Propaganda watch

[BIAD]

Sometimes I catch myself when I see TV commercials and news programmes.
The products on offer pale within the bright light of actors attempting to convince the viewer
that their views are genuine.


That same sentence can be also applied to to the news programmes!

Watch this.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Sometimes I catch myself when I see TV commercials and news programmes.
The products on offer pale within the bright light of actors attempting to convince the viewer
that their views are genuine.


That same sentence can be also applied to to the news programmes!

Watch this.

My emotions can be summed up with this:  


And it gets worse...

Read this article: Far Left Activist Nathan Phillips Told Reporters He Served in Vietnam in 1976 — US Withdrew in 1973!

[BIAD]

Please tell me this person is being paid for her outrage, please tell me she was later sat at home laughing at
her role in maintaining the pain of snowflakes.

[Wallfire]

I have met a "lady" like this, it does not matter what you say to then they just keep on shouting. They seem to think anything can be proven right if one shouts loud enough

[BIAD]

I have met a "lady" like this, it does not matter what you say to then they just keep on shouting. They seem to think anything can be proven right if one shouts loud enough

She reminds of one of those people who think they've discovered an inner-guilt and
don't realise that it was external forces have tricked her into arriving at that point.

No hair... an ideal style for employment! Oh wait... her Dentist-father probably tops her
credit card up for her.

[guohua]

I have met a "lady" like this, it does not matter what you say to then they just keep on shouting. They seem to think anything can be proven right if one shouts loud enough

Yup, there is only One Way to deal with people like her, Put Them Down, Like A Dog With Rabies! 

[BIAD]

From the limited time I've seen this young man, the title 'comedian' is something I wouldn't decide on
straight away. However, he reckons this happened to him and it wouldn't surprise me -when it comes
to the BBC.

Comedian Russell Howard reveals BBC made him re-record a joke about ISIS in case it offended the
murderous terror group

*The comic was discussing freedom of speech on Sky's The Russell Howard Hour 
*Claimed BBC executives took umbrage at a line about ISIS 'not being Muslims'
*Told him to re-write remarks - made after Paris attacks - to 'not devout Muslims' 
*BBC spokesman said today: 'We don't have any rules about not offending ISIS'



'Russell Howard has claimed BBC executives once made him re-record a joke about ISIS in case it offended
the genocidal terrorist group. The comedian, speaking about freedom of speech on Sky One's The Russell
Howard Hour, said a routine in which he attacked the terror cult for 'not being Muslims' after the 2015 Paris
attacks sparked concerns among the corporation's management. 

Howard, 38, claimed he was told to change the skit to instead say Isis 'weren't 'devout' Muslims', prompting the
Bristol-born comic to question, 'are we worried about offending ISIS?'
The 38-year-old said: 'A while back I worked for the BBC and I did a piece about the Paris attacks when I said
Isis weren't Muslims, they were terrorists –and the crowd cheered.

'And then, at the end of the show, the BBC lost their mind, [saying] 'You need to re-record it! You need to say Isis
aren't devout Muslims.' 'I was like, "Are you worried we are going to offend Isis?'" Are they going to write in?'

Howard then imagined an ISIS terrorist writing a letter of complaint to the BBC's feedback programme about his
former show, Russell Howard's Good News. 
'Dear Points Of View, imagine my horror when I was misrepresented on a late-night satire show.
Farouk and I will be cancelling our TV licence. Please excuse my handwriting, I have a hook for a hand.'

He added: 'F*** those traitors to their faith! If they are killing people, the least I can do as a comedian is call
them names. And if Isis gets upset, then f*** them.'

In the broadcast version of Russell Howard's Good News, the wording 'devout Muslims' was used. 
A BBC spokesman told MailOnline they were still investigating Howard's claim as the incident happened
'a few years ago'. 

But he added: 'We don’t have rules about not offending ISIS and they have been the subject of our comedy in the past
-such as the Real Housewives of ISIS sketch -but without further information about this particular claim we’re unable to
comment further at present.'...'

