Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised

Nathan Janes
Pupaganda
February 24, 2010

A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer’s brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television’s constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.

	Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats.

The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television’s message.

It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, “Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas.” This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won’t conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people’s reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.

Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.

Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.

Crisis’ are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We’ve lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we’re stopped and searched; we’re watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.

America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it’s presented on television. We don’t question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children’s minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.

For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don’t be a leader, don’t engage in critical thinking, and don’t care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.

Mainstream media is dying

Published 06 January, 2010, 07:46

Edited 06 January, 2010, 12:00

News consumers are giving up traditional sources of information such as newspapers and television and turning to so-called new media, says US journalist and author Michael Wolf, creator of Newser.com web site.

Comic Superheroes help CDC pitch vaccines to kids

Aaron Dykes
JonesReport.com
December 29, 2009

http://www.bam.gov/sub_diseases/diseases_immuneplatoon.html

The CDC has created an online destination for kids known as ‘BAM! Body and Mind.’ Its main focus, along with advice for dealing with stress and bullies, is an attempt to glamorize vaccines to children ages 9-13.

BAM! Body and Mind is an online destination for kids created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Designed for kids 9-13 years old, BAM! Body and Mind gives them the information they need to make healthy lifestyle choices. The site focuses on topics that kids told us are important to them — such as stress and physical fitness — using kid-friendly lingo, games, quizzes, and other interactive features.

By creating comic-book superheroes and “using kid-friendly lingo“, they portray vaccines as a boost to immune systems that can fight disease.

According to BAM!, vaccines “train” the immune system on how to fight ‘real villains.’ The “Immune Platoon” do the real heroics, but not without the dummy diseases in the vaccines.

The CDC fantasy claims that vaccines ‘possess no “super-powers” that can harm your body’s good health.‘

“Because of the way they were created,” the BAM! propaganda message claims, “can’t cause any real harm. These vaccines are injected into your body to train your Immune Platoon how to fight the real villains.“

The CDC’s flashy and ‘cool’ take on vaccines misinforms children about real vaccine dangers, as does its FAQs directed at adult audiences.

Vaccines are anthropomorphized as being literally “weak” versions of disease antigens. The CDC’s BAM! misinforms children that vaccines “can’t cause any real harm” because they “possess no ’super-powers’ that can harm your body’s good health.”

Instead vaccines are anthropomorphized as being literally “weak” versions of disease antigens (see right) that cannot cause ‘any real harm.’

Try telling that to victims of Guillain-Barré syndrome, those who have auto-immune responses or those affected by the mercury contained in the Thimerosal preservative used in vaccines.

The CDC’s claim that no harm can come from vaccines– falsely reassuring naive children that it is safe, normal and good to be inoculated– is just not true. However one weighs the benefits of the greater good, vaccines can and do harm.

See more CDC BAM! propaganda in the full-sized images below or at their website.

Why do our ‘trusted’ institutions push vaccination as a common good from the top-down, when actual vaccine inserts warn against its potential to cause Guillain-Barré syndrome and other ‘harmful’ reactions?

Flu Vaccines have been found to contain mercury at levels hundreds of times higher than the CDC’s listed ’safe’ level. Every year, people do die [cached] or suffer paralysis from seasonal flu shots, H1N1, Gardasil and other inoculations.

Shockingly, some 12,000 U.S. children were used as guinea pigs in 2009 swine flu vaccine trials, as reported by the Oklahoman and Infowars.com.

SEE ALSO:

Mercury in Childhood Vaccines: What Did the Government Know?

Tamiflu Vaccine Linked With Convulsions, Delirium and Bizarre Deaths

Gardasil Causes 400 Percent More Deaths than Other Common Vaccine

Doctor says FLU VACCINE will cause 60,000 deaths in France alone

The Truth about the Flu Shot

PRISONPLANET.COM ARCHIVE RESOURCES: Vaccines - The Deadly Cure

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2010

Top Censored Stories of 2009/2010

• 1. US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street
• 2. US Schools are More Segregated Today than in the 1950s
• 3. Toxic Waste Behind Somali Pirates
• 4. Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina
• 5. Europe Blocks US Toxic Products
• 6. Lobbyists Buy Congress
• 7. Obama’s Military Appointments Have Corrupt Past
• 8. Bailed out Banks and America’s Wealthiest Cheat IRS Out of Billions
• 9. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
• 10. Ecuador Declares Foreign Debt Illegitimate
• 11. Private Corporations Profit from the Occupation of Palestine
• 12. Mysterious Death of Mike Connell—Karl Rove’s Election Thief
• 13. Katrina’s Hidden Race War
• 14. Congress Invested in Defense Contracts
• 15. World Bank’s Carbon Trade Fiasco
• 16. US Repression of Haiti Continues
• 17. The ICC Facilitates US Covert War in Sudan
• 18. Ecuador’s Constitutional Rights of Nature
• 19. Bank Bailout Recipients Spent to Defeat Labor
• 20. Secret Control of the Presidential Debates
• 21. Recession Causes States to Cut Welfare
• 22. Obama’s Trilateral Commission Team
• 23. Activists Slam World Water Forum as a Corporate-Driven Fraud
• 24. Dollar Glut Finances US Military Expansion
• 25. Fast Track Oil Exploitation in Western Amazon

