Assange Defamation Effort is Old: CNN Had to Retract Pedophile Claim Against Assange After Wikileaks Threatened Lawsuit in 2017

Actually there is no need to imagine. It's happening already.

The usual media scumbags—channeling CIA talking points— have been busy besmirching Assange's image for a long time. Now, more accusations are being bandied about. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, as usual, lead the parade.

CNN Retracts Pedophile Claim Against Assange After Wikileaks Threatens Lawsuit

“An analyst on our air earlier today asserted that Julian Assange was a pedophile, and regrets saying it. In fact, CNN has no evidence to support that assertion.” 

MINNEAPOLIS — CNN apologized to Julian Assange on Wednesday after an on-air pundit accused the WikiLeaks founder of being a pedophile in the morning, but the network has so far failed to address a similar accusation made by another talking head later in the day.

The CIA does not only infiltrate the media, it is often the media: Meet Phil Mudd, former CIA, now on CNN's payroll.

Philip Mudd, a former CIA agent and counterterrorism analyst on the network’s payroll, made the first false accusation during a Wednesday morning appearance on “New Day.” (The abject and sleazy cowards quickly withdrew the video, no longer available on YouTube.)

“I think there’s an effort to protect WikiLeaks from a pedophile who lives in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London,” Mudd said, referring to the WikiLeaks founder.  WikiLeaks quickly fired back via social media, threatening a lawsuit against CNN.

Later in the day, Mike Rogers, a CNN national security commentator with a background in Congress, the Army, and the FBI, appeared on “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” where he leveled allegations similar to Mudd’s.

In a discussion of President-elect Donald Trump’s recent embrace of Assange, Rogers argued that Trump needs “someone to explain to him who Julian Assange is.”

https://youtu.be/eVHYGW-OW04?t=45s (This video is also not available, "account terminated", says YouTube, but we don't know who "terminated" the video, which naturally embarrasses the original posters.)

He continued:

“I think if he knew all of the details — this person is wanted for rape of a minor. He is hiding in the basement of an embassy because he is a fugitive from justice, number one. Number two, he has released information harmful to the United States that I do believe jeopardize soldiers in the field.”

Assange entered the Embassy of Ecuador in London on asylum in June of 2012, and he’s remained there ever since. Although never formally charged, he was wanted for questioning in Sweden on charges of sexual assault after he allegedly refused to wear a condom during sex with two adult women in 2010. Swedish officials had refused to question Assange at the embassy until November of 2016, and Assange feared that if he traveled to Sweden for questioning he would be subsequently extradited to the United States to face serious charges under a secret, ongoing grand jury.

A United Nations panel ruled in February of 2016 that Assange’s confinement is considered “arbitrary detention” and ordered his immediate release. Despite the ruling and three days of questioning by Ingrid Isgren, Sweden’s deputy chief prosecutor, Assange remains in the embassy on threat of arrest should he ever set foot outside.

No credible evidence has ever linked Assange to improper behavior against minors, but WikiLeaks’ tweets linked to a series of allegations made against him during the election by Todd & Clare, a Houston-based dating site, which accused Assange of attempting to contact an underage girl in the Bahamas for the purposes of sexual assault.

Writing in October for McClatchy DC, Tim Johnson pointed out many inconsistencies in the story provided by Todd & Clare representatives and noted that the company had been granted unusual access to the United Nations. Johnson reported:

“The company’s operating address is a warehouse loading dock in Houston. Its mail goes to a Houston drop box. Its phone numbers no longer work. WikiLeaks says Texas officials tell it the entity is not registered there either under toddandclare.com or a parent company, T&C Network Solutions.”

Further, there was little or no evidence to support the allegations against Assange.

In addition to deleting a tweet which contained a link to video of Mudd calling Assange a pedophile, “New Day” issued a retraction via Twitter on Wednesday afternoon.

The statement read:

“An analyst on our air earlier today asserted that Julian Assange was a pedophile, and regrets saying it. In fact, CNN has no evidence to support that assertion.”

As of Thursday afternoon, however, no similar retraction had been made regarding Rogers’ comments.

Assange and WikiLeaks have been targeted by a swell of attacks in the mainstream media since the site published extensive archives of emails taken from Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the private email account of Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, during the election. Assange has repeatedly denied accusations that he is a Russian agent, and suggested Podesta’s email hacking should be attributed to poor security, not a government plot.

(Note, for the Nth time: It's been established that there was no "hacking" at the DNC, by Russians or any other supposedly "sinister" party. The data became available as a result of an internal leak. A leak. Someone in their office simply downloaded the data to a flash drive and scampered away. Period.)


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
[/su_box]






Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!
Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
Get the definitive history of the Russo-American conflict today!

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal




People Will Never, Ever Rebel As Long As They’re Successfully Propagandized



horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ur predicament is simple to describe.

Since the dawn of civilization, powerful individuals have controlled the stories people tell themselves about who they are, who’s in charge, how a good citizen behaves, what groups should be loved, what groups should be hated, and what’s really going on in the world. When you study what we call history, you’re mostly just reading the ancient proto-propaganda of whatever kingdom happened to win the last war during that period of time. When you study what we call religion, you’re mostly reading stories that were advanced by ancient governments explaining why the people should be meek, forgiving taxpayers instead of rising up and killing their wealthy exploiters.

