If you had 1 message to save the world? - CIA=Media

[§ê¢rꆧ]

There is no 1 message either I or you or anyone could ever say that would save the world. I don't think it can be so so simple.

...

I struggled with this question as a sperm donor, with one message I was allowed to send on to any future potential offspring: and the best I could come up with then was "Always question all presumptions, and think for yourself".

I don't know that I could come up with anything better now.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

There is no 1 message either I or you or anyone could ever say that would save the world. I don't think it can be so so simple.

...

True. I used a figure of speech.
My explanation mentioned a strategy for creating culture shift using the most cogent message possible.

I struggled with this question as a sperm donor, with one message I was allowed to send on to any future potential offspring:

Interesting and related. Fertilizing a new life.

and the best I could come up with then was "Always question all presumptions, and think for yourself".

I don't know that I could come up with anything better now.

Good one. That's the end result I want to get to by exposing the mil-intel lie factory.

Many people don't know that a small number of 'experts' are designing mainstream culture for social control purposes. They think 'things just are they way they are and that's it.' That's a major impediment to change I'd like to see eliminated with a little info on psyops culture.

I suppose you could say that psyops culture is designed to be the birth control preventing a new way of life for us.

[AJ Hidell]

[empty]

[Nordic]

Re: the thread title and OP, a sincere question for Hugh: Do you literally and specifically mean it's the Central Intelligence Agency (or forces within) that's pulling the media strings, or are you using "CIA" as shorthand for whomever (gr?) it is that's really pulling 'em? If you do indeed mean the folks at Langley, what makes you believe that?

It's not a challenge; I'm genuinely interested. Thx.

Hoo boy, here we go.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Re: the thread title and OP, a sincere question for Hugh: Do you literally and specifically mean it's the Central Intelligence Agency (or forces within) that's pulling the media strings, or are you using "CIA" as shorthand for whomever (gr?) it is that's really pulling 'em? If you do indeed mean the folks at Langley, what makes you believe that?

It's not a challenge; I'm genuinely interested. Thx.

Yes, literally CIA. Black propaganda (source not revealed) has been the provenance of CIA since it was formed.

Though there's also some ONI (Bob Woodward), FBI, State Department, and witting corporate civilian allies with shared goals involved, too.

But it was CIA outed in the 1976 Church Committee hearings as being all throughout the mainstream information/news media and CIA that was outed in 1967 as being a covert Ministry of Culture in Europe with their Congress of Cultural Freedom program.

Hollywood is overtly steered by the Pentagon to get weapons for war pictures but I've been analyzing ALL television shows and types of movies made since around the 1951 Psychological Strategy Board was formed and I've found nearly all US television to be psyops and most movies. Especially after the draft ended in 1973 and recruits had to be conditioned and lured into signing up. Plus the progressive organizations of the 60s had to be neutralized, too. This required a significant reorganizing and concentrating of psyops programs.

So the overt propaganda system cobbled together for World War II as the Office of War Information with OSS doing the black propaganda was continued and developed so that now most mainstream American culture is the product of National inSecurity State agencies and their proxies.

[OP ED]

I just meant that the best kind of agitation is educated organized agitation.

while i'm here.

i would say this is always true, ditto no doubt.

it is central to most of the rules of information warfare as i've ever deployed it. a verily successful ontological engagement would need to do all three at once to be demonstrably effective at any of them.

[like all the best aphorisms]

there are likely many differing ways of describing this approach.

The O.A.O dogmatically designates this most decidedly dangerous and/or definitively daedal doctrine: Illustrate, Alliterate, Obliterate.

which is only thee dire ministrations of Peace-Through-Superior-Firepower as effortlessly applied in advertising.

i strive doggedly to maintain this degree of dilligence in most of my messaging.

...

hugh, have you ever thought of joing a secret fraternal organization?