Duel in the Sun: America's Iraqi Clients Play the Al Qaeda Card on Syria

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD

MONDAY, 31 AUGUST 2009 14:34

The American client government in Iraq has embarked on a remarkable campaign of diplomatic hostilities with its neighbor, Syria, accusing Damascus of, among other things, the modern-day blood libel that immediate consigns a nation to diplomatic hell, and makes it a target for what George W. Bush used to call "the path of action": supporting al Qaeda. As Jason Ditz reports, America's Baghdad satrapy has been broadcasting confessions "obtained" (via "strenuous" but no doubt justified and right-minded interrogation) from captives blamed for the recent bombing attacks that have shaken the PR image of a calmer, surge-soothed Iraq. The bombings also pointed up the vast failures of the client regime to provide security or bring together the warring factions inside the country. These goals are of course impossible for a regime installed and maintained in power by foreign invasion; even so, they represent the Green Zoners' sole claim to "legitimacy." Thus any threat to the PR image undermines the regime's hopes to survive the partial reduction of American occupation forces (erroneously termed a "withdrawal" in the obfuscating argot of imperial message management). And so the client state led by sectarian extremist Nouri al-Maliki has turned to the time-honored tactic used by governments since time immemorial to divert attention from its own manifest failures: blaming foreign devils. Naturally, the Maliki regime cannot blame its foreign masters in Washington for unleashing, arming, abetting and exacerbating the murderous chaos in the conquered land. Nor can they blame their long-time mentors and supporters in Iran. So that leaves Syria. With the televised confessions, the Maliki regime has moved swiftly from blaming Baathist diehards who have been hiding amongst the multitude of Iraqi refugees to accusing the Damascus regime of openly directing the attackers -- and now, in the latest show-trial spectacle, of supporting al-Qaeda training camps on Syrian soil. This is heavy stuff indeed. For as we all know, the presence of al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was the sole, purported reason for the American invasion in 2001; and preventing the re-establishment of such camps is still one of the primary excuses for continuing the slaughter there. The presence (or threat) of al-Qaeda camps is also proffered as justification for extending the Terror War into Pakistan and Somalia. What's more, the continual -- and blatantly false -- trumpeting of a "connection" between al Qaeda and Iraq was, in the end, the principal reason why the Iraq invasion garnered so much initial public support; the act of unprovoked aggression was seen as "payback for 9/11," as so many U.S. soldiers put it in those heady early days. The "al Qaeda" card trumps everything else. It justifies any action: invasion, torture, drone attack, rendition, death squads, covert ops, war profiteering, draconian power -- "the dark side, if you will," as one great American statesman put it. By openly accusing the Syrian government of sponsoring al Qaeda and directing terrorist attacks inside Iraq, the Maliki regime is laying the groundwork for any action their Washington masters might want to take against Damascus at any time. The regime is also giving one more reason to delay and dilute the American drawdown (which is also a cherished goal of the American militarists): are you going to pull out troops from Iraq when al Qaeda is getting state protection on Iraq's borders and launching terrorist attacks? Iraq's extraordinary accusations against Syria -- which have already led to a mutual withdrawal of ambassadors -- have thus far garnered little attention amongst the scribes who attend upon the imperial court. And who knows? At a nod from Caesar, the Iraqis might kiss and make up with Damascus tomorrow, if that is deemed more suitable for the immediate needs of imperial policy. But one should always remember that Syria has long been -- and still remains -- a prime target of that faction of American militarists known loosely as neo-cons. Indeed, at one point, it was a toss-up as to which "recalcitrant tribe" of Arabs they wanted the American war machine to hit first: Iraq or Syria? As I noted way back in caveman times -- April 2003, to be exact -- the neo-cons had been putting Syria in the crosshairs for years: A few months before PNAC's prophetic 2000 report [which longed for "a new Pearl Harbor" to "catalyze" the American people into supporting a vast and profitable militarist agenda], an allied group with an overlapping membership published a similar document outlining steps to be taken against Syria: first "tightening the screws" with denunciations and economic sanctions, then escalating to military action, as Jim Lobe of Inter-Press Agency reports. The architects of this document included Elliot Abrams, the convicted perjurer now running Bush's Middle East policy; Douglas Feith, one of Shifty's top aides; Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary to Colin Powell, and influential Pentagon advisors such as David Wurmser, Michael Leeden and everyone's sweetheart, Richard "Influence-Peddler" Perle. The report sprang largely from the loins of the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon, a curious grouping of right-wing American Christians, right-wing American Jews, and a sprinkling of Lebanese exiles. They object -- rightly -- to the fact that Syria has maintained "long-term access to major military bases" in Lebanon, using this minatory presence to exercise undue sway over Lebanon's political and economic life. Of course, some cynics would say this situation is remarkably akin to Israel's own 18-year occupation of, er, Lebanon, or the United States' decades-long -- and still-continuing -- military presence in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Panama, etc. But you know what cynics are like. The USCFL also provides highly insightful and very nearly literate analyses of vital regional issues, such as its seminal paper, "Even Arabs Don't Like Arabs." But the mindset of the group -- whose members now stalk the corridors of power in Imperial Washington -- is perhaps best displayed in its thoughtful 2001 treatise, "A Petition Demanding War Against Governments That Sponsor Terrorism" (Except, of course, for governments who enforce their will by the ever-present threat and use of violence -- i.e. terrorism -- but are run by nice white men educated at Yale and Oxford.) Here, the proto-Bushist group demands that six "rogue nations" -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya and Sudan -- "turn over their governments to the United States" on pain of massive military response. The United States will then "occupy these territories until proper governments" -- ones that allow "long-term access" to major military bases, no doubt -- "can be established." And just how massive should that threatened U.S. military response be? The USCFL is, as always, admirably -- and brutally -- forthright: "America must set a clear example-identical to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you tread on me, I will wipe you off the face of the earth." In the end, of course, Iraq represented too glittering a prize for all the various militarist factions to pass up on the first course. But you must never underestimate the appetite -- and persistence -- of our militarists. The latest accusations of the Iraqi client regime will be used to stoke the never-ending fires of militarist warmongering; they won't rest until every knee bows to their god of American Dominance.