This continues to this day. We fill our children’s heads with lies about how the world works, how the government works, how the media works, and, on a deeper level, how their own consciousness works, and the entire process is shaped to funnel power toward the people who control our stories. The modern schooling system was largely formed by John D Rockefeller, widely considered the wealthiest person in modern history, in order to create generations of docile gear-turners for the industrial plutocratic machine. Modern schooling is essentially mainstream media in a building; it promotes authorized narratives day in and day out to ensure that children will have a reaction of cognitive dissonance and rejection when confronted with information which contradicts those narratives.

This funnels the populace seamlessly into the narrative control matrix of adulthood, where childhood indoctrination into mainstream narratives lubricates the way for continual programming of credulous minds with mass media propaganda. All the print, TV and online media they are presented with supports the status quo-supporting agendas of the same plutocratic class that John D Rockefeller dominated all those years ago. This ensures that no matter how bad things get, no matter how severely our spirits are crushed by end-stage metastatic neoliberalism, no matter how many stupid, pointless wars we’re duped into, no matter how much further we are drawn along the path toward extinction via climate chaos or nuclear war, we will never revolt to overthrow our rulers. 

The fact of the matter is that a populace will never rise up against its oppressors as long as it is being successfully propagandized not to. It will never, ever happen. The majority will choose the prison cell every time.
  That’s three paragraphs. Our predicament is simple to describe and easy to understand. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to solve.

Everyone has at some point known someone in some kind of an abusive relationship, whether it be with a partner, a family member, or a job, and we all know that helpless feeling of being unable to help someone who refuses to walk away from the source of their abuse.

“Just leave him!” we say in exasperation. “The door’s right there! It’s not locked!”

But it’s never that simple. It’s never that simple because, although the abusee is indeed physically capable of walking out the door, the thoughts that are in their head keep them from choosing that option.

This is because no abuser is simply violent or cruel: they are also necessarily manipulative. If they weren’t manipulative, there wouldn’t be any “abusive relationship”; there’d just be someone doing something horrible one time, followed by a hasty exit out the door. There can’t be an ongoing relationship that is abusive unless there’s some glue holding the abusee in place, and that glue always consists primarily of believed narrative.

“I didn’t mean it. I love you. I just get frustrated sometimes because of your stupidity.”

“You can’t leave; you’ll never make it out there on your own. You need me.”

“I’m the only one who’ll ever be there for you. Nobody else will ever love you because you’re so disgusting.”

“Your children need their father. You have to stay.”

“I need you! I’ll die without you!”

“I’m not doing that. You’re paranoid and crazy.”

“Your inability to forgive me means something is wrong with you.”

They seldom say it so overtly, because if they did its malignancy would be easy to spot, but those are the ideas which get subtly implanted into the abusee’s head day after day after day by way of skillful manipulation.

“It’s her own fault for staying,” someone will inevitably say.

No it isn’t. Not really. The abuser is at fault for the overt abuse, and the abuser is also at fault for the psychological manipulations which keep the abusee in place in spite of terrible cruelty. It’s all one thing, and it’s entirely the abuser’s fault.

Humanity’s predicament is the same. I often hear revolutionary-minded thinkers voicing frustration at the mainstream public for choosing to stay within this transparently abusive dynamic instead of rising up and forcing change, and yes, it is self-evident that the citizenry could easily use its vastly superior numbers to do that if it collectively chose to. The door is right there. It’s not even locked.

But the people aren’t failing to choose the door because they love being abused, they’re failing to choose the door because they’ve been manipulated into not choosing it. From cradle to grave they’re pummeled with stories telling them that this is the only way things can be, in exactly the same way a battered wife or a cult member are pummeled with stories about how leaving is impossible.

The difficulty of our times is not that we are locked up; we aren’t. The difficulty is that far too many of us are manipulated into choosing a prison cell over freedom.

The fact of the matter is that a populace will never rise up against its oppressors as long as it is being successfully propagandized not to. It will never, ever happen. The majority will choose the prison cell every time.

You’d expect that more dissident thinking would be pouring into solving this dilemma, but not much is. People talk about elections and political strategies, they talk about who has the most correct ideology, they talk about rising up and seizing the means of production due to unacceptable material conditions, they wax philosophical about the tyranny of the state and the immorality of coercion, but they rarely address the elephant in the room that you can’t get a populace to oust the status quo when they do not want to.

Nothing will ever be done about our predicament as long as powerful people are controlling the stories that the majority of the public believe. This is as true today as it was in John D Rockefeller’s time, which was as true as when Rome chose to spread the “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” submissiveness of Christianity throughout the Empire. The only difference is that now the powerful have a century of post-Bernays propaganda science under their belt, and a whole lot of research and development can happen in a hundred years.

So what’s the solution? How do you awaken a populace that is not just manipulated into choosing its prison cell every time, but is also manipulated into believing that any suggestion that they’re in a prison cell is a crazy conspiracy theory?

Well, what do you do when a loved one is in an abusive relationship? It never works to shake them and scream “You’re being abused!”; that just causes them to tighten up and dig in deeper with their abuser’s narratives about how this is the only way things can be and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. What works is to lovingly help that sovereign spark within them gather evidence that the narratives they’re being fed by their abuser are lies. Point out every time where reality contradicts the stories they’ve been told. Weaken their trust in the old stories while strengthening their confidence in their own perception and their sense of entitlement and worthiness. Help them to see that they’re being lied to, and that they deserve better.

