide in late 2004 told him that a serving elected politician was involved in paedophile activities in Adelaide’s South Parklands. Robert Woodland, who was found beaten to death in the Parklands last December and Shaine Moore, whose body was found in his home in suspicious circumstances in February 2005, separately contacted Lewis and told him of the person’s paedophilic actions. Police initially said the paedophile MP allegations were examined in 2003 and found to be unsubstantiated, but reopened their investigation.

Unfortunately, the key witness, one Lewis Craig Ratcliffe, was also a convicted sex offender which didn’t help the evidence. Yet eight other witness’ testimonies were summarily ignored. All possessed evidence about the paedophile MP’s extra-curricular activities.

Bringing attention to the subject of organised child abuse resulted in the MP resigning to avoid being ousted by a “no confidence” vote. This was said to be based upon his lack of evidence, despite Lewis’ call for a proper investigation and the obvious glut of provable background cases connected to a high-level paedophile ring operating above the law. The latter however, was deemed inadmissible.

vic.Hobart.9.7.04

If the MP’s allegations were without foundation and evidence, it begs the question why the Rann Government took the unprecedented step of temporarily suspending parliamentary privilege in order to stop the MP at the centre of the claims being named. One political scientist commented on the move describing the removal of the privilege of Parliament as a “major step” and that “The argument that Premier [Mike] Rann is using [that the paedophile allegations take precedent over anything else] is an emotive argument but put against 100 years of convention is a difficult one to push…” [4]  Other pleas for investigations into separate paedophile rings began to surface during the same year and by August 2005, someone in the OPI obviously wanted to send a message showing just how ineffective the Office was. [5]

mike-rann

Mike Rann

The Privacy Commissioner was called in to investigate how over 500 pages of police files on more than 400 people were sent to a woman who had lodged a serious complaint against the police, after the Office had dismissed her original complaint. The documents that the woman anonymously received showed that: “… the OPI agreed with police to cut the scope of the investigation from two years to five months – without telling the woman.” and also revealed that “her husband’s files were accessed in April last year – although the OPI told the woman that its investigation had found no such access.” One MP told parliament that OPI had ‘misled’ the woman over the accessing of her husband’s file, and had ‘deliberately deceived’ her over the scope of the investigation.

As always, the networks appear to be a tightly woven affair where evidence is highly difficult to come by. This is no surprise if it is sourced from those whose job it is to set the laws and to then give the appearance of investigating it.

On 4th April 2005, Peter Lewis MP, gave a 20 minute resignation speech responding to the highly unusual moves by the Rann government to remove him as Speaker of the House.

An edited extract follows:


The Premier and the Deputy Premier have recently publicly insulted and defamed me and, through the efforts of their spin doctors and media minders, in particular Melvin Mansell of the Adelaide Advertiser, to criminally defame me in a series of editorials and articles, which were reckless in that they were not well researched, unfounded, unprofessional, malicious and, for that reason criminal, they provided through the orchestrated campaign the means by which it has become possible for the Premier and Deputy Premier to now attack and tear down the straw man they constructed.

The central issue in all this is the grossly misleading assertion that I publicly raised the problem of allegations that a Member of Parliament is a paedophile. I made no such claim. That was made by Melvin Mansell’s Advertiser itself. It began on 2 March, when Nigel Hunt contacted me to ask me about claims made by Craig Ratcliffe on web sites late last year and repeated by him to The Advertiser early this year that there is a paedophile in state parliament and that he (Craig Ratcliffe) was very concerned that his life had been threatened following the death in suspicious circumstances of someone else, namely Shaine Moore, whom he knew and whom he believed had been murdered.

