"The man who never looked into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with half-truths and errors." - Thomas Jefferson (American Founding Father & President)
"One tames a people as one tames lions; by masturbation." - The brothers Goncourt (19th c. French historians and art critics)
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we think they ought to have." - Richard Salant (former president of CBS News)
"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 world government if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years ..." - CFR and Trilateral Commission honcho, David Rockefeller, speaking at a Bilderberg meeting in Germany, 5 June 1991
Media Whores & Quislings Update (1 - 2003)
Understanding the News
by Dennis Behreandt
In a free society, the news media performs a useful and essential function. As no individual can examine all events firsthand, the media plays the role of surrogate, transmitting the knowledge of those events to all citizens so they can make informed decisions. This is the function to which Jack Fuller, president of the Tribune Publishing Company, referred in responding to a survey on the media in 1997. "The central purpose of journalism," stated Fuller, "is to tell the truth so that people will have the information that they need to be sovereign."
When news organizations do not tell the truth, they can change perceptions, sometimes in dangerous ways. In his study of Nazi Germany, liberal historian William L. Shirer described the effect of the Nazi controlled press, not only on the thinking of the German people, but on his own thinking:
I myself was to experience how easily one is taken in by a lying and censored
press and radio in a totalitarian state. Though unlike most Germans I had
daily access to foreign newspapers, especially those of London, Paris, and
Zurich ... my job necessitated the spending of many hours a day in combing
the German press. ... It was surprising and sometimes consternating to find
that notwithstanding the opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one's
inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over years
of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression on one's mind and
often misled it. ... Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual
conversation with a stranger ... I would meet with the most outlandish assertions
from seemingly intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some
piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Some-
times one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with
such a state of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the
Almighty, that one realizes how useless it was even to try to make contact with a
mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what
Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for the truth, said they were.
The United States is not Nazi Germany. The press is not [yet] a department of the government. Yet the press is not what it once was. As authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in their recent book, The Elements of Journalism, "The real meaning of the First Amendment -- that a free press is an independent institution -- is threatened for the first time in our history even without government meddling."
The CFR Imprint on the News
One if the most important journalists in the last century was Walter Lippmann. Born in 1899, Lippmann received the best education money, and America, could provide: private schools and then Harvard. By 1917, he had found his way into the Wilson administration. He had already been a member of the semi-secret American Round Table group which, according to the late Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley, The Rhodes Trust had financed. In Quigley's words, the several Round Table groups, including the one in America, were "to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853 - 1902) and William T. Stead (1849 - 1912)." With his impeccable socialist and internationalist credentials well established, Lippmann was appointed to lead the effort to draft Wilson's 14 Points and, according to Quigley, became official interpreter of those points to the British government. Lippmann later became a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]. ..
As early as 1922, in his book Public Opinion, Lippmann asserted that "News and the truth are not the same thing. ..." The point of the news, according to Lippmann, is to point out certain facts, or bring to the public attention some event. In this view, news reporting is highly selective. And, because the news media has been nearly completely shot through by those who, like Lippmann, favor a left-wing, internationalist policy, the news is often selected and reported so that those positions are supported and contrary positions undermined.
Lippmann himself pointed to such selective and contrived reporting as indispensable in swaying public opinion to support Allied war aims in both World Wars. In his 1955 book, The Public Philosophy, he wrote:
When the world wars came, the people of the liberal democracies could not be
aroused to the exertions and the sacrifices of the struggle until they had been
frightened by the opening disasters, had been incited to passionate hatred, and
had become intoxicated with unlimited hope. To overcome this inertia, the enemy
had to be portrayed as evil incarnate, as absolute and congenital wickedness. The
people wanted to be told that. ...[t]his crusade would make the whole world safe
for democracy.
As a result of this impassioned nonsense public opinion became so envenomed that
the people would not countenance a workable peace; they were against any public
man who showed "any tenderness for the Hun. ..."
Once inflamed, the people proved willing to support all manner of barbarity. The era of total war, with its indiscriminate bombing of civilians, was entirely acceptable.
To his credit, Lippmann was uneasy with this outcome. But the point was made. Once suitably prepared, cajoled, persuaded, and "educated" by the propagandistic press, the people could be made to agree to any internationalist idea. Indeed, at the end of WWII, the people were persuaded that only a world federated under the United Nations would be free from future war.
The news outlets still play their role in the ongoing attempt to create a new internationalist order, and do so in much the same way they always have. In this effort to slant the news, these outlets use a number of techniques. First, and most obviously, there is the outright lie. For instance, the constant mantra that the United States is a democracy is a lie, even though nearly everyone believes it. Of course, this lie serves the interests of left-wing internationalists by confusing Americans about the true nature of their government. (Democracy is majority rule. On the other hand, a republic is governed by the rule of law, affording everyone, including minorities, protection under the law.)