Psychology Today Hit Piece Labels Conspiracy Thinking A Psychotic Illness

Psychologist Gartner fulfils the very criteria he levels at “conspiracy theorists” to claim their concerns are a product of mental instability

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 2, 2009

In an article entitled Dark Minds: When does incredulity become paranoia, Psychology Today writer John Gartner attempts to make the case that the concerns of “conspiracy theorists” are not based in reality but are a product of mental instability, while himself fulfilling every criteria for what he claims classifies such people as psychotics – ignoring evidence that contradicts his preconceptions while embracing the ludicrous “conspiracy theory” that powerful men and governments do not conspire to advance their power.

Probably somewhat upset about how our coverage of the dangers associated with the swine flu vaccine has contributed to a global revolt against mass vaccination programs being readied,Psychology Today’s gravy train of big pharma advertisers will no doubt be pleased to see the publication wastes no time in savagely attacking radio host and film maker Alex Jones, dispensing with any notion of fairness and zealously going after him as early as the second paragraph.

The nature of this vicious hit piece (PDF link) is confirmed when Gartner laments that Jones refused to provide him with phone numbers for friends he grew up with, presumably frustrated that he couldn’t dig up some dirt from an old girlfriend to throw into the mix of what is nothing more than a personal attack on Jones’ character, and a complete departure from any debate about the issues Jones covers on his radio show, which is the phony pretext that Gartner used in order to secure the interview in the first place.

Gartner has trouble believing that eugenicists occupy powerful positions, even in the aftermath of the John P. Holdren story when Obama’s top science advisor was exposed as having advocated forced abortion, sterilization and mass drugging of the public. Despite the fact that we sent Gartner dozens of pieces of evidence for his article, he cites a single national security memorandum and dismisses it as “a bland policy report”.

Mr. Gartner was obviously too lazy to read the entire document and/or too stupid to comprehend it.

The document to which he refers is National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.

The document, declassified in 1989, identified 13 countries that were of special interest to U.S. geopolitical objectives and outlined why population growth, and particularly that of young people who were seen as a revolutionary threat to U.S. corporations, was a potential roadblock to achieving these objectives. The countries named were India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

The study outlined how civil disturbances affecting the “smooth flow of needed materials” would be less likely to occur “under conditions of slow or zero population growth.”

“Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action,” states the document.

The document called for integrating “family planning” (otherwise known as abortion) with routine health services for the purposes of “curbing the numbers of LDC people,” (lesser-developed countries).

The report shockingly outlines how withholding food could be used as a means of punishment for lesser-developed countries who do not act to reduce their population, essentially using food as a weapon for a political agenda by creating mass starvation in under-developed countries.

“The allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production,” states the document.

Later in the document, the idea of enforcing “mandatory programs” by using food as “an instrument of national power” is presented.