This breaking of trust needs to happen within the respective partisan echo chambers of those who are being propagandized. It’s useless to increase the distrust of CNN and MSNBC among Trump’s base, for example, but it’s very useful to increase their distrust in right-wing narratives. It’s useless to increase Democrats’ distrust in Trump and Fox News, but it’s very useful to get them skeptical of the narrative control machine they’ve been plugged into. Each head of the two-headed one-party system needs to be attacked in a way that makes sense inside each of its respective echo chambers.

Mostly, though, what we need is we need is for more thinkers to be more focused on the real problem. I know some influential minds read this blog; if they can help seed the idea out among the movers and shakers of dissident thought that propaganda is our first and foremost problem, we just might get somewhere. We need a major shift of focus onto the narrative control matrix and the obstacle that it poses to revolution, and everyone can help shift us there in their own way.

The propaganda machine won’t be adequately disrupted without intensive effort, and until it is we’re going to keep selecting the prison cell every time.

___________________________

Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitterthrowing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandisebuying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

About the Author
 
Caitlin Johnstone
is a brave journalist, political junkie, relentless feminist, champion of the 99 percent. And a powerful counter-propaganda tactician.
 


 Creative Commons License  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
Get the definitive history of the Russo-American conflict today!


black-horizontal




And the Oscar Goes to White Helmets: Covert Jackals Propagandized as Saviors

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


By Rainer Shea on February 25, 2019 • Ghion Journal

And the Oscar Goes to White Helmets: Covert Jackals Propagandized as Saviors

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he network of “humanitarian” Syria regime change groups recently experienced yet another major PR crisis. On February 9, James Harkin, a journalist who’s written for The Guardian and the Financial Times and is the director of the Center for Investigative Journalism, published an article in The Intercept titled What happened in Douma? Searching for facts in the fog of Syria’s propaganda war. Harkin’s conclusions were essentially reiterations of what less mainstream journalists had found in the past, which meant he likely would have experienced blowback if he’d talked about them during the height of the pro-war Syria propaganda campaign in April of last year. According to Harkin’s investigations, sarin had not been used at the site of the supposed Douma chemical attack, and the hospital scene had apparently been staged.



Shortly afterward, this assessment of the April 2018 Douma incident was confirmed by a statement from the BBC reporter Riam Dalati. Dalati Tweeted: “After 6 months of investigations, i can prove without a doubt that the #Douma Hospital scene was staged. No fatalities occurred in the hospital. All the #WH, activists and people I spoke to are in #Idlib or #EuphratesShield areas. Only one person was in #Damascus.”

Acknowledging these basic realities about what happened in Douma is now accepted within the mainstream of journalistic discussion. And the relatively mild challenges to the official narrative that Harkin and Dalati presented come after a mountain of evidence has appeared against the claim that Assad had “gassed his own people.” According to interviews made by the renowned journalist Robert Fisk, witnesses to the incident suffered not from gas poisoning but from dust inhalation. This version of the story was later supported by other witnesses to the Douma incident, who testified at the Hague in April of 2018 that they hadn’t experienced chemical poisoning. Given these facts, it makes sense why Fisk also reported that White Helmets members on the scene had needlessly incited panic by dishonestly shouting “Gas!” in a triage center.

During those weeks in April, the efforts from the media to attack all journalists and academics who challenged the official Syria narrative were extreme, to the point where people couldn’t help but notice how uniform and seemingly coordinated the behavior from the press was getting. And even now, as the official narrative about the Douma incident falls apart beyond repair, the West’s pro-war Syria propagandists are trying to delegitimize Harkin and Dalati’s findings.

In response to Dalati, the Global Public Policy Institute’s Tobias Schneider tweeted in a noticeably defensive manner: “Almost a year later, people are still squabbling over the intricacies of the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks. Madness.” Schneider, who has ties to the neoconservative Atlantic Council and is complicit with the GPPI’s connections to a network of pro-regime change oligarchs, has also announced that the GPPI will be publishing an analytical study “on the logic underpinning the Syrian regime’s systematic use of improvised chlorine bombs in particular.”

The promoters of the Syria war propaganda have been acting so desperate because they’ve been caught in too many deceptions. At this point, anyone who looks at even the most mainstream accounts of recent events in Syria will find not just that the Douma hospital scene was staged, but that the White Helmets made a deliberately false report about the incident. If they look into James Mattis’ admission last February that there’s no evidence Assad was behind the April 2017 chemical incident, they’ll also find that our government and media have lately engaged in a pattern of lying to us about Syria.

If they search a little deeper, they’ll find the appalling series of lies that have went into these and the many other Western charges against Assad. For instance, the fraudulent nature of the White Helmets has now been proven beyond all dispute; last December, a UN panel detailed organ harvesting and staged attacks. (This revelation follows the fraudulent reports and recruitments of jihadist sympathizers that the White Helmets have been long known to engage in.)

They’ll also find that the emergence of the White Helmets has correlated with maybe the most extensive and sophisticated war propaganda campaign in history.

The White Helmets, created by the British ex-mercenary James Le Mesurier in March 2013, were almost immediately able to get $123 million in funding from the U.S. and UK governments, as well as from Western NGOs and Qatar. This sudden investment in the “humanitarian” imperialist front group came at a cynically strategic time. For the last two years prior to then, Western governments had been engaged in a violent effort to destabilize Syria by activating their trained army of anti-Assad jihadists. Amid the death and destruction that was befalling Syria, the White Helmets were able to sell themselves as a legitimate and much-needed group of aid workers.

