Did you find out that Edward Bernays was a
nephew of the controversial Sigmond Freud ? I wonder how much of
his work has been influenced by his uncle.
If information from the web can be depended on, it
showed that there is a
list of 50 odd TV companies and approximately 148 independent
radio broadcast operators - can all these be owned by five
major corporations ?
Even when there were many main stream
medias that were owned by the influential supporters of
George Bush and Dick Cheney's Iraqi military adventures, there
were as many print and broadcast medias that provided