This is the quintessential example of powerful men conspiring to use eugenicist policies in order to advance their power. Gartner’s lazy claim that the document is just a “bland policy report” is manifestly absurd.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this isn’t a “connection” that we invented out of fresh air to make our brains release dopamine, as Gartner’s bizarre hit piece goes on to claim, it’s there in black and white, but Gartner has either failed to read the whole document or has performed his own act of psychological gymnastics and summarily dismissed the evidence because it does not fit with his preconceptions – the very charge he levels at “conspiracy theorists” in his hit piece.

Gartner says conspiracy theorists are “immune to evidence” and yet he displays that very trait in this instance.

It isn’t long before Gartner regurgitates the tired old cliche about people needing to create conspiracy theories and some semblance of order to make themselves feel better in a chaotic world. He even claims that “finding meaning in sometimes insignificant events” creates dopamine, an overproduction of which can lead to schizophrenia. Of course, none of this has any relation whatsoever to powerful people planning the future of the planet that they rule (a ridiculous “conspiracy theory” in Gartner’s mind), but Gartner’s objective isn’t to disprove the claims of Alex Jones in a logical manner, it’s to denounce the messenger using convoluted and ham-fisted psychological rhetoric that isn’t even applicable.

But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The greatest purveyors of myths and “conspiracy theories” about political events have and always will be authorities and governments. Scientists who recently investigated why so many people believed the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 found that Americans wanted to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 because it helped them make sense of current reality. How is that any different from the claim that conspiracy theorists invent connections to help them better comprehend current events?

Beyond the accusations of who invents what to justify their worldview – conspiracists and debunkers alike – are the facts. History is littered with political conspiracies that actually happened and were not the manifestation of unstable minds.

Indeed, history tells us that the bigger the lie, the bigger the conspiracy, the more likely the masses are to believe it, and governments throughout the ages have harnessed this trick to pursue their agendas since time began. In such an environment, those who aggressively question the official authodoxy, or “conspiracy theorists” as Gartner labels them, should be welcomed as a key bulwark against the kind of tyranny and oppression that has blighted the world at numerous intervals in the past, aided in no small part by the quack psychologists in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that classified skepticism of the state as a mental illness, an implication Gartner regurgitates in his hit piece.

It was not deception on behalf of “conspiracy theorists” that convinced Germans to follow Adolf Hitler, the lies that built the Nazi tyranny came directly from the state. It was not the beliefs of “conspiracy theorists” that hoodwinked Americans into thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that particular “big lie” came directly from the lips of the President of the United States.

“We’re all conspiracy theorists to some degree,” writes Gartner and never has a truer word been spoken. Gartner has to be the biggest conspiracy theorist of all because he seems to hold the ludicrous belief that powerful men do not get together and plan things, which in Gartner’s mind is a viewpoint indicative of a psychotic mind.

As is always the case, the debunker, in this case Gartner, completely fails to grasp that his stance is completely out of touch with modern day sentiment. He poses as some kind of authority figure casting down his disdain upon the bedraggled minority of “conspiracy theorists” below, yet he is in the minority. It is Gartner’s twilight zone world of angelic governments who commit no sin except within the twisted minds of dangerous psychotics, in light of admitted conspiracies that continue to be exposed on an almost daily basis – the phony terror alerts, the cronyism of the banker bailout, the torture scandal, that represents a genuine display of psychotic thinking.

Gartner is really scraping the barrel when he unearths a 7-year-old incident about a disturbed man attempting to enter Bohemian Grove carrying guns in an effort to portray conspiracy theorists, an in particular Alex Jones, as a physical danger to society.

In reality, the kind of warped thinking that Gartner embraces, that skepticism of government is a form of mental illness, is one of the most dangerous threats to a free society that ever existed.

As we have seen before in history, the designation of political opinions deemed to be antagonistic towards or even merely skeptical of the state as a psychological illness is a hallmark of tyranny.

In the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin.

According to official Soviet psychiatry and the Moscow Serbsky Institute at the time, “ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure.” Treatment for this special political schizophrenia included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, lumbar punctures, various drugs — such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin — and beatings. Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History, indicates that at least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness,” although she surmises there were many more.

These kind of “treatments” for the “mental illness” of being a conspiracy theorist or merely being skeptical of government were brutally enforced by quack psychologists in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, a fact that Gartner, trapped in his bubble of delusion and ignorance of any evidence that contradicts with his preconceptions, claimed to be completely unaware of when we confronted him with it.

Quack psychologists like Gartner who define distrust of authorities and alternative explanations for the “official story” put out by governments who have repeatedly proven themselves to be liars as a form of psychosis are themselves as mentally unstable as their much vaunted peers – people like the insane cocaine addict Sigmund Freud and the Nazi child abuser Alfred Kinsey– and represent a far greater danger to society than the “conspiracy theorists” that they so readily seek to denigrate.