But the White Helmets and the other facets of the Syria propaganda operation have since tried too many tricks for their propaganda tactics to now be sufficiently effective. In addition to the fraudulent gas attack claims of April 2018 and April 2017, in August 2013 Western authorities claimed Assad had committed a chemical attack in Ghouta. This narrative then collapsed when an analysis by genuine weapons experts found that the missile which delivered the sarin had a short range, and that it therefore likely came from rebel territory.

Similar findings came out after it was claimed that Assad had committed a chlorine attack in April of 2014; United Nations investigators learned from the townspeople of Al-Tamanah that Syrian rebels had staged an attack and fed the story to a credulous Western media.

These kinds of hoaxes and theatrics have happened over and over again. So far I’ve mentioned only a few of the West’s false flag chemical attacks; despite the fact that Syrian jihadists have access to chemical weapons have used these weapons numerous times, media coverage has consistently tried to blame the Syrian government for these attacks.

Just as disturbing has been the war psyop factory’s exploitation of Bana al-Abed, the Syrian refugee child who’s been manipulated by adults into publicly voicing demonizations of Assad and Putin. As the Syrian journalists Khaled Iskef has assessed, the campaign of pro-war deception surrounding al-Abed is only one example of how children have been used as propaganda weapons in the attempts to slander Assad. “This is child exploitation to create the propaganda that promoted the terrorists in East Aleppo and was being used to destroy Syria,” Iskef has said in one of his video accounts of the events in his country.

Much of the blame for the propagation of these deceptions has involved the complicity of Hollywood institutions, media organizations, and public figures. The author J.K. Rowling, as well as the football star Colin Kaepernick, have participated in the attempts to legitimize the Bana al-Abed psyop. Netflix’ extremely misleading film “The White Helmets,” along with the Academy Awards’ decision to give the film an Oscar, have also reinforced this vast effort to fuse war propaganda with popular culture. If you want to see just how fake this whole White Helmet propaganda is, look at the two White Helmets below staging a scene. Notice how this was never reported by the supposed “free-press” in the West? This is the type of propaganda that they are using against Venezuela at this exact moment.



Even after all this, the neocons have failed in their quest for regime change in Syria. Russia has successfully countered the West’s army of jihadists, the Syrian people have mobilized to defend their country, and the effort to manufacture consent for the war has been crippled. But the desperate attempts from figures like Schneider to maintain the official narrative about Syria should still be countered, because their aim is to justify a new phase in the war against Assad. Neoconservatives in the House and the Senate have lately been leading an effort to impose sanctions against entities that engage in transactions with the Syrian government, an act of economic warfare which is aimed at preventing reconstruction in Syria and further weakening the Syrian state.

As journalists and social media users, we should continue to bring up all the lies that our government and media have told us about Syria in the last eight years, as this is a way to minimize the harm that the U.S. is still capable of doing to the Syrian people. Since Western imperialists have already lost control over the narrative about Syria to a considerable extent, it is not too hard for us to deconstruct the lies that our government and media tell us about Syria. Click To Tweet

“Propaganda is a soft weapon; hold it in your hands too long, and it will move about like a snake, and strike the other way.” ~ Jean Anouilh


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rainer Shea uses the written word to deconstruct establishment propaganda and to promote meaningful political action. His articles can also be found at Revolution Dispatch

Creative Commons License
THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License




Disinformers at work: the US media’s unrelenting demonisation of Venezuelan government

Actually there is no need to imagine. It's happening already.

BRENDAN WHELAN

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]isinformers are the rule in the US media and that of vassal states—practically the entire "Western" media machine—many of whom simply translate and reproduce the lies being created and disseminated by the big US engines of propaganda. All major corporate media have stables of experienced propagandists covering foreign affairs. At CBS such group includes the likes of London-born Elizabeth Palmer, a woman who has long perfected the sordid art of lying with a straight face, projecting faux empathy with the "victims" of a government persecuted by the Washington mafia, and of injecting innuendo and omission as a technique to suppress the truth.

Here she's at work, telling us what's (supposedly) happening in Venezuela. Why Maduro allows these truth assassins to enter the country is a question in need of an explanation. ALL personnel working for the corporate media should be denied access to the country and treated as hostiles, unless proven otherwise, all engaged in an information war against the legitimate government of Venezuela. Let them lie all they want (which they will do anyhow, as such reports would be manufactured in New York or Hollywood of whole cloth if necessary), but don't make their work easier by providing them credible props, like convenient witnesses, actual streets, buildings, etc., and the conceit of being "in country" reporting as a legitimate correspondent. And never forget that Elizabeth Palmer is the rule, not the exception. She's a glorified highly paid liar. And there are countless Elizabeth Palmers working for the empire's Ministry of Truth. But she's just a visible front, the symptom of the disease afflicting mass communications. The real criminals, the disease itself, remain in the shadows, and those are the plutocratic owners and top executive managers of these disinformation engines.—BW


About the Author
B. Whelan is a Los Angeles-based media activist working to create his own information channel.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




MUST WATCH VIDEO: Peter Joseph’s Culture in Decline—The Entire Series!

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Culture in Decline Series (6 parts)
Written, directed and produced by Peter Joseph
Part 1  • Source: Cultureindecline.com  (widen your browser window if you have to).