MailOnline:

[BIAD]

Worth a watch to see the way the failing Journalists believe they were above the rest of us.

[guohua]

Worth a watch to see the way the failing Journalists believe they were above the rest of us.

JMHO, but I think this video would be a Great addition to our Facebook and Twitter pages.
Can anyone do that for us?

[Mystic Wanderer]

Worth a watch to see the way the failing Journalists believe they were above the rest of us.

JMHO, but I think this video would be a Great addition to our Facebook and Twitter pages.
Can anyone do that for us?

Great video.  

Yes, I can share it to my personal Twitter, but not Face Book. I don't know how much coverage it will get on Twitter, being as I'm shadow banned because I post too much Conservative news for their liking.

Maybe @"senona"  can put it up on the RN Twitter page and Face Book?  I don't have my old Face Book account any longer, and I don't remember the password for the RN Twitter account.

[Mystic Wanderer]

[BIAD]

To think such things as this website suggests, is ludicrous and that's just fine with the CIA.

From the late sixties.

CIA Document 1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
CIA Document #1035-960

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.
Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers
have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new
wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings.

In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission
itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently
indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the
Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence.
They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country.

Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership
of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might
be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government.
Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have
frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation
of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place.
Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the
Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious
foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.

Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.
Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics.
Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.
The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets.

Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence
was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated
with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be
to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background.

(Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable
critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, 
the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case;
however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits
have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics.

(A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz
Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or
Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing
the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.
They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent
-and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence.

A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out
of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants
could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's
brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy.

And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the
Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on
the part of Chief Justice Warren.

A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his
control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered.
A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also
scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory,
or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator.
He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set.
But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible
speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now
putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some
natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned
418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large
group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected.

(When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two
of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one
occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself.
Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission
worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself,
they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE:

'...Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to
overlook or conceal any conspiracy...'

He died at the hands of a 'loner'.

'...And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the
sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing
any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren...'

Ford later admitted he tampered with the actual position of the throat/shoulder shot and Senator Russell's personal
papers indicated that he was troubled by the Commission's single-bullet theory.

[guohua]

@"BIAD"  Mr. G. here.
Ludicrous is Correct, I could comment but I can't, you understand.  
Sorry.

[BIAD]

@"BIAD"  Mr. G. here.
Ludicrous is Correct, I could comment but I can't, you understand.  
Sorry.

No problems Mr. G, I understand that for reasons that many can never fully appreciate, layers upon
layers have to be created for what some deem important to the bigger picture.

The reality is that Kennedy's killing had no direct effect on my personal life -that I can fathom, or in a way
that I can see. The road taken by the mighty cousin of the UK may have been better or worse if JFK had
remained alive, but we'll never know now.

I can also understand that certain agencies would use the media to assist in their control. I don't agree with it,
but that doesn't mean I don't grasp the importance. What really grabs my nads is that the ones who are used
to pump out the false narratives and propaganda enjoy leaning on the word 'ethics'.

(I write this with the assumption that the whole of the dominant media aren't totally corrupt!)

Ethics.
That word lies in the area of 'good' conduct and noble integrity. Being ethical encourages self-confidence and
mettle that those who look to you for guidance can rely on. I'd offer that since it isn't the Journalist who pulls
the actual trigger, they should have -at least, the courage to deny assistance in burying the body.

It's easy for me to say that when you lie down with dogs -you get fleas, but when that infection directly effects
close lifestyles, family's safety  and your personal career, then surely the realisation of being sold out should come
home to roost.

The media are not trusted now, just as the CIA weren't back then and any improvement -in regards of the agency,
as been slow -to say the least. But that's the nature of intelligence work and I'd wager it goes with the badge.
Secrecy is not a shade, it's a shadow.