Fall Of The Republic Exposes How Brand Obama Is Destroying America

Alex Jones’ highly anticipated documentary lifts the lid on how seductive tools of propaganda are being used to hypnotize the masses into accepting tyranny

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Alex Jones’ highly anticipated upcoming documentary Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama boldly lifts the lid and unveils the fraud behind Brand Obama and how the globalists are using their newest, and slickest ever puppet to destroy the last vestiges of America’s freedom, Constitution and economy, all while helping the bankers loot the country clean.

The film exposes the agenda that Obama was put in place to accomplish, a world government allied with a bank of the world run by globalist eugenicists hell-bent on destroying America’s first world status and replacing it with a hollow shell of tyranny.

The mind control, the television programming, and all the media talking points that serve to reinforce the image of Brand Obama are laid bare, unveiling the naked ruth, as legendary author and documentary film maker John Pilger recently discussed, that Obama is nothing more than a corporate marketing creation, a skilled hypnotist using seductive tools of propaganda – race, gender and class – to hoodwink the masses into accepting his rhetoric while ignoring the contradiction of his actions.

The film exposes how Brand Obama says one thing – to make people buy into the brand – and then the real Obama does another.

The burgeoning police state, warrantless wiretapping, secret arrests, indefinite detention of citizens, torture, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, have all been expanded underBrand Obama despite his promises to reverse them all.

The real question to ask is not which class Obama claims to represent or fight for, but which class Obama serves. Fall of the Republic leaves no room for doubt that the class Obama serves is the elite and it is their agenda he is diligently following.

In terms of focused research and factual content, Fall of the Republic dominates even The Obama Deception for hardcore evidence and documented material. The film proves how Obama was put in power to cement the gains of tyranny and oppression achieved under Bush while the masses slept, lulled into a deep hypnosis with empty promises of change, hope and progress.

The movie picks up from where The Obama Deception left off, highlighting how Obama has continued and expanded the socialized financial takeover introduced by Bush and how the bankster gangster cronies have made off with trillions in taxpayer’s money, bankrupting the future of the country for generations to come.

The hypocrisy and underlying deceit of people like Al Gore, John P. Holdren and Obama himself are displayed in plain view as the cap and trade hoax is demolished and revealed to be nothing less than a total takeover of the American economy, its infrastructure, and a mandate to micromanage every aspect of every citizen’s private life.

Obama’s role in converting American from a free market, free Republic, to a command and control state-run oligarchy controlled by offshore banking interests is explored at length in the documentary.

In order to make this the most hard-hitting documentary we have ever released, the biggest budget ever allocated to a single movie was made available, primarily for the purpose of traveling all over the country to conduct no less than 19 separate sit down interviews for the film.

Personalities who will appear in the movie include Gerald Celente, Alan Watt, Jesse Ventura, climatologist Tim Ball, economist John Perkins, the Oath Keepers, Dr. Sherry Tenpenny, Webster Tarpley, Bob Bowman, Wayne Madsen and George Humphrey.

Fall of the Republic is an unprecedented two hour romp through the highly concentrated and brazen levels of tyranny and corruption displayed by Obama and his administration in the short period since they took office.

The end of the movie is encapsulated by the idea that the fight to maintain and restore a free Republic is a constant struggle against those who harbor the virus of evil in their souls.

Fall of the Republic will be available first exclusively for Prison Planet.tv members on October 21st. If you are not yet a member, click here to get your subscription and enjoy high quality streaming and download of the movie immediately upon its release. Pre-orders for the DVD will be taken on September 21st at the Infowars shopping cart.

Watch the trailer for Fall of the Republic below.

Modelling the Swine Flu and Zombies

The Great Beyond
August 18, 2009

Led by Robert Smith?, of the University of Ottawa, the team modelled a variety of scenarios using techniques that would be familiar to those studying more plausible pandemics. (And yes, the question mark is part of his name.)

A basic model using three classes of person – zombies, susceptible to infection, and ‘removed’ – found coexistence with the undead was impossible and following a short outbreak, “zombies will likely kill everyone”.

The researchers went on to model for a cure and quarantine, as well as the potential for counterattacks to eradicate the zombie threat. Things still do not look good for humanity, they report in their paper When Zombies Attack!

“While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.”“A zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly,” they write in the new bookInfectious Disease Modelling Research Progress.

This research paper is not a totally academic exercise; Smith et al note that their models may seem unlikely (as the dead can return to life), but they could have applications for those modelling allegiance to political parties or diseases that lie dormant for some time.

“If you look at it in a more realistic way, zombies are about the same as any other major infectious disease, they get out and we try to eliminate them,” study author Joe Imad told Canwest News. “Modelling zombies would be the same as modelling swine flu, with some differences for sure, but it is much more interesting to read.”