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6

Sourced Transcript

CULTURE IN DECLINE EP #1: “What Democracy?”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here we go. We got it, Bob! Hi! Sorry, we're running a little bit late. Excuse me a second. Hey Bob, think fast! [Glass breaking] [Shouting] Sorry, man! Welcome to 'Culture in Decline'. My name is Peter Joseph. This show is designed for those that want to be a little bit more skeptical about society, because perhaps, you're like me. As you stumble around this experiment we call global society, you can't help but feel an increasing sense of unease, perhaps even frustration, with respect to how we, the human family, have chosen to organize ourselves on this little planet.

The late astronomer and well-known advocate of scientific thought, Carl Sagan, in his famed PBS series 'Cosmos', once invited the question: "If we were visited by a superior species from another part of the galaxy, and we were forced to explain to them our stewardship of our planet, not to mention the state of human affairs today, would we be proud of what we described?"

[bg_collapse view="button-orange" color="#4a4949" expand_text="Keep reading the transcript" collapse_text="Show Less" ]

 

How would we frame our explanation of how almost half of the world, over 3 billion people, are either barely surviving in abject poverty and sickness,1 - or are simply dying off unnecessarily at a rate of about one person every couple of seconds2 – all occurring in the wake of an advanced technological reality, where we could easily feed, clothe and house every family on Earth in a respectable standard of living?3.

How would we frame the global warfare: 230 million killed by their fellow man in the past 100 years alone4 - based on what, meaningless territoriality, resources, dogmatic, obsolete ideologies? Again, this all occurring in the shadows of a looming scientific recognition, that we are indeed simply one family sharing one household, bound by the exact same laws of nature, and hence the same unifying operational ideology.

How about our economic system, the bedrock of what defines our society, not to mention our dominant motivations? How would we explain the reality that, rather than organizing ourselves efficiently as a single system to properly manage this household we share, we childishly divide and compete and exploit each other through an archaic, completely environmentally decoupled game. A game, by the way, which not only appears to perpetuate a vast spectrum of social atrocities, but now seems to be further destabilizing society, decreasing our public health.

Sorry to say, as an individual, I really don't care what you believe, nor do I particularly respect it. Why? Because I don't really respect what I believe either.

There is no evidence to show that any of the traditional values, establishments, social structures or common practices we have today, will be relevant tomorrow. The only thing that appears to stand the test of time is this very notion of change, the ever-evolving understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit. Perhaps, some might think that that's actually the definition of human intelligence. What do you think about that? Less about what we know, more about how vulnerable we are.

So, when you look out your window, ask yourself. Do you see intelligence or do you see dogma? Do you see a culture listening and working to realign itself with the ever-emerging natural orders as they unfold, or do you see desperately stubborn efforts by many, particularly those in positions of power, trying to keep everything the same to the detriment of the entire human experiment?

You know, like you, I might be only one member of this family that is now 7 billion strong; and

1 http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
2 http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-21000-children-died-around-the-world
3 http://true-progress.com/the-earth-can-feed-clothe-and-house-12-billion-people-306.htm 4 http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/deathswarsconflictsjune52006.pdf

like most families, sometimes it's hard for us to agree, but sometimes, things get so bad we need serious intervention. The following series is that intervention in the hope to salvage what is clearly, a culture in decline.

It's an election year in the United States and some may say it's an election year for the whole world. Still the dominant empire, the United States' political system has spent roughly 25 billion dollars in the past decade alone.5 - An amount of money, if averaged and distributed annually, could house and feed every homeless person in America, effectively ending the epidemic.6 Perhaps, like me, by the end of this program, you'll find that money will be better well-spent.

Be that as it may, the 2012 presidential election is gearing up to be one of the most expensive, and ostensibly important elections of all time, given the ongoing debt crisis, the unemployment crisis, and the vast destabilization we see across society.

However, I'm not particularly interested in the left or the right, or am I interested in any candidate's political merit. What I'm interested in, is the entire idea of global democracy in the tradition as it exists, and how it is blindly accepted by the vast majority of people on this planet, as being the only option to satisfy their interests and create good well-being, and hence societal management in its optimum state. That's what interests me.

So, rather than debate about who should be the next president, why don't we step back and consider some broader issues? Such as, I don't know, maybe, why we even have a President to begin with? What is this, medieval feudalism? I thought the days of kings, dictators, and giving one person enormous power was coming to an end. Or, more generally, doesn't it seem a little absurd to claim a participatory democracy, when the public itself actually has zero say, when it comes to the actual decisions made by those elected? It's bad enough that those voted in have literally no legal responsibility to do anything they might have claimed on the campaign trail, but if you examine history, you will find the historical fact that the public good has always been secondary to other interests, mainly, financial and business interests.

Of course, this is common knowledge now, right? Why did the US government, completely against all known public interest, allow the private banking system, a system which actually creates nothing, to be bailed out to the tune of 13 trillion dollars? 7

[Video Cut]
[“You have a 14-million-dollar ocean front home in Florida. You have a summer vacation home in Sun Valley, Idaho. You and your wife have an art collection filled with million-dollar paintings.”]

While the public was left out to dry with overflowing private debt, job losses and a stagnating economy. If we're going to persist with this silly little game we've concocted called the growth economy, where the movement of money defines everything, it might be a good idea to do the math regarding what might actually help this economic system operate at some passable level.