The media however, are seen as a mainstay of correct information and investigative learning to the public.
If you lose that trust, any funding -legal or not, from Government agencies will dry-up if your use as a conduit has
been compromised. Ergo, trust may be seen as a sucker's game, but when you're looking for an extension on the
mortgage-payments, the Bank Manager sees it differently!

By the way, there's no 'hands-off' clause in a CIA contract when it comes to dealing with retired Journalists.
Typewriter or not, you're still 'little people'!

Thanks anyway, Mr. G.

[Wallfire]

Interesting what you wrote BIAD.

[BIAD]

Interesting what you wrote BIAD.

Thanks WF. I do understand the necessity for dubious behavior in the security circles
and there may well have been times when leaders are taken out due to a point of view.

But it doesn't mean I agree with it!

I can see that my view of aspirations in regard of the MSM may seem naive to most, but
I'd add that through experience I've learned that doing a job correctly ensures employment
endures.

Paying the bills is important, but by doing it in the manner the mainstream media does,
forsaking the underlying principle of that skill guarantees a short-term duration.
The public will always be there and will always require real information.
The spooks and politicians come and go -and without any effect on their pensions!

[Wallfire]

We sell part of our life in order to live.

[guohua]

@"BIAD"  Mr. G. here again.
Actually from what I know or heard first hand, the CIA field agents of the late 50's and 60's did not trust the Kennedy boys. (John and Bob)
They could keep Secrets and did not follow through with their Promises of Support or Backing in a Crisis.
There are numerous examples of that during JFK's short time as POTUS. Think of The Bay Of Pigs, it was JFK would changed the landing area and then when air support was needed denied it and had the aircraft carries return to port.
Many believed Marilyn Monroe knew about the Invasion. 
If it hadn't been for people like Allen Dulles as Director and General Lyman Lemnitzer (Joint Chief of Staff) and others.

No, I'm not condoning the fact that LBJ and his Dallas Big Oil Friends and J Edgar Hoover had a right to Murder John and Bobby Kennedy. That was just Murder.

I can honestly say that I didn't notice the real Depth of Corruption until Slick Willie (B. Clinton) POTUS, the agency really became a Cesspool.

I've said enough, gotta go and wait for the knock on the door or cell phone call.  :smalleyeroll: They don't like us Old Farts talking, we have a problem, it's called Loving Our Country and Being Patriotic.
The Obama Gang of Thugs hated that.

[BIAD]

@"BIAD"  Mr. G. here again.
Actually from what I know or heard first hand, the CIA field agents of the late 50's and 60's did not trust the Kennedy boys. (John and Bob)
They could keep Secrets and did not follow through with their Promises of Support or Backing in a Crisis.
There are numerous examples of that during JFK's short time as POTUS. Think of The Bay Of Pigs, it was JFK would changed the landing area and then when air support was needed denied it and had the aircraft carries return to port.
Many believed Marilyn Monroe knew about the Invasion. 
If it hadn't been for people like Allen Dulles as Director and General Lyman Lemnitzer (Joint Chief of Staff) and others.

No, I'm not condoning the fact that LBJ and his Dallas Big Oil Friends and J Edgar Hoover had a right to Murder John and Bobby Kennedy. That was just Murder.

I can honestly say that I didn't notice the real Depth of Corruption until Slick Willie (B. Clinton) POTUS, the agency really became a Cesspool.

I've said enough, gotta go and wait for the knock on the door or cell phone call.  :smalleyeroll: They don't like us Old Farts talking, we have a problem, it's called Loving Our Country and Being Patriotic.
The Obama Gang of Thugs hated that.

It's been part of the legend for some time that smiling young Jack and his lovely wife were going to change the world
and with help from his over-willingly comrade Nikita Khrushchev, would move into a new era of trust and prosperity.

I recently became aware of the changes regarding the attempted Cuban invasion and once again, the regular story
is that it was a military screw-up with JFK only making alterations to the plan due to some-sort of benevolent moral
reason.
I believe that some authors use this to give their disagreeing with the plan credence by omitting John's input and
expounding on the CIA's overall involvement.

Remember, the young know better and they're around after you're gone to rewrite any history that they prefer!
We were going to the moon, racial scars were healing and he was going to tell us about the aliens... a time to
be alive indeed.

Then the good ol' boys, yer know... old men like the fathers of those writing Camelot into history, they came along
and with oil-dripping hands, killed the young man who knew what it was like growing up in the enlightened world
of the fifties and sixties.

Except... he didn't know. His Father was no different that the mob -but had a better accent. JFK lived in a world
of wealth and comfort. I'm sure his friendship with Marilyn Monroe was non-sexual and if you've got some magic
beans to sell, I'll buy 'em!

As for after his murder, it never fails to surprise me that affluent people always gravitate to their own kind.
Jackie played the widow for five years and then -without any public acknowledgement of a courtship, married
Aristotle Onassis. A man almost double her age.

It wasn't all roses and valiant causes as mainstream history makes out and Government agencies don't tell the
public what is really going on. Something about loose lips and sinking ships, me-thinks.

But eh, it sells books, right?!

[BIAD]

@"BIAD"  Mr. G. here again.
Actually from what I know or heard first hand, the CIA field agents of the late 50's and 60's did not trust the Kennedy boys. (John and Bob)
They could keep Secrets and did not follow through with their Promises of Support or Backing in a Crisis.
There are numerous examples of that during JFK's short time as POTUS. Think of The Bay Of Pigs, it was JFK would changed the landing area and then when air support was needed denied it and had the aircraft carries return to port.
Many believed Marilyn Monroe knew about the Invasion. 
If it hadn't been for people like Allen Dulles as Director and General Lyman Lemnitzer (Joint Chief of Staff) and others.

No, I'm not condoning the fact that LBJ and his Dallas Big Oil Friends and J Edgar Hoover had a right to Murder John and Bobby Kennedy. That was just Murder.

I can honestly say that I didn't notice the real Depth of Corruption until Slick Willie (B. Clinton) POTUS, the agency really became a Cesspool.

I've said enough, gotta go and wait for the knock on the door or cell phone call.  :smalleyeroll: They don't like us Old Farts talking, we have a problem, it's called Loving Our Country and Being Patriotic.
The Obama Gang of Thugs hated that.

It's been part of the legend for some time that smiling young Jack and his lovely wife were going to change the world
and with help from his over-willingly comrade Nikita Khrushchev, would move into a new era of trust and prosperity.

I recently became aware of the changes regarding the attempted Cuban invasion and once again, the regular story
is that it was a military screw-up with JFK only making alterations to the plan due to some-sort of benevolent moral
reason.
I believe that some authors use this to give their disagreeing with the plan credence by omitting John's input and
expounding on the CIA's overall involvement.

Remember, the young know better and they're around after you're gone to rewrite any history that they prefer!
We were going to the moon, racial scars were healing and he was going to tell us about the aliens... a time to
be alive indeed.

Then the good ol' boys, yer know... old men like the fathers of those writing Camelot into history, they came along
and with oil-dripping hands, killed the young man who knew what it was like growing up in the enlightened world
of the fifties and sixties.

Except... he didn't know. His Father was no different that the mob -but had a better accent. JFK lived in a world
of wealth and comfort. I'm sure his friendship with Marilyn Monroe was non-sexual and if you've got some magic
beans to sell, I'll buy 'em!

As for after his murder, it never fails to surprise me that affluent people always gravitate to their own kind.
Jackie played the widow for five years and then -without any public acknowledgement of a courtship, married
Aristotle Onassis. A man almost double her age.
(They never marry a plumber... have you noticed that?!)

It wasn't all roses and valiant causes as mainstream history makes out and Government agencies don't tell the
public what is really going on. Something about loose lips and sinking ships, me-thinks.

But eh, it sells books, right?!