I responded honestly to Nigel Hunt’s unsolicited inquiries to my office on 1 March. That information coming into my office from a few of the very many people claiming knowledge about the activities of paedophiles in general was of concern to me because, of the few people who spoke about parliament’s problem, more than half had been killed. Since then, Shaine Moore’s death has been declared a murder. […]

… they [witnesses] were being ‘bumped off ’— that is, murdered and viciously assaulted — quicker than I or the people who were helping me could get them to write down their allegations and then swear that what they were saying was true. Of course, I told Nigel Hunt that they should be protected from murderous acts. At no time have I ever said that they were being murdered or violently bashed into serious long-term mental dysfunction at the hands or the instigation of any MP. That was an improper speculation made by government ministers and their specialist spin doctors to the press across the length and breadth of the state to try to show me in a bad light. In retrospect, I believe it was another deliberate red herring contrived by them, just like the one about homosexuals and their haunts, to discredit me. […]

The most outrageous thing of all, which disturbs me most about the information which has come in to my office is not the matter of paedophiles in South Australia’s parliament but what appears to be the related and organised activities of those paedophiles in high public office—that is, the judiciary, the senior ranks of human services portfolios, some police, and MPs, across the nation, especially within the ranks of the Labor Party. Yet you only have to recall in recent years the investigations, charges and successful convictions against such people as Darcy, Liddy, Wright, Wells, a former senator, and other current and past MPs in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria to understand my concern. They have not acted alone or in isolation, it seems to me. Equally, it seems to me, they cleverly recruit their victims not from amongst the churches’ young groups and surf life saving clubs and boy scouts these days. There is a new group of youngsters they prey on—those involved in other action-type sports requiring body contact in coaching and skills development, if not in the action of the sport itself.


Lewis reiterated the standard protocol of initiatives, inquiries, commissions and investigations of this nature are carried under intense pressure, ridicule, and denials, while the individual or individuals in question who have sought to have proper investigations into organized child molestation are defamed, slandered and marginalised. The door always remains closed to Establishment complicity. Meantime, another Australian police officer shoots himself in an apparent suicide while investigating cases of child abuse.[6]

On the subject of child pornography we have explored the multi-faceted nature of endless prosecutions. Placing tax payers’ money into a short-term cure is designed to obfuscate and distract from the root cause of the problem. As Dr. Michaelson mentioned in her in Press statement following the resistance and refusal of Office of Police Integrity to do their job: “This is NOT the opportunistic abuse of children by men scouring playgrounds or scout groups. What  organized means is that groups of men – and we are largely talking about men, though women have been involved too – that groups of men can meet regularly at particular places at particular times and have children provided for them to abuse. I was told by the OPI’s investigators that what they, quote, “hope to achieve is possibly nothing in relation to that past [paedophile] ring, even if it’s still operating.” [7]

They are nothing if not honest in their intentions. What is more, their trust in the Pathocracy ensures that such honesty is always rewarded. Peter Lewis wasn’t the first to be jettisoned from Parliament over the issue and he won’t be the last.

From a speech by New South Wales Senator Bill Heffernan in Australian Federal Parliament on 29 May 1998: “Recently I made a speech in which I highlighted the code of silence which protects worldwide child sex networks including people in the judiciary, parliament, clergy and the public service. Many of these people live in an abhorrent culture in which is included, as spoils of office, the right to have sex with children …”

Twelve years later, the Australian Parliament is still hanging on to these rights.

 


Notes

[1] Dr. Michaelson Taped Meeting Transcript with the Victorian Ombudsman’s Office, Wednesday, 17th November, March 2005. http://www.csapp.net.
[2] Dr. Michaelson Taped Meeting Transcript With The Victorian Ombudsman’s Office, http://www.csapp.net. Wednesday, 17th November, 2004.
[3]  Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry Report as to a Particular Matter – 28 October 2005.
[4] Flinders University political scientist Dean Jaensch, quoted in The Australian: ‘Parliament gagged as speaker quits.’ By Michelle Wiese Bockmann and Tom Richardson, April 05, 2005.
[5] ‘Call for ‘paedophile ring’ inquiry’ The Herald Sun, May 3, 2005. “A Tasmanian lobby group for child sex abuse survivors has called for a state inquiry into claims a paedophile ring operated in Tasmania during the 1970s and 1980s.”[6] ‘Again a policeman clocks on, kills himself’ By Les Kennedy, Sydney Morning Herald, November 25, 2005.
[7] op.cit; Michaelson, Press Statement, 2005.