Errors of commission of this sort, though, are far less common than errors of omission. In other words, rather than giving a true accounting of significant events as they occur, news providers more commonly try to ignore stories that undermine their agenda, while exploiting stories that further their agenda. The "War on Terror" has provided innumerable examples. For instance, on 30 April 2002, during a speech in San Jose, California, President Bush warned the nations of the world, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Clearly three nations "with the terrorists" are those identified by President Bush as forming the "Axis of Evil." These include Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Among those nations who have been "with us" in the war against terror are Russia and China. Interestingly, a recent CIA report to Congress on arms proliferation notes, according to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, that "Russia and China have been supplying Tehran with nuclear-related equipment that will boost Iran's capability to build nuclear weapons." In addition, the CIA report notes that "firms in China have provided dual-use missile -related items, raw materials and-or assistance to several countries of proliferation concern -- such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya." Obviously, Russia and China are in bed with the terrorists.
The press, however, has shied away from drawing this conclusion. In this case, they have chosen not to connect the dots. Why? Simply this: Connecting the dots would make it abundantly clear that Russia and China are not acting as allies would act. This would damage the internationalist cause which has long worked to include Russia and China in the developing global order.
Failing to connect all the dots that matter is just one method by which the media selectively reports only those things that support its leftist and internationalist agenda. Another technique often used is the ad hominem argument. This technique was used in 1999 in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial about gun control. In the wake of shooting as Columbine and Atlanta, the Journal-Constitution opined: "Some will argue, even in the wake of this tragedy, that guns are not the problem, that instead they offer a means for protecting ourselves from the madmen. That argument is itself a form of criminal lunacy that can no longer be treated as credible." By calling the natural right to self-defense a form of "criminal lunacy," this editorial deceitfully dehumanizes those who favor gun rights. this, of course, also furthers the leftist, internationalist cause seeking to restrict the use of force to national and then internationalist governing bodies.
Yet another common technique of deception is the argument ad nauseam. William L. Shirer referred to it when he noted that the constant repetition of Nazi propaganda makes "a certain impression on one's mind." This technique is commonly employed, for instance, in the abortion debate when news headlines repeat the chant that abortion is a woman's right. Repeating such phraseology over and over does not alchemically transform the statement from falsehood to fact. It does, however, constantly keep the refrain in the minds of the citizens and is likely, over time, to make a "certain impression." The frame of reference will change. Rather than thinking of abortion in terms of murdering a child, people begin to think of it in more abstract terms such as "reproductive rights."
Surviving the News
With the media cartel employing so many techniques of distortion and deception, just how is the average citizen to gather the basic knowledge needed to form sound opinions from which to make useful judgments? First, always keep in mind the essential nature of media bias, namely its advocacy of a leftist, internationalist world order. Awareness of this bent makes it much easier to read between the lines, be the subject the war on terrorism or gun control.
Second, consider the source. Does the source have a track record of obvious bias? Has the source made statements or predictions that have proven false? Does the report depend heavily on other, unnamed sources? if so, do not accept reports from this source at face value. Verify the report, if possible, with reports on the same subject from other independent sources.
Next, find a reliable source and keep it at hand for cross referencing. If news reports published elsewhere seem a little suspect, check the facts against reports on the same or similar topics in the source that has proven reliable. And, in many cases, it may make sense t check previous reporting to see how and why a story might have changed over time.
These efforts will not always be easy, but they are important. The media cartel is not interested in providing unbiased information to support the civic duties of the citizenry. The responsibility for remaining informed of the truth has now fallen squarely on the shoulders of each individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Whores & Quislings Update (2 - 2003)
The Sexualization of the Culture, The Sexualization of the Clergy
by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.
"Then never think, my friend, that you are free while your belly rules you and the part below the belly, since you will then have masters who can furnish you with pleasures or deprive you of them." - Julian the Apostate
"At 4:30 p.m. on 30 March 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. ...
"[The Israelis] knew that a blind opponent is no opponent at all, and because they knew -- as the ancient Greeks knew -- that lust makes a man blind ... Israel's use of pornography in their battle against the Palestinians isn't so inexplicable." - E. Michel Jones (Editor, Culture Wars magazine)
In his book on Shakespeare, the Rev. Peter Milward, SJ claims that The Merchant of Venice is really an attack on Puritans and not Jews. There were no Jews in England in Shakespeare's time, but there were plenty of Puritans who gave their children not only Jewish names but shared an essentially Jewish Messianic view of politicals, spawning political movements of the sort which would triumph in England in the middle of the 17th century and in America for a long time after. Milward's claim leads us to a larger point: that there has been a close affinity between the revolutionary Protestant and the revolutionary Jew ever since Rabbi Menassah Ben Israel met with Cromwell in 1656 and persuaded that worthy to let the Jews back into England (1). What both groups share is a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church of the sort that got transmuted into Freemasonry. As Leo XIII's indictment makes clear, Freemasonry by the late 19th century had become associated with a particular kind of cultural warfare, one which was associated with the corruption of morals in general and the sexualization of culture in particular as a form of social control.