Given our worldwide success in acting quickly and in a unified manner to stop the spread of swine flu, I’m going to redouble work on that bunker under the Nature office.

Neil comment: Swine-flu is obviously becoming a trend these days, as the picture below indicates. A clever little hoax that appeared on the BBC webpage.

Corporate Media Covers the Obama Joker Poster

Neil Comment: If you should happen to think: "damn, they are stupid", think again. They actually don't believe anything they are saying, they want YOU to believe what they are saying! These clips are perfect examples on media distraction techniques. Enjoy!

MSNBC desperately tries to make the Obama Joker poster a racial issue. It’s MSNBC, after all.

An obnoxious Greg Gutfeld for Fox makes it a Democrat vs. Republican thing and thus pushes the false right-left paradigm. Yawn.

CNN: It’s those damn Repubicans and Rush Limbaugh! Ordinary Americans are outraged, don’t you know.

Screening the Politics Out of the Iraq War

David Sterritt
Counterpunch
July 27, 2009

The Hurt Locker, the widely praised movie about American soldiers on a bomb squad in Iraq, has arrived in theaters with enough rave reviews to fill two dozen quote ads. While the film is excellent in some respects, its politics are worrisome – not because they’re wrong, but because there are no politics in a film about the most politically fraught conflict in recent memory. And the eagerness of critics to overlook or excuse this bothers me just as much.

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow from a screenplay by Mark Boal, the movie focuses on a three-man bomb-disposal unit that plies its trade with a savvy balance of skill, nerve, and machismo. Careening from one crisis to another, the story is a nonstop succession of suspense episodes, made extra harrowing by the actions of the main character, a danger addict who defuses deadly bombs as enthusiastically as other people play video games, putting missions and lives in needless jeopardy. As the rave reviews have rightly noted, The Hurt Locker is ingeniously acted, edited with razor-sharp timing, and shot with great attention to naturalistic detail. It also has a highly authentic atmosphere, since Boal based the script on his experience as an embedded journalist with an Iraq unit like this. His earlier work includes the Playboy article “Death and Dishonor,” about the murder of an Iraq war veteran near Fort Benning, Georgia, in 2003, which inspired Paul Haggis’s film In the Valley of Elah – the first of two 2007 pictures (the other was Brian De Palma’s postmodern Redacted) that brought forceful antiwar messages into multiplexes everywhere.

How times have changed. The Hurt Locker beats those movies for hair-raising action, but it comes up extremely short in the politics department. In a New Yorker interview, Boal said he didn’t want the characters “standing up and giving speeches” because “you’re probably not thinking about the geopolitics of oil when you’re standing over a bomb.” Does that mean audiences shouldn’t think about geopolitics either? Boal has also compared the picture to Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 Apocalypse Now, telling a Writers Guild of America website that both movies have an episodic format that’s true to the existential realities of war. Maybe so, but Coppola’s film packs an enormous number of ideas (some insightful, some not) into its ambitious storyline. By contrast, each episode of The Hurt Locker is a marvelously wrought specimen of suspense-movie technique, and that’s all it is, apart from a few isolated scenes.

From all appearances, Boal and Bigelow are operating from the same premise that motivated Steven Soderbergh when he made Che – that war movies are built on physicality and violence, and thinking only slows down the action. (It’s a good thing Stanley Kubrick and Terrence Malick didn’t feel that way; we wouldn’t have the rich complexity of Full Metal Jacket or The Thin Red Line.) This is an oddly self-limiting position, given the huge supply of important issues at stake. What groups and individuals are planting those explosives all over Baghdad and beyond? Don’t they put life and limb at risk as audaciously as the bomb-squad soldiers do? What motivations – political, nationalistic, religious, philosophical – shape their strategies and shore up their morale? And why, in this equality-conscious Hollywood era, does the film push Iraqis into the margins, using them as only as momentary foils for the American guys, and two-dimensional foils at that? Questions, questions, none of which Boal and Bigelow take on.