The Mainstream Media (MSM)

 By M.K. Styllinski

“The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.”

– Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist


Perhaps the most important aspect for a healthy society is an equally healthy press. It is considered to be a defining feature of Western democracy. This would be true if such an ideal had ever been attained. As media commentator and MIT professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky observed: “What is being reported blandly on the front pages would elicit ridicule and horror in a society with a genuinely free and democratic intellectual culture.” [1]

Media is a profitable business where truth has unfortunately been buried under an avalanche of corporate and political dictates the seeds of which were sown very early on its development. The nature of the “free market” and the forces that drive it are more than enough to make sure that the media and independent journalism would quickly dissolve into something quite different: to line the pockets of big business and to help the ruling class to justify its position in society, rather than help uncover the truth in any given situation. Truth is only relevant if it doesn’t threaten the money machine and social status.

Ever since Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays created the modern field of propaganda and the manipulation of public perception, older European governments and U.S. administrations have been routinely using his techniques. The greatest tool for perception management is through the organ of the global media, most especially in the US and UK. It is not that there is a conspiracy to create specific news stories, although that does happen, but that the very beliefs which underpin the reporting of news conforms to a form of self-censorship by the sin of omission. This, in conjunction with propaganda is highly effective. The now crumbling Murdoch Empire was a case in point. It is hardly likely that Murdoch and his editors would allow impartial reporting of issues that went counter to Murdoch’s own pro-Zionist and conservative beliefs, mostly notably seen via his Fox News network. And if there were such stories, then a suitable “spin” was sure to be provided ensuring a dilution or a twist on the original. [2]

In the long tradition of CIA and MI6 meddling, infiltration of Western media began in the 1940s with Operation Mocking Bird, the aim of which was total control of the American MSM. As the name cynically suggests, the idea was to embed journalists in every media outlet in the US who would then mimic journalism while in reality, they would follow and promote the government line.  As is usually the case in any effective intelligence operation there are well-intentioned dupes working alongside those that would sell their own grandmother for step up the career ladder.  Since then, disinformation and propaganda has characterised much of the global media, with the US-UK-Israel triangle cheer-leading all the way.

old-fashioned-tv© infrakshun

From the 1950s onwards the CIA ran a training school for Intelligence officers who were: ‘taught to make noises like reporters,’ … and then placed in major news organizations with help from top management. A CIA official said that: “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to be a journalist,’” Relatively few of the 400 ‑ some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.” [3]

These journalists brought into the fold consisted of: legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations—usually reporters; freelancers; employees of so‑called CIA ‘proprietaries;’ editors, publishers and broadcast network executives; columnists and commentators. News outlets traditionally associated with the CIA in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (and may still be) was The New York Times, Colombia Broadcasting company (CBS), Time and Newsweek magazines, The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Other newspapers included: The New York HeraldTribune, The SaturdayEvening Post, ScrippsHoward Newspapers, Associated Press, United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and the Miami Herald. [4]

Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein quoted a former CIA deputy director referring to the Post’s publisher Phil Graham as: “…widely known that [he] was someone you could get help from”. Graham and his CIA colleagues discussed the availability and prices of journalists and according to one CIA agent: “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” [5] As we will see in future posts, “information dominance” requires a level of Psychological Operations that not only co-opts the established media outlets but actively manipulates these assets to plant progressive disinformation which becomes accepted belief.