[Video Cut- G.W. Bush Speaking]
[“Therefore, if you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you're really raising taxes on the job creators,

5 http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/

  1. 6  $25 B. / 10 yrs = $2.5 B. a year | HRI 2009 Stat: 672,000 Homeless [http://cflhomeless.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/how- many-are-homeless-in-america/ ] | $2.5 B. / 672,000 = ~$3700 per person. $3700 / 365 days = ~ $10.00 per day. WorldShelter.org puts trans shelter cost per person, per day at $2 a day. [http://worldshelters.org/for-us- unsheltered/municipalstate-agency] | Extrapolating “Star of Hope's” budget to feed the poor at $1.80 per meals: 3 Meals per day = $5.40. The total budget allocation extrapolation then total to a daily cost for food/shelter at $7.40 [$5.40 + ($1.80 x 3)] [http://blog.sohmission.org/blog/soup-kitchen-houston]Note: This circumstantial extrapolation is not meant to be a direct resolution but to simply show the evidence that it canbe done, even with the highly restrictive financial mechanisms which inhibit the use of resources efficiently.
  2. 7  http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

and if the goal is private sector growth, you have to recognize that the best way to create that growth is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators.”]

If that money spent on the bank bailout was spent on relieving private household debt instead, while letting Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and all of the other technically meaningless, non- producing financial institutions experience the failure and bankruptcy they deserved, simultaneously nationalizing the entire US banking system as a whole, the US economy might have had a chance. Why? Because banks don't actually contribute anything. People with jobs do. [If] you want growth in this type of system, you need jobs. If you want jobs you need demand, and demand requires people having free money to spend. By helping the public debt burden, you would plant the true seeds of economic growth.

As obvious as that may seem, many forget one thing: The bailout had nothing to do with helping the US economy, nor does it or will it work to help any hurting sovereign economy in the world. Why? Because we live in a plutocracy,8 not a democracy, and the only true power is actually behind the curtain, not in front.

The financial and business powers not only own and control this country, they own and control the whole planet; and no, it's not a conspiracy. It's a value-system disorder. As long as a dollar sign is associated with every blade of grass, every plot of land, every fleeting thought or invention, not to mention judging the merit of individuals for their right to life through labor, we should expect nothing less. Since the inception of the state itself, coupled with the underlying power of money as the ultimate driver of human decisions, and hence persuasion, the true power has always been financial, and those little people you elect into office every couple of years, they have owners too, and don't you forget it.

[Street Interviews]
[Q: Democracy: Is that something you believe in as it exists today in America?
A: When you say as in 'believe in', does it exist? Like forest fires, God, or the devil?

Q: What is your opinion of the American democratic system as it exists? A: It's broken. It's deeply, deeply broken

[Cut]

A: Democracy, goes, of course, to Greece and it's the theory that the people own the government. Is it in practice happening, in 2012, in this country? Not close! It's a corporatocracy. ]

All of this considered, let's now think a little more accurately about this whole democracy deal. Since the tradition of our democracy has to do with representatives elected to apparently do our thinking for us, a critical question becomes: Where did these people come from? Why are they the ones on your TV and not others? Did you decide that these people are the best choices to compete for such critical leadership, or have you noticed that the most pronounced candidates especially the Presidential, sort of come out of nowhere; and through the media, are given credence merely by repetition of exposure?

*
The term 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' which means people, and 'krates' which means rule.9The people of a given society express their opinions through votes, and policy is created by the majority's interest. It appears the process was formalized in ancient Greece and has been adapting ever since.

However, it didn't take long for a bit of cynicism to emerge with respect to the process itself, given the fact that the entire basis of the idea assumes that the voting public actually is educated

8 http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html 9 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=democracy

enough to know what they're doing.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once acutely stated: "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."10

Winston Churchill, on the other hand, was a little less forgiving, stating "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."11

The infamous Mark Twain jumped to the inevitable punch line, stating "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."12

I would like you to ask yourself: If we were in the ruling class, the 'investment ownership class', to paraphrase Thorstein Veblen13 , and we wanted to preserve our interests against any interference, what would we do?

First, we need to take the broadest possible view we can. We need to make sure the voting public is as uninformed as possible, regarding relevant issues that might contradict our establishment's practices. Coupled with that, we also need to eliminate as much independent, logical, causal, scientific thought as possible.

So, let us support an extremely underfunded, outdated, and deprived public educational system, a system focused on merely getting a person a job one day, not teach them how to critically and logically think.14

However, to further reinforce this we, also want to push and reward belief systems that support passive obedience – belief systems and values that are stubborn, irrational, and promote closed thinking. Religion becomes very helpful in this circumstance. If people are groomed to be obedient to their god and follow blindly... they are ripe to extend that obedience to others who claim authority. So lets make sure all our candidates keep the religious theme going, thanking “god” whenever possible.

[Street Interviews]
[Q:The heart of democracy really is the basic assumption that the public is well-educated about critical thought. They know how to think about things and evaluate, and therefore they can make proper decisions, right? What is your opinion on American education and its effect on the democratic process? A: I think that we have multiple problems in the education in America. One: I think we are dealing with the dumbing down of America. -
Q: Do you feel that this sort of poor educational system actually benefits the establishment?
A: Oh, absolutely! Absolutely! Keep them stupid, keep them easily entertained. If they're uninformed, they can't fight back!]

However, to further reinforce this, we also need to push and reward belief systems that support passive obedience; belief systems and values that are stubborn, irrational, and promote closed thinking. Religion becomes super helpful in this circumstance.