And so it goes. David Edelstein recognizes the political shallowness of The Hurt Locker near the end of his New York review, then promptly endorses it. “Last but maybe foremost are the politics—or lack of them,” he writes, commendably bringing up the problem. “The question of what the hell these good men are doing,” he continues, “in a culture they don’t understand with a language they don’t speak surrounded by people they can’t read hangs in the air but is never actually called.” So far, so good, until he asks the rhetorical question, “Or is that why this movie rises above its preachy counterparts?” This raises two non-rhetorical questions in my mind: What qualities make those counterparts preachy, as opposed to informative or provocative? And what counterparts are we talking about, anyway? The critic gives no clue. Over at the Village Voice, meanwhile, Scott Foundas rightly notes that some film-festival viewers tagged The Hurt Locker “apolitical,” and then he executes the same maneuver as Edelstein, saying those comments only show that the film “is mercifully free of ham-fisted polemics” and is content to “immerse us in an environment.” I’m as anti-ham-fist as the next moviegoer, but there would have been plenty of room in that environment for some progressive polemics.Nor have they been raised by most critics, who’ve been so thrilled by the picture that immediate, visceral responses have outgunned reflective, cerebral ones. Dana Stevens of Slate wraps up a rave by sayingThe Hurt Locker is “without question the most exciting and least ideological movie yet made” about the Iraq war, as if excitement sans ideology – any ideology – were the formula for top-grade cinema. Numerous reviewers find the film’s vagueness about geopolitics, and even geography, a plus rather than a minus. “It so happens that The Hurt Locker takes place in Iraq,” writes Lisa Schwarzbaum in Entertainment Weekly. “But geography is almost beside the point.” Kenneth Turan says in the Los Angeles Times that “it’s unfair to burden The Hurt Locker with the Iraq label” since there’s “no sense of winning or losing a war here, no notion of making a difference or achieving lofty geopolitical aims,” echoing Boal’s dubious distinction between movies that actually think and movies that just move. Politics don’t even occur to Roger Ebert, who calls The Hurt Locker “a great film, an intelligent film, a film shot clearly so that we know exactly who everybody is and where they are and what they’re doing and why.” Has the bar for great, intelligent films slipped so low that a movie qualifies by being comprehensible?

In another mostly perceptive article, New York Times critic A.O. Scott calls Bigelow “one of the few directors for whom action-movie-making and the cinema of ideas are synonymous,” saying you may “emerge from The Hurt Locker shaken, exhilarated and drained, but you will also be thinking.” Thinking about what, however? “Not necessarily about the causes and consequences of the Iraq war,” Scott hastens to add. Scott’s conclusion is a let-down, but at least he explicitly faults the movie’s political limitations, saying that the filmmakers’ concentration on moment-to-moment experience is “a little evasive.” Take out the “little” and the point would be better made.

David Denby’s review in The New Yorker is also both insightful and problematic. The Hurt Locker is not political, he writes, “except by implication—a mutual distrust between American occupiers and Iraqi citizens is there in every scene.” Again the film’s political shortfall – its politics are only implicit, and they encompass nothing more profound or sweeping than distrust – is nothing to fret about. “The specialized nature of the subject is part of what makes [the film] so powerful,” Denby continues, “and perhaps American audiences worn out by the mixed emotions of frustration and repugnance inspired by the war can enjoy this film without ambivalence or guilt.” I’m not sure “enjoy” is exactly what Denby meant to say in this context, but I am sure that movie-movie pleasure is not the best contribution a war-themed film can make to a culture that’s politically challenged to begin with.

The reviewers I’ve quoted are among the best in the business, writing about movies and moviemaking with flair, intelligence, and expertise. Which is why their responses to The Hurt Locker – and there are plenty more that would illustrate my case – need thinking about by anyone concerned with today’s cultural politics. Academic critics have been analyzing films along political lines for decades, sometimes astutely but rarely in the popular venues (or plain-speaking language) that reach and affect widespread audiences. Precisely because its action-movie suspense and high-octane visuals make The Hurt Locker a credible competitor in the summer-blockbuster sweepstakes, its political void represents a sorely missed opportunity for its makers, who could have used this platform to deepen public discourse on the continuing Iraq misadventure and the Afghanistan quagmire that grows muddier by the day. Journalistic reviewers could have done the same, not by overlooking its excellence as a suspense movie but by spotlighting the political absence that keeps its excellence strictly on the surface. Nobody benefits when critics are as apolitical as the films they criticize.

AmeriCorps Paramilitary Propaganda Ad

Infowars
May 17, 2009

In the distinctly militaristic propaganda here, the AmeriCorps organization City Year adopts Obama’s “change” mantra and remixes it with clips of Mohandas Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King, César Chávez, and Mother Teresa.

	City Year’s militaristic propaganda PSA.

City Year’s pitch is obviously directed at middle school and high school students. In the ad, young people are assembled on a parade ground in bright red jackets. According to a Wikipedia write-up on the organization, “corps members start their day in an event called unity rally. One aspect of unity rally is PT or physical training. Some of the exercises may include jumping jacks and lunges. When PT is completed, Corps members read their sites official newspaper, called Daily or Weekly Briefings.” Comparisons to the Jungsturm Adolf Hitler and Stalin’s Komsomol are unmistakable, especially in regard to the regimented physical training aspects of City Year.

It should be noted that AmeriCorps is fully integrated into the homeland security apparatus. AmeriCorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).