Thanks in part to a revealing 1974 expose The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence written by two ex-CIA agents, John D. Marks and Victor Marchetti, the agency had to cope with a series of investigations led by Senator Frank Church otherwise known as the Church Committee with assistance from the United States Senate Select Committee. It was to place the the existence of Operation Mocking Bird under intense scrutiny. According to the Congress report published in 1976: “The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.” However, by the time George Bush became director of the CIA in 1976 the Church Committee’s report was effectively buried with the following statement made in February of that year designed to take the heat away from a program that undoubtedly remained in place: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” As a footnote to this very public declaration Bush added that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. [6]

And if anyone believes a public statement given by the CIA has a shred of credibility at all then they need to do some research on intelligence agencies. Black is almost always white unless it benefits their objectives to say otherwise. The control and filtering of information is paramount.

One expert on propaganda and disinformation techniques is William Schaap, a practising lawyer and member of the bar of the State of New York and District of Columbia. He practiced military law in Asia and Europe after which he became the editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a number of years. In the 70’s and 80’s he was a staff counsel of the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York City. In the late 1980’s was an adjunct professor at John J. College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York where he taught courses on propaganda and disinformation. In his spare time he is an author and publisher on intelligence and foreign policy issues as well as squeezing in his managerial directorship of the Institute of Media analysis. In other words, this man is well qualified to speak about matters which have traditionally remained hidden from the public.

In an interview given on November 30 1999, Schaap gave his testimony on government propaganda and disinformation with special focus on the FBI and CIA. He talked of CIA’s presence in Angola in the mid-1970s during the war between the South Africans. The CIA’s job was to discredit the Cubans who were helping the Angolans. In order to do this, stories were concocted about Cuban soldiers raping Angolan women and Angolan militia tracking down Cuban soldiers and arresting them whereupon they were tried by the women victims and executed with their own weapons. Around twelve newspaper stories were circulated in the US, Europe and most of the prominent media outlets of the day.

When keywords and images are repeated with a fabricated story over and over again this can become truth in the individual’s mind. As in the above example: Angolan women = Rape = Cuban Soldiers. Propaganda result: Cuban soldiers are bad along with Cuban foreign policy. Despite the revelations by CIA officer John Stockwell proving that the atrocities were a pack of lies, people continued to believe that the atrocities occurred because the patterns of belief laid down in the brain over many years could not be shifted simply by exposing the truth. This is why the media serves as an incredible tool for the Establishment classes for maintaining their power base my manipulating belief systems or creating new ones. It also explains what an uphill struggle it is to reveal truth to a population that has been fed a diet of high-octane lies for many decades.  Nor has the fabrication of stories ended. It has in fact increased in intensity under the War on Terror hoax and the Anglo-American invasions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and most recently in Syria.

Schaap was asked how extensive is the disinformation framework and his response was based on the reports from the 1970s in which: “… a third of the CIA budget went to media propaganda operations … we are talking about 100’s of millions of dollars a year, just for that…on deliberately creating and spreading lies.” [7]

mainstream-media

Nick Davies is another journalist who has exposed the deep levels of propaganda. In his book: Flat Earth News: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media (2008) Davies’ research has led him to conclude: “For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it.” [8]  He discovered that intelligence agencies are working with less and less oversight supported by a structure of “strategic communications … originally designed by doves in the Pentagon and NATO who wanted to use subtle and non-violent tactics to deal with Islamist terrorism but whose efforts are poorly regulated and badly supervised with the result that some of its practitioners are breaking loose and engaging in the black arts of propaganda.” [9]

While freelance political agitators offer their services and provide made up stories to intelligence agencies most of the most notorious fiction floating around the newswires comes the Pentagon, care of its “information operations.” Since October 2006, Davies writes:

“… every brigade, division and corps in the US military has had its own ‘PYSOPS’ [Psychological Operations] element producing output for local media. This military activity is linked to the State Department’s campaign of ‘public diplomacy’ which includes funding radio stations and news websites. In Britain, the Directorate of Targeting and Information Operations in the Ministry of Defence works with specialists from 15 UK PSYOPS * based at the Defence Intelligence and Security School at Chicksands in Bedfordshire.” [10]