[Video Cut]
[Is it possible that religion is being politicized and that candidates are using it as a tool? [cut] I

  1. 10  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15545#axzz1znpTLxtH
  2. 11  http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/bulldog.html
  3. 12  http://refspace.com/quotes/Mark_Twain/
  4. 13  http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/09/why_labor_alway.html
  5. 14  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deliberatedumbingdown.com%2FOtherPDFs%2FRFP_interview_p1.pdf&ei=r0T2T- TWKeHi2QXJqKnXBg&usg=AFQjCNEUjizYX29vmY6vKPyH5FTCnoKAxQ

believe that God created the Universe. [cut] And we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. [cut] Let us not pray that God is on our side in war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side. [cut] May God bless the 7th Day Adventist Church. [cut] I think the God who loves us, the God who gave us life, who gave us our being... [cut] And so to every sailor, soldier, airman and marine who was involved in this mission, let me say, you are doing God's work.]

If people are groomed to be obedient and follow blindly, they are ripe to extend that obedience to others who claim authority. Check.

Next, it's critical we recognize a unique, sociological characteristic of the human condition. Something we will call 'herd psychology'. This is the tendency for us humans, when faced with mass appeal, to often behave in extremely thoughtless and malleable ways. In the words of Charles McKay, famed author of 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds': "Men, it has been said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly and one by one."15

However, this doesn't just apply to a soccer riot. Such mob persuasion can be generated through simply shared cultural events. Remember September 11th? Talk about mass insanity! This event created an immediate crowd madness with fear and revenge,16 and it didn't take long for the US government, and other governments, in fact, to harness that madness and funnel support for draconian legislation and illegal invasions.

However, this herd psychological tendency is not only very useful for implanting and guiding perceived issues of importance, it is also critical in setting rigid limits of debate, creating the tendency for those who begin to question beyond those limits to be ostracized and rejected by the herd itself. You know, if someone talks about a more equitable distribution of income in society: [Video]

All the growth that has occurred in our country, over the last decade or more, has gone to the upper 1, 2%.
[PJ Joke]
['Fucking communists!']

If someone speculates about the obvious power manipulation and corruption,
[PJ Joke] ["God damn it! I am so sick of these conspiracy theorists and their lies! The Federal Reserve does not collude for its own self interest!"]
And heaven forbid we get those do-gooders who want to actually apply modern scientific knowledge and improve society with it.
[PJ Joke] ["Yeah right! Feed, clothe and house everybody on Earth with technology? Utopian jackasses!"]

Remember, probably the greatest way to control human thought, is to establish a deep fear of social rejection, and associate that fear to culturally taboo subjects.

So, with that ground work in motion, we now have to deal with the pesky problem that the public just might wise up enough and work to maneuver a person into political power that will cause us problems. Therefore, some more specific structural safeguards are in order. Basically, we need to make sure that those unwanted candidates, are unable to get anywhere near the major outlets for public digestion; and if they do, the practice is to treat them like freaks.

[Video Cut]
[“Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty? What you're inferring is "You know what? If we legalize heroin tomorrow, everybody is going to use heroin." How many people here would use heroin if it was legal?”]

15 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=common-sense
16 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

How do we do that? With money, and our corporate constituency has plenty. We just need to make sure the use of this money for political influence goes uninhibited. In a US Supreme Court 1976 decision, the freedom for a candidate to use unlimited personal money for their campaign was deemed legal, equating spending money with the right of free speech, in fact.17

What this translates to, in effect, is the removal of any regulated fairness of expression; and hence, whoever has the most money has the most resources, and hence, effect. Perfect. However, let's secure this a little bit farther. Let's also make sure that our corporations are given the legal right to promote our little puppets without limit. Luckily, in 2010, our pals again at the US Supreme Court confirmed that the government may not restrict political spending by any corporation in candidate elections, as they are, once again, protected by the 1st Amendment.18

So, now we can buy mad ad space to promote whoever we want, as much as we want, drowning the opposition in the media. ...and double check. With those broad measures in place, it is still important to control the basic unfolding of the electoral process, from start to finish. The best way to do this, is to create a false duality: the illusion of competition between parties. We need a 2- party system that, constantly argues with each other in general, but still upholds the basic elitist policies that we need to maintain our advantage.

The beauty of this dominant 2-party farce, is that it not only gives the public the needed illusion of choice, it more importantly oppresses those upstart third parties. As we know, these annoying self-righteous third parties have been trouble makers from day one. The civil rights amendments, women's suffrage, broad worker rights, child labor laws and other agitations for industry, all came from these rising third parties, historically, not from the dominant, established group, us. So, we need to be vigilant here.

We need to get the public so used to this 2-party dictatorship that they don't even mind if the two parties are given direct control over most of the electoral process itself. They need to have the power of organizing the rules of electoral redistricting, the primaries, the caucuses and debates, and of course, we, the ruling class, will moderate their actions through lobbying, campaign contributions, you know, exactly what the free market promises: the freedom to manipulate everything.

Meet our friends: the Commission on Presidential Debates, or CPD. In 1988, the Democratic and Republican Parties, or the 'Demo-publicans', as I like to call them, established the Commission on Presidential Debates.19 Posing as a non-partisan institution, the CPD successfully took control of the most influential election event, the Presidential debates. The CPD, which is a private corporation co-chaired by the former heads of the Republican and Democratic Parties, decide through secret contracts,20who is going to participate in the debates, and what is going to be talked about. Those pesky third parties, along with controversial ideas, can only come into play if the 'Demo-publicans' decide they can. Really, can you imagine what would happen if those annoying social upstarts actually were able to come up against the trite, miserable logic, and narrow subject matter typical of our rigged debates?