In America cultural warfare over obscenity began in earnest during the 1920s, when the motion picture began to have more and more impact on American cultural mores. The first to take up the cry against Hollywood were the Protestant nativists in general and cultural icons like Henry Ford in particular. Ford saw the issue in ethnic terms. Hollywood, he claimed in his book, The International Jew, "was a Jewish enterprise from the start." Ford went on to say that "the moral side of the movies' influence" had become "a world problem" because of the "Jewish manipulation of the public mind." Anyone "who has an active moral sense," according to Ford, was convinced that the motion picture industry "frankly brutalizes taste and morals and should not be permitted to be a law unto itself."
In addition to the obvious issue of increasing nudity and sexual innuendo on the screen during the precode 1920s, Hollywood subjected "Christian clergymen ... to all sorts of misrepresentation, from the comic to the criminal." The purpose of this misrepresentation, which Ford saw as "distinctly Jewish," was "to break down as far as possible all respectful or considerate thought about the clergy." Interestingly, especially in light of later developments, it was the Catholic clergy, who, according to Ford, "very soon made themselves felt in opposition to this abuse of their priestly dignity." As a result, Ford writes, "the Jew climbed down" and "you now never see a priest made light of on the screen. But the Protestant clergyman is still the elongated, sniveling, bilious hypocrite of anti-Christian caricatures."
Grassroots protest against Hollywood's sexualization of the culture increased throughout the 1920s to the point where numerous state legislatures were preparing to take legal action, establishing their own censorship boards. The Catholics in many ways prevented that from happening by establishing the national Legion of Decency and effectively bringing Hollywood to bay through the threat of economic boycott. Eventually, Joseph I. Breen was appointed the Catholic censor to Hollywood. Breen was no nativist. The fact that he held his job for 20 years and was given an award by the people he censored when he retired showed, as Mark Viera points out in his book on precode Hollywood, that he was no anti-Semite. But Breen saw the battle over the sexualization of American culture issue in essentially ethnic terms as well. "Ninety-five percent of these folks," he wrote describing the Hollywood moguls of the 1930s, "are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth. ... These Jews seem to think of nothing but money making and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common indulgence hereabouts, and the men and the women who engage in this sort of business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is supposed to be" (Viera, Sin in Soft Focus, p.79).
Breen saw the sexualization issue in ethnic terms because that is how everyone else saw it too, including the Jews. Leo Pfeffer, lawyer for the American Jewish Committee and strategist for a number of key Supreme Court decisions, from Schempp v. Abington School Board to Lemon v. Kurtzman, decisions which effectively defined the cultural revolution of the '60s, noted the same ethnic divide over the sexualization of the culture in one of his memoirs. "After World War I," he wrote, "Irish-oriented American Catholicism began taking over leadership in anti-obscenity militancy. Catholic organizations such as the National Office for Decent Literature and the national Legion of Decency ... became the nations' most militant and effective defender of morals and censorship." As a result, America's Catholics came into cultural conflict with the Jews who promoted the sexualization of American culture. "American Jewry," according to Pfeffer, supported that sexualization "because many Jews, far more proportionately than the other faiths, are commercially and professionally involved in the cinema and publishing." As a result, Jews have "been overwhelmingly antipathetic to the crusade for morality and censorship in the arts and literature." Jay Gertzman in his book on the trade in obscenity during the same period makes the same point:
The ethnic flavor of prewar erotica distribution is still with us, although, except
for extreme right-wing hate groups, critics of sexual explicitness do not overtly
exploit the fact [that] many distributors of erotica are Jewish ...(Bootleggers and
Smuthounds, p.289). ...
[Gertzman's] father and uncle were arrested for selling obscene materials from their store on Market Street in Philadelphia during the 50s.
The thirty-year battle over the sexualization of the culture ended in 1965 when the Legion of Decency ran up the white flag and Hollywood broke the code. Once the Catholics lost their nerve in the war over the sexualization of culture, once they backed away from holding Hollywood to the basic rudiments of sexual decency, it was inevitable that the instruments of culture they failed to control would get used against them in all out cultural warfare. The Sexualization of the Catholic clergy dates from this period, as the Los Angeles Times survey [conducted between June and October of 2002] makes clear.