The Bush administration perhaps represented the most blatant use of PSYOPS. Many journalists have been found to have accepted cash payments for the spreading of disinformation or the spreading of government policy. One example was Armstrong Williams, a commentator and talk-show host who received $240,000 to promote its education initiatives. The Bush Administration’s Office of Cuba Broadcasting also paid 10 journalists to provide anti-Castro commentary on Radio and TV Martí, which transmit to Cuba government broadcasts critical of Fidel Castro. [11]

The final nail in the coffin of a free and independent press arrived after the Reaganomics era of deregulation which allowed banking elites and the rise of corporatism to buy every facet of commercial life and ultimately the very machinery of governments themselves. (The Obama administration is similarly full of ex-corporate CEOs and Goldman Sacs executives) It was inevitable that media would become a casualty of the lowest common denominator of cartel capitalism so that maximum amounts of money kept flowing into the coffers. This has resulted in a rapid consolidation of companies which exert a powerful monopoly on what the public is allowed to digest as “news.”

These corporations are:

  • GE / Comcast – Jeffrey R. Immelt /  Brian Roberts: NBC Universal, E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, G4, The Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network.
  • CBS Corporation – Leslie Moonves: CBS News, CNET.
  • NewsCorp – Rupert Murdoch: Fox News, Wall St. Journal, Twentieth Century Fox.
  • Disney  – Robert Iger: Disney Channel, ABC News, ESPN, A+E Networks.
  • Time Warner – Jeffrey L. Bewkes: New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, Castle Rock Entertainment.
  • Viacom – Sumner M. Redstone: BET Networks, MTV Networks, and Paramount Pictures

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a US political think tank which has had an unhealthy influence over US media for many decades. It straddles all of the media outlets and indirectly creates policy by saturating US society with its Elitist propaganda. In October 30, 1993 Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood wrote an op-ed piece about the role of the CFR’s media members stating: “Their membership is an acknowledgment of their ascension into the American ruling class [where] they do not merely analyse and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it.” [12] To make a foreign policy consistent and effective control over the US media is a vital part of this process.

Right up to 2011, the American media was pimping itself out to foreign despots eager to cultivate a marketable image in the West. Until she blew the whistle on her bosses, Amber Lyon was a respected, Emmy award winning CNN reporter. She was fired from her job for reporting the truth which didn’t go down too well with her superiors who had been paid by the government of Bahrain to paint them all in a favourable light. Systematic torture of peaceful protesters wasn’t meant to be part of the deal:

Lyon’s special report on Bahrain was scheduled to run on both CNN’s U.S. and international networks, but was pulled after only a limited showing due to pressure from the Bahrainis and their lobbyists. At the same time that Lyon was risking her life to do on-the-ground reporting in Bahrain; another CNN journalist was filming a paid propaganda piece on how the Bahraini leaders are a bunch of friendly pro-democracy reformers. That’s right … the Bahraini government paid CNN to do what was literally an infomercial for that brutal regime and pretend it was real journalism. Lyon says that China and many other foreign, authoritarian regimes also pay CNN and other mainstream networks to run flattering propaganda pieces. [13]

Public Relations is now a huge part of outsourcing for those within the US and European military-intelligence apparatus. Information dominance has never been more important for moulding the minds of the latest culture in the line of fire. SOS International, MPRI, L-3 Communications, CentenaGroup, CorpComm Group, MyMic, Polestar Applied Technology and ICOR Partners are just some of the many firms bidding for contracts from the Pentagon and NATO forces.

The Lincoln Group has excelled as one of the most highly charged propaganda outfits of our times, with “Insight and Influence anywhere, anytime,” as one of its slogans and the lucrative propaganda bonanza of “War on Terror” under its purview. The precocious and mysterious Mr. Christian Bailey is its chief executive director.