[Video Cut, Joke]
Obama:
“But for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer who frankly, at the end of each month, they have a little financial crisis going on: They're having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments. We haven't been paying attention to them. If you look at our tax policies, it's a classic example.”

17 http://www.ilsr.org/rule/campaign/2187-2/
18 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all 19 http://www.alternet.org/news/102829/the_presidential_debates_are_a_scam/ 20 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052162

PJ: “I'm sorry to interrupt Mr. President, but I couldn't agree more. However, don't you feel that the tax policies and other common acknowledgments about what is hurting the average American, is actually quite benign, when compared to the very foundation of our economic system? You know, making money out of debt, charging interest on it that doesn't exist, which means that there's always more outstanding debt than there is money to pay for it. Of course, that lends itself to more debt being created to cover it, and essentially, failure and bankruptcy is inevitable. Not for the upper classes as much as the lower middle classes, (Why?) Because the lower classes are the ones taking the loans for their home and their car, while the upper class are making interest income. Rather than paying interest, they actually make interest through their deposits and investments. Obviously, this secures a massive growing class divide, structurally. Is that not something worth considering? No?”

As a final point about the CPD, our corporations can now directly donate to them, hence the parties, imposing our financial influence, and hence agenda, even more, making another end run around that pesky legal legislation, barring corporations from contributing directly to political campaigns. A beautiful end run.

However, nothing is perfect, and you can't be too careful. Sometimes, good old-fashioned, time- tested tactics are needed. Nothing is as old-fashioned, as good old direct electoral fraud. Let's get some of our corporate buddies to build some voting machines with really terrible integrity, and get them in as many critical spots as we can. Yeah, I know, it's sloppy. It has already become public that the machines can be hacked remotely, with about $10 of materials and an 8th-grade science education;21 but since most Americans are completely distracted by their debt, lowering standard of living, and ongoing job losses, the liberal media falls on deaf ears.

So, let's recap. Free thinking people tend to recognize the need for ongoing adaptation and change, so we need to make sure education supports the existing tradition, through mere rote learning, not critical, logical thought. Next, we establish clear limits of debate in the culture and make sure those who go beyond the pale, are shutdown by endless ridicule and debasement. Then, we need to harness the herd psychology and guide it through our media, to either identify with the issues we need in the forefront or distract them outright. As far as large scale influence, we need to have the freedom to do whatever we want and to use our vast corporate wealth to influence both public opinion and the candidates themselves. Our legal status as a corporate person now ensures our free speech, and hence, free spending. Next, we create the public illusion of competition and choice, and gain as much control over the election process as possible. Our Demo-publican pawns, with our endless sponsorship and lobbying, now handles this well, including the restriction of public debate and the denial of all interfering third parties. If that wasn't enough, screw it! We'll just reorder the ballot counts ourselves, with the black box voting hacks in the most influential electoral states.

And so it goes! Since the beginning of civilization, those in power have successfully restricted the interests of the majority by regulating their values, by controlling resources through money, not to mention controlling the very processes that exist to challenge them. Is it a conspiracy? Do such powerful men meet in dark rooms, and work to figure out how to keep their power? Actually no, not as much as you might think. You see, the hilarious thing about all of this is that such a process of manipulation is actually self-generating, justified in a step-by-step manner with basic self-interest guiding the whole way. You see, the real corruption is not occurring in back-room meetings, or at the docks; the real power resides in how you, the public, actually perpetuate, condone and support the very underlying systems that oppress you.

Final thoughts: Many watching this program's content will likely interpret the broad farce known as American democracy, or really the farce of global democracy, in fact, as a system in need of better regulation. The ACLU, Democracy Now, Michael Moore, Occupy Wall Street, Annie Leonard, and other intelligent and outspoken activist institutions and figures seeking what they call

21 http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/diebold-voting-machines-hacked-with-10-in-parts/

'change', all actually operate within the same presupposition: "If only if we can better regulate monetary and corporate power, we can fix the world." No. I'm sorry to say that until the social premise itself, and hence, the fundamental psychological drivers of our economy: imbalance, scarcity, narrow self-interest, exploitation and competition. Until those are altered to the extent that the system begins to reward and reinforce collaboration, human and ecological balance, efficiency and sustainability, nothing is going to really change.

In a sociological condition, where everything is based on advantage over others, what we call corruption today isn't actually corruption at all. It's just business as usual. Seriously, what did you people expect? In an economy where everything is for sale by the very ethic inherent, underscored by the false notion that we can't possibly work together intelligently to benefit all, no level of supposed corruption should surprise any of us. In short, to assume we're going to perpetuate this economic philosophy here, and then contradict it over here with the idea that certain elements of society should be off-limits for monetary manipulation and gain, is completely naive and absurd; but don't take my word for it. Just sit back and watch the ebb and flow as we move from one set of corrupt, damaging practices to the next. Sure, we'll slowly fix a few issues with our in-the-box thinking, but until the whole system is addressed at its core, unfortunately, it's all mostly a waste of time and improvement would be very little. Until we grow up to that level, sit back, relax, enjoy the show and until next time, I'm Peter Joseph, an agent and victim of a culture in decline.

[/bg_collapse]


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Peter Joseph is an American independent filmmaker and activist. He is best known for the Zeitgeist film series, which he wrote, directed, narrated, scored, and produced. He is the founder of the related The Zeitgeist Movement. Other work includes The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, a book by Joseph which was published in 2017. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal