And it will be part of my upcoming material to expose, one by one, each of the actors, and the plants in the audience, and the stage hands outside the tent making their thunder noises.
Remember our two principles in understanding politics: The thing, the rationale, the true purpose and Problem, reaction, solution. Here are their graphical representations:
Let's use the Washington Post as an example. That rag is a known hotbed of CIA Operation Mockingbird assets. That paper prints nothing that the CIA doesn't want printed. The CIA, you will recall, runs cocaine and gins up its front operations, like Al Qaeda.
Let's compare and contrast the old media with the new media:
This, from today:
Former militants now wage battle within
Libya to discredit al-Qaeda
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 29, 2010; 3:08 PM
TRIPOLI, LIBYA -- His life as a militant began with a call to holy war.
It ended inside a prison in his native Libya. In between, Sami al Saadi
orchestrated attacks against Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, moved in
Osama bin Laden's inner circle and befriended Mullah Omar, the Taliban
leader.
Released from prison in March after he renounced violence, Saadi and
other top leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group are now waging an
ideological battle to de-radicalize extremists and discredit al-Qaeda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052902439.html?hpid=topnews
Now contrast that with this:
By Muriel Kane
Published: July 31, 2009
Updated 1 year ago
In an interview
last month with blogger Brad Friedman, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
dropped a bombshell when a caller asked a question about 9/11.
The former FBI translator carefully replied, “I have information
about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For
example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of
our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things
can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they
classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship
with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to
September 11.”
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/31/whistleblower-bin-laden-was-us-proxy-until-911/
This is the part where I launch my pincer attack. Or maybe it's a half nelson. I know full well that the Washington Post is in my audience. So I know full well that they are aware of Ms. Edmonds and what she has to say about Al Qaeda being a CIA front operation. She'd be in a position to know, what with translating intercepts that confirmed that Al Qaeda worked for the CIA.
...But yet the Post prattles on and on as if Al Qaeda is somehow real.
How could that be? Is it that they're stupid? Or is it that they are intent on polluting their audience members' minds with fanciful tales of Amalekites? And their Thunder of Doom, the protection against which one must buy the elixir?!
I think we know the answer to that question.
Are you getting the con yet? Do you see the scam? The Post's job is to make the ugly crone look like a pretty girl. That is, they want you to believe that Al Qaeda is an organic enemy, rather than the CIA front operation that it is. And if you say, "No, that's actually an ugly crone," their response is that you're a conspiracy theorist.
The term "conspiracy theorist" is a linguistic warfare term that is applied to anyone outside "the matrix," that media matrix of lies and illusion, a person who may point out that the Terriss Responce Kit is actually so that your neighbor can break into your house.
A linguistic warfare term is a word that has no meaning that is then "loaded" with emotional meaning and applied to a person or a topic. The goal of this is to prevent people from throwing back the rug to see the filth underneath it. You don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, do you? Or a denier? Those people are yucky.
The words "denier" and "conspiracy theorist" are two such linguistic warfare terms. Ironclad rule of thumb: The System will employ those words, among many others, to prevent ideas from being contemplated except by the intrepid. (Like me! It's my bread and butter.) If you witness the use of those terms within the System, there is something they don't want you to examine. (If I determine that a linguistic warfare attack is underway, I, as a comedian, will immediately detonate and make useless those linguistic warfare terms. That is why, for example, I am happy to "deny" the Holofraud as being something not quite as impressive and tearjerking as it's advertised to be. It could be six million or six quadrillion. I don't care. I will examine anything I please.)
Nine years ago I said, "9-11 was an inside job. It's clearly a controlled demolition. I see all the telltale signs. And the numbers don't add up." (And do you remember the use of the term "9/11 denier"? Michael Chertoff used that one on C-SPAN. He, you will recall, is BFFs with Mohamed Atta's brother, Magdy Elamir. Huh.)
But about 9-11: Everyone called me a kook. They said, "Chris, if that were so, it would be in the newspapers, because (according to my erroneous assumptions about the world,) newspapers are in the news business. Wouldn't they want to break a story like that?"
The erroneous assumption is that the corporate news media are in any way involved in news. They're not. It's not their field, and just such an exercise as I have now demonstrated to you proves this.
They are not in the news business. They are in the reality creation business. They spin fanciful tales. That's their job. They're banker propaganda outlets.
And one by one I will expose for my audience all these frauds.
Under no circumstances should my audience believe a single word in the Washington Post. That is not to say that the people who work there are necessarily corrupt, or bad people, but only that your mind will become polluted by listening to them. They are in no way relevant to any meaningful conversation. And it, obviously, will be my fault for pointing that out. Trust me on that.
Here are some bullet-proof guidelines for my audience, guidelines that I follow, and that make me informed about politics:
- Take (almost) the entire front section of the New York Times and throw it away. Read the movie reviews, the political columnists, the dance reviews, and the fashion spreads. Venturing further down that rat hole will only damage your mind.
- Do the same with the Washington Post.
- The same is true for everything printed on a piece of newsprint.
It's too bad the industry killed itself by opting out of the news business. (Or was it Craigslist's fault?)
Under no circumstances are to you believe a single word you read in the front sections of the Washington Post and the New York Times.