As a dynamic 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience he coincidentally became the lucky recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld’s Department of Defence. One of his first tasks was to buy space in Iraqi newspapers and deliberately place biased stories in favour of US interests. [14] In effect, Christian Bailey, (real name: Christian Martin Jozefowicz) is one of the top Psychological Warfare companies operating on behalf of the Pentagon: “In early 2003, just before the invasion, Mr. Bailey formed a Lincoln subsidiary, the Lincoln Alliance Corp, offering ‘tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with intelligence challenges.’ He also formed another subsidiary, Iraqex, which won a $6 million Pentagon contract to launch ‘an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the coalition’s goals and gain their support.” [15]

The Lincoln Group website, at lincolngroup.com (now a dead link) painted a romantic picture of boundless innovation and cheery confidence as it strove to keep the wheels of propaganda spinning. Far more invasive black operations are taking place beyond its slick and clinical sounding PR pitch. Christian Bailey would no doubt have been happy with the website blurb which painting a patriotic surge of technicians doing their finger-tapping best for freedom. In fact, in the initial stages of the Iraq invasion and much later they were:

“… working with US and overseas corporations and organizations to develop an in-country capability in Baghdad and Basra. Located both at the center of power and the commercial gateway of the country, Lincoln will act as a central clearinghouse for businesses seeking to do business in Iraq. Lincoln will provide the information, research, and contacts necessary to develop and grow business within the country. Lincoln will also provide a threat and risk assessment service through its ASP service, allowing clients to understand and mitigate the perceived security risk and dangers present in country.” [16]

It all sounds as sharp and incisive as a surgeon’s scalpel, this “in country capability” – No mess, no bodies or blood – just the freshly plucked American patriotism and some substantial pay packets. This changed to a more coy description in August 2007 depicting the Lincoln Group as a “strategic communications firm that provides our clients with access to cultures which have historically been difficult to reach through traditional Western communications.”

Which means very non-traditional methods are used to gain access and extract resources.

One medal that Lincoln can pin on their staff suit and ties includes a significant amount of spin over the mass slaughter of civilians in the attacks on the Iraqi city of Fallujah. An ABC report confirmed Lincoln’s involvement through a strategy document entitled: ‘The Making of Heroes: Lincoln Group and the Fight for Fallujah’ — part of the Pentagon’s multi-million dollar public relations campaign to sell the American war effort to the Iraqis.” This revealed its attempts to promote ‘the strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi Forces during the fight for Fallujah.’ In fact, it was to promote lies in favour of genocide that city came to represent. Almost 70 per cent of the city was destroyed by US forces, from civilian houses to medical centres and general services facilities. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed and almost half million refugee produced in the aftermath. [17]  Let’s also not forget that Fallujah may have been used as a large-scale testing ground for experimental weaponry including chemical, laser, fission and microwave. Many witness reports from both Iraqi civilians and US military speak of injuries consistent with such warfare where persons were bleeding from their eyes and ears or simply melted where they stood. This is the kind of PR which enabled secrecy and media blackouts about such crimes to remain concealed. [18]

The report went on to say: “Under the heading ‘Rumor Control,’ according to the  document, the Lincoln Group strives to dispel the notion that the war is ‘America’s fight’ or that Iraqi forces were defecting…‘It’s a little strange to see because even the Pentagon’s own estimates and the administration’s own estimates of the state of the Iraqi forces in 2004 when these fights for Fallujah occurred were never very glowing,’ said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.” [19]

The firm was also responsible for covertly planting wholly fabricated stories in Iraqi news outlets throughout 2005 “…designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military”. The stories were written by U.S. military “information operations” troop with “… the Lincoln Group’s Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes [posing] as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.” [20]

The Los Angeles Times reported that PSYOPS campaigns were being directed by “‘Information Operations Task Force’ in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. … As part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.” [21]

Astonishingly, far from the practice being condemned it was summarily encouraged an internal review having “concluded that the US military was not violating U.S. law or Pentagon guidelines.” [22] The US military are thus continuing to pay Iraqi newspapers and other Middle Eastern countries to publish articles favourable to the United States commensurate with the required geo-political expansion within those regions. As we have seen, the practice isn’t restricted to foreign countries – they’ve been doing it in the Establishment media for years.