[MinM]

Thursday, August 02, 2012
The left that failed

I was just about to write something mean-spirited about the passing of Alexander Cockburn when I learned that Gore Vidal had died. One post will have to service both.

Both men were were superb stylists, but Vidal was by far the better thinker. He was America's Orwell -- the finest political essayist this country has ever produced. Though I have long admired his work, something about the man's character always irked me. Snobby, patrician, arrogant: You can toss such adjectives at him and few will tell you to stop; Vidal himself might have encouraged you to keep going. But he was also a political creature who made no secret of either his hunger for office or of his stance somewhere to the left of the mainstream Democratic party.

Can an elitist represent the interests of the common people?

...

Many were surprised when Cockburn later joined the global warming deniers. I would have been astonished if he hadn't.

That was Cockburn's act: He was Roger Ailes' idea of the perfect lefty. He personified the left that the right wanted. Whenever possible, Cockburn found ways to justify support for conservative ideas; when doing so was not possible, he made opposition to conservatism seem as appetizing as a cockroach sandwich.

Despite his history of applauding the Clinton paranoids and those loonies who think that scientists have plotted against mankind, Cockburn expressed disdain for conspiracy theorists. Here's his final word on that topic. Of course, I agree with his contempt for the 9/11 nuts (although by 2011, they had descended beneath respectable notice), and he has some wise words about the likelihood that American intelligence had penetrated Al Qaeda before the attacks.

...

For years, Cockburn, Chomsky, Hitchens, Navasky and their ilk institutionalized on the left an attitude that matches the policy now prevailing on Fox News: It is permissible to posit any conspiracy theory, however bizarre, as long as the target is a Democrat. (Chomsky used to tell audiences that JFK killed Patrice Lumumba, even though Lumumba was killed before JFK took office.) Like the Murdochian hordes, Cockburn believed that conspiracy theory becomes foolish only when the finger points to the intelligence community or to the right.

In sum. We thus come to the final word on Vidal, Cockburn, and their entire generation of progressive writers. The word is failure. ...

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2012/08/ ... ailed.html

What if IF was CIA???

I. F. Stone and the Assassination of JFK - The Education Forum

Isador Feinstein Stone was probably the best known left-wing journalist at the time of the assassination of JFK. After working for several left-wing journals he established I. F. Stone's Weekly in 1953. Over the next few years Stone led the attack on McCarthyism and racial discrimination in the United States. Stone once stated that: "There was nothing to the left of me but The Daily Worker."

However, Stone was a passionate supporter of the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. In the first issue of I. F. Stone Weekly after the assassination Stone wrote: "It is always dangerous to draw rational inferences from the behavior of a psychopath like Oswald."

On the publication of the The Warren Commission Report Stone led the attack on those people like Bertrand Russell, Thomas G. Buchanan, Joachim Joesten, Mark Lane and Carl Marzani, who had proposed that there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Stone wrote:

All my adult life as a newspaperman I have been fighting, in defense of the Left and of a sane politics, against conspiracy theories of history, character assassination, guilt by association and demonology. Now I see elements of the Left using these same tactics in the controversy over the Kennedy assassination and the Warren Commission Report. I believe the Commission has done a first-rate job, on a level that does our country proud and is worthy of so tragic an event. I regard the case against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer of the President as conclusive. By the nature of the case, absolute certainty will never be attained, and those still convinced of Oswald's innocence have a right to pursue the search for evidence which might exculpate him. But I want to suggest that this search be carried on in a sober manner and with full awareness of what is involved.

The Joesten book is rubbish, and Carl Marzani - whom I defended against loose charges in the worst days of the witch hunt - ought to have had more sense of public responsibility than to publish it. Thomas G. Buchanan, another victim of witch hunt days, has gone in for similar rubbish in his book, Who Killed Kennedy? You couldn't convict a chicken thief on the flimsy slap-together of surmise, half-fact and whole untruth in either book.

However, as John Kelin has pointed out in his book, Praise from a Future Generation, at the time Stone wrote this article: "the Warren Report had just been published and the twenty-six volumes of supporting evidence and testimony were still not available".

Is it possible that Stone was receiving funding for the I.F. Stone Weekly from the CIA? His defence of the Warren Report definitely helped shape the views of the left concerning the assassination of JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstoneIF.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... opic=12116

***

"American Radical: The Life and Times of I.F. Stone"

Barrie Zwicker on Chomsky and 9/11

[wordspeak2]

It's certainly possible (that CIA funded Stone), considering CIA's passion towards promoting anti-conspiracy thought amongst progressives. I'm not sure it's as clear of a case as some of the others, though, such as Chipe Berlet and Chomsky.

But if I had one message... a two-parter: Stop drinking alcohol and caffeine; start using psychedelics and weed. Free your mind.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Drink tea!

Meditate!

Support good causes!

What secrets said!

Just be good!

Oh, hang on, that's loads of messages.

But I miss secrets.

And wordspeak2.

...

[Wombaticus Rex]

Can an elitist represent the interests of the common people?

Is "the common people" anything but pure reification?

Is "elitist" anything but an epithet for people with actual standards?

[Hammer of Los]

...

Can an elitist represent the interests of the common people?

Is "the common people" anything but pure reification?

Is "elitist" anything but an epithet for people with actual standards?

The lowest does become the highest.

Buddha nature resides equally in the heart of every man, and woman too.

...

[MinM]

Jonathan Chait : David Greenberg gives Gore Vidal the eulogy he so richly deserves

Stop Eulogizing Gore Vidal
He was a racist and an elitist, forever mourning the decline of his era of aristocratic privilege.

By David Greenberg | Posted Thursday, Aug. 2, 2012, at 11:41 AM ET

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum: Of the dead say nothing unless it is kind. This is a good rule of thumb. Despite the temptation, it would be mean-spirited to object to the barrage of shallow Facebook postings about Steve Jobs, gratuitous to gripe that Nora Ephron, though a terrifically talented journalist, didn’t really rate an above-the-fold, front-page New York Times obituary. Even Jan Berenstain, as execrable as her books may have been, deserved a decent interval.

But sometimes there are people whose malevolence gets airbrushed out in the media frenzy following their death, and it’s proper to speak up. The love-in that was Richard Nixon’s funeral was rightfully met with dissents from heavyweights David Halberstam, Garry Wills, and, inimitably, Hunter S. Thompson. Alexander Cockburn, whose reputation benefited from whitewashing after he died last week, was too minor a figure to demand a counter-obituary (though Ronald Radosh helpfully wrote one anyway). On the other hand, Cockburn’s fellow The Nation contributor, Gore Vidal, talk of whose demise has been suffocatingly ubiquitous, was not just a world-famous intellectual—from the Mailer-Buckley-Galbraith era, when the term really meant something—but also a thoroughgoing nativist and bigot. He is not someone who deserves to be spared the rigors of a reckoning...

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/hist ... ingle.html

Gore Vidal takes it from the other side on this one (the pro-war / criticism of Israel equates to anti-semitism side).

Also, love or hate him or love to hate him, the poster that started this thread was unencumbered by such niceties or pretense...

De mortuis nihil nisi bonum

i.e., Sydney Pollack and Walter Cronkite.

[MayDay]

Stick your hands in the dirt. Teach your neighbours to can food. Learn to save seeds. Start a fire with a bow drill. Turn off the power for a few hours each day. Drop whatever you're doing and find a way to live in right relation to the earth and all of it's diverse expressions of life, especially those in your immediate vicinity, right now. You'd be amazed how simple it is to be happy- Just live simply. And love each other.

[Col. Quisp]

Be glad you're on this side of the dirt, as you stick your hands in it.

Get off yer ass and live. (Advice I'm giving to myself.)

[MacCruiskeen]

Make theft a crime.