There are no truces in cultural warfare. The law of cultural life is either occupy your cultural territory or have it occupied by alien forces (2).
"The truth of the matter was that I did not like the Catholic Church," Pfeffer admitted in his memoirs. The truth of the matter goes beyond that as well. Leo Pfeffer was not just talking about personal animus; he was talking about an animus which was shared by his employer, the American Jewish Committee, as well as by Hollywood's motion picture and television industries. The latter group was described by Stephen Steinlight [former Director for National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee] recently as "the Jewish industry, par excellence." Even toward the end of his life, after proclaiming the triumph of secular humanism over the Catholic Church in 1976, Pfeffer was concerned about Catholic activism on the abortion issue because "the partial success which it has so far achieved may encourage further Catholic intervention in the political arena and bring back the days when the Roman Catholic Church was a powerful force in the American political system."
The sexualization of the priesthood followed inexorably from the sexualization of American culture, which happened when the Catholics tired of holding the Jews in Hollywood to minimal standards of sexual decency. Once the culture got sexualized, scandals in the priesthood might have happened anyway just because of the general loosening of sexual morals, even if Catholic religious hadn't been targeted specifically. But the fact of the matter is that Catholic religious were targeted specifically by the same group of [previously mentioned] Judeo-Puritan revolutionaries. ...
The simple fact of the matter is that the use of sexual deviance as a form of psychological warfare had been part of the intellectual lingua franca since the early '30s when Wilhelm Reich published his book Die Massenpsychologie des Fascismus. That book was translated into English in the late '40s, and by 1970, when Reich appeared on the cover of the New York Times magazine, it was recognized as the bible of the sexual revolutionary, sexual revolution being a term coined by Reich himself. ... Reich's strategy was to combine sexual deviance with "a mass phenomena" of the sort that could be promoted to unheard of levels of subversion with the technological breakthroughs which allowed the development of motion pictures, television and recorded music. ... The target Reich mentions in The Mass Psychology of Fascism is the Catholic seminarian. By involving him in sexual deviance, Reich brings about what he could not bring about by debating the existence of God or the tenth thesis of the fourth international, namely, the fact that the idea of God simply evaporates from the mind of the seminarian involved in deviant sexual activity.
By 1970 Reich had become a Jewish role model. Like Nina Hartley, Richard Pacheco is a porn star who sees a connection between pornography and being Jewish. When he showed up at an audition for an X-rated film he did so quite consciously as a cultural revolutionary, "with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich's Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, love and sex, which were Reich's three principles." Wilhelm Reich was, of course, a secular Jew just like Hartley and Pacheco; he, more than anyone else, made explicit in his writing how sex could be used as a weapon, probably the most effective weapon, in revolutionary struggle. The fact that Pacheco needed Reich under his arm to justify his participation in pornography shows how influential Reich had become in revolutionary circles, but it also showed that Reich had become as well a role model for the secular Jew who saw himself as a cultural revolutionary. Reich's thought on how to corrupt Catholic seminarians had become part of the lingua franca of cultural bolshevism (3).
Paul Likoudis [in his book Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals, and the Homosexual Agenda, 2002] paints a convincing picture of the ravages which sexual deviance have wrought within the Catholic Church. But the simple fact of the matter remains: deviance is only newsworthy if Catholics are involved. The incidence of sexual deviance [is] no different in other denominations. The deviance among Catholic clergy makes the news because the pedophile priest scandal is part of the almost century-long battle over the sexualization of American Culture. If that deviance were simply an intra-Catholic phenomenon, in other words, if it were not part of that struggle, it would merit about the same amount of column inches that deviance among rabbis and ministers now merits. It would merit about the same amount of press that the now forgotten Michael Jackson pedophile scandal merited. Did the Boston Globe call for the resignation of Sony because of what Michael Jackson did? Did it call for sweeping changes in the music industry? Are we to believe that the Catholic clergy is more sexually degenerate than the music industry?
The current crisis over deviance within the Church cannot be understood if it is viewed as an intra-Catholic struggle; it can only be understood in the light of the battle over the sexualization of culture which preceded it. That battle against the Church has been waged by two groups of revolutionaries -- the [WASP] puritans and the [Zionist] Bolsheviks -- whose only common denominator, aside from their predilection for revolution and subversion through the manipulation of passion, is hatred of the Catholic Church. The pedophile priest scandal currently making the news is just another chapter in that book. The Catholic Quislings and useful idiots who have caused so much damage could never have achieved what they have achieved without the help of the people who have staged the sexualization of our culture from the beginning.