As all these undemocratic strategies are combined with the new global private armies masquerading as security firms and you have the emergence of a new kind of warfare characterized by PSYOPS and mercenary outsourcing. This was clearly part of Donald Rumsfeld’s new espionage baby the “Strategic Support Branch,” which “deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.” Not only was formed from “reprogrammed” funds but it operated “without explicit congressional authority or appropriation.” It was a far more secretive unit that rivalled the CIA and directly answerable to Donald Rumsfeld which some have said allowed the Defence Secretary far too much power. The Lincoln Group fits comfortably into Rumsfeld’s strategy “…to find new tools to penetrate and destroy the shadowy organizations, such as al Qaeda, that pose global threats to U.S. interests in conflicts with little resemblance to conventional war.” [23]

By 2006, the firm had entered into more than 20 Defence Department contracts one of which amounted to almost $100 million and a variety of commercial and non-military government deals. Iraq remained a major source of capital where research, communications and even direct investing in the newly acquired was carried out.  [24]  By September, the Lincoln Group was the beneficiary of another two-year contract “to handle PR and strategic communications” for the U.S. military in Iraq worth $6 million per year, with increases available for $20 million if necessary. This time the PR strategies wasn’t restricted to Iraq but were part of a strategy to manipulate perception and media throughout the Middle East. [25] In the same year the company was heavily involved on various PR fronts inside Pakistan, having established its office in Islamabad in November of 2005. Under cover of humanitarian research and coordination, market research and demography for companies intending to invest in Pakistan, the Lincoln Group is still a primary PR tool for the Pentagon and its long-term strategy of pre-emptive warfare and colonisation.

2008, proved to be another busy and lucrative year. A $14.3 million contract from the U.S. Army to promote the Army’s “Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization campaign” which got under way in July. [26] By September, the Lincoln Group had won a three-year, $300 million contract for “information operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since there are presently more than three times as many PR people in America as there are journalists, it seems the company’s expertise and many others like it, will be used by the Pentagon for many years to come. [27]

Network pic 4

Network (1976) Ned Beatty as the personification of Media Corporatism

Perhaps the most searing indictment on the nature of the modern media was delivered by the 1976 film Network, a biting satire on the nature of broadcasting and media. Written with disturbing clarity and prophetic vision by Paddy Chayefsky, it tells the story of Howard Beale, a newscaster and media celebrity who teeters on the edge of a breakdown while exploring the dynamics of a popular news network that surrounds him. Peter Finch earned a posthumous for his portrayal of Beale second only to a star performance by Ned Beatty who plays the role of a corporate sponsor. An extract from his speech follows in which he berates the newscaster for attempting to wake up the people with his new one-man show. He is biting the hand that feeds him and more importantly, showing the true nature of television and the business world:

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU… WILL… ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that… perfect world… in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel. [28]

The above extract is drawn directly from Chayefsky’s own experience in media. As we shall see in the coming chapters, it is a perception of life which exists across all domains of society. Increasing commercialisation, consolidation and monopolisation of media and entertainment networks has produced a dizzying array of “info-tainment” channels where quality is sacrificed for quantity permitting greater conformity to governmental and corporate influence which entice journalists to value their careers and kudos over truth.  The information revolution and alternative media found on the internet is already chipping away at this Establishment edifice and it remains to be seen how long the internet can remain a source of genuine free speech.

The Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham epitomised why distrust of the MSM is at record levels. Terry Hansen quotes her astonishing offering in his Missing Times (p.83) where in 1988, she told a meeting of CIA officials: “… there are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.”