Frank Morales writes (Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America):

In the wake of 9/11, CNCS was fully integrated into “homeland defense efforts”. In March 2002, the Corporation issued a “notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security.” With an emphasis on “public safety” and “freeing up police time”, the grants offered under the announcement “are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front.” In the area of “public safety” the grants “will help provide members to support police departments… in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers.” Now mind you, the volunteers “are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups…” They also “organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problems…”

Obama has proposed arming these cadres. Recall his speech on July 2, 2008, when he said: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military.

“Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Corporation has made funding available to organizations whose focus includes homeland security,” declares the  Virginia Commission for National and Community Service. “AmeriCorps engages more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security, and other areas,” the IN.gov site states.

AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is specifically tasked with homeland security, according to The United States Conference of Mayors. “AmeriCorps NCCC, a residential, team-based program, offers approximately 1,300 young people between the ages of 18 to 24 the opportunity to serve their country for ten months on various projects. The primary focus of these are assisting in responding disaster relief and homeland security,” reports Shannon Holmes. The NCCC “are well positioned to leverage existing community efforts,” according to the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and “can make significant contributions to homeland security activities in American communities.”

NCCC programs “may also meet homeland security needs, which the Corporation for National Service defines as engaging citizens and communities in preparedness and response to acts of terrorism and other disasters,” explains the AmeriCorps State Concept Paper Guidelines.

According to reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security, terrorism now stems from domestic “rightwing extremists,” not a far-flung al-Qaeda, and activities such as advocacy of the Second Amendment, pro-life activism, and the growing states’ rights movement threaten the fatherland.

As noted on Alex Jones’ Infowars and Prison Planet websites last week, Homeland Security has captured the heretofore non-political Boy Scouts and turned it into a paramilitary organization. As the New York Times notes, Boy Scouts are now training to disarm military veterans.

On April 21, Obama signed the “Serve America Act,” which will use $1.1 billion in earmarks from the 2010 budget to reauthorize and expand programs offered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. The “Serve America Act,” co-sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, intends to extend AmeriCorps membership from 75,000 to 250,000 by 2017.

“Although it’s likely that the recession and citizen goodwill have contributed to soaring numbers in national and international service organizations, it’s also just as likely that most people are just supporting a summoning from America’s new favorite man,” writes the OhMyGov website.

Rupert Murdoch: “Internet Will Soon Be Over”

Corporate media forced to charged dwindling readership for news content as establishment propaganda organs wither and die while alternative media soars

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 7, 2009

Billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch gave a strange response when asked about plans for mainstream news websites to charge for content, declaring, “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

He was making reference to the fact that corporate media websites cannot continue to survive under their current failing business model.

The establishment media is dying and advertising revenue has plummeted as people turn to blogs and the alternative media for their news in an environment of corporate lies and spin.

This has forced sectors of the corporate media to charge the dwindling number of loyal readers they have left for news content, a practice which is set to become widespread according to Murdoch. This will only send more people over to the alternative media as the old organs of de facto state-controlled propaganda wither and die.

“Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, (Murdoch) replied: “We’re absolutely looking at that,” reports the Guardian. “Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Murdoch’s newspapers and TV networks, which include Fox News and the Asian Star Network, have seen profits plummet from $216m to just $7m year-on-year. MySpace.com is also floundering despite a recent move to replace the company’s entire management staff.

It was all but over for the Boston Globe this week, following a threat to close the 137-year-old publication after net losses of $85 million this year alone. Only a last minute cost-cutting agreement on behalf of its owner, The New York Times Company, and The Boston Newspaper Guild, saved the newspaper.

But it’s not just establishment newspapers that are struggling to survive - social networking websites like Twitter and corporate online video giant You Tube are also deep in the red. Apparently, paying out millions in server fees for half the population of the planet to watch clips of cute puppies isn’t a sustainable business model.

This is why You Tube is being forced to pursue lucrative partnerships with giant production studios and broadcasters, at the expense of user generated content which has been relegated to a sub-section of its website, taking the “You” out of You Tube altogether. Content that may be deemed harmful to You Tube’s corporate agenda and its multi-million dollar partnership deals, like The Alex Jones Channel, is being systematically erased from You Tube’s website under the pretext of flimsy copyright infringement claims.

The jig is up for the corporate media. If they continue to allow free access to their content they will go out of business because there’s not enough advertising revenue coming in, whereas if they charge for content they will lose a huge chunk of their audience and their influence in shaping the news agenda will wane completely.

This is the price the corporate media has paid for lying, spinning and obfuscating on behalf of the virulently corrupt power elite and expecting the population to eat it up without question.

The corporate media monopoly has terminal cancer and they are losing their power, which is why they are aggressively supporting moves to phase out the old Internet altogether and replace it with “Internet 2,” a highly regulated and controlled electronic Berlin wall, where alternative voices will be silenced and giant corporate propaganda organs will dominate once again.

This what Murdoch is really getting at when he assures us that, “The Internet will soon be over” and it’s down to us to stop that agenda from being realized.