 


* Largely because of political sensitivities, psychological warfare has had several names during the 20th century, including propaganda, political warfare, and psychological operations (PSYOPS). It encompasses activities to weaken the enemy’s will, reinforce loyalty, and gain the military or moral support of the uncommitted, usually through the control and management of news and information. Its rise in importance is directly related to the development of print and other media, particularly in the last 100 years. Put simply, it is perception management. The aggressive needs of psychological warfare in a world war have since given way to the different aims of psychological operations in times of peace. Although the distinction between it and propaganda is often indistinct, the former is based on presenting a version of the truth (or perceived truth) to an enemy, whilst propaganda has come to mean peddling a lie, often to one’s own side. […] (Oxford Companion to British Military history) | As of 2010, the US Army has dropped the Vietnam-era name “psychological operations” in favour of a more neutral moniker of “Military Information Support Operations,” or MISO.


Notes

[1] p.91; Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order By Noam Chomsky, Published by Pluto Press 1996 |  ISBN-10: 0745311067.
[2] http://www.outfoxed.org/ – “Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism.” (2002).
[3] ‘The CIA the Media’ – How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up. By Carl Berstein. Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘How the Washington Post Censors the News’ A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes, April 25, 1992.
[6] Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation By Mary Louise, published in 2003 from http://www.rcfp.org/ archived on http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird.htm
[7] William Schaap: ‘The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo.’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4rFXjGJ5os
[8] Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media by Nick Davies Published by Random House UK, 2009 | ISBN-10: 0099512688.
[9] ‘How the spooks took over the news’ by Nick Davies, The Independent, February 11, 2008.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ‘U.S. Paid 10 Journalists for Anti-Castro Reports’By Abby Goodnough, The New York Times, September 9, 2006.
[12] ‘Ruling Class journalists’ by Richard Horwood, Washington Post October 30, 1993.
[13] ‘3 Time Emmy Award Winning CNN Journalist: Mainstream Media Takes Money from FOREIGN Dictators to Run Flattering Propaganda’ September 30, 2012 by Washington’s Blog.
[14] ‘So, just who is Christian Bailey?’ By Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, December 17, 2005.[Note: Christian Bailey is apparently now head of http://curatedinnovation.org/ which is “a Cambridge-based innovation lab which brings together leading university scientists, donors, and investors to create technology that will make an impact on a health issue they care about.”
[15] ‘Godalming geek made millions running the Pentagon’s propaganda war in Iraq’ By Patrick Foster and Tim Reid, Times online, December 24, 2005.
[16] http://www.lincolngroup.com/1068 Inside the Public Relations Blitz to Sell Iraq War Overseas ABC News, Dec. 14, 2005.1069 Ibid.1070 ‘Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld’s Domain New Espionage Branch Delving Into CIA Territory’ By Barton Gellman, Washington Post, January 23, 2005.
[17] ‘Genocide In Fallujah’ By Brussells Tribunal, 27 March, 2005.| http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-bt270305.htm
[18] ‘US Forces use WMD in Iraq’ | http://www.brusselstribunal.org/WMD.htm
[19] op. cit. ABC News Report.
[20] ‘U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press: Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice,’ By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times, November 30, 2005.
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘Military Will Keep Planting Articles in Iraq. The ranking U.S. general there says a Pentagon review found the program does not violate policy. It could be replicated elsewhere,’ By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2006.
[23]  op. cit. Gellman.
[24] ‘Secret no more. Inside the Pentagon’s Iraqi PR firm,’ By Justin Fox, Fortune Magazine/Fox News, January 20, 2006.
[25] Lincoln Group Tapped for $6M  Iraq PR Pact ODwyer, Sept. 26, 2006 | http://www.odwyerpr.com/editorial/0926iraq_lincoln_group.htm
‘LG Fights IEDs in Afghanistan,’ O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, August 7, 2008.
[26] ‘Defense Taps PR Firms for Iraq,’ O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, September 25, 2008.
[27] ‘Journalism Vacuum Filled by PR Professionals, or Spin Doctors?’ June 2, 2011 in Online public relations, http://www.intersectionofonlineandoffline.com
[28] Network (1976) Screenwriter: Paddy Chayefsky – “Fear of an Arab Buy-Out.” Ned Beatty as Arthur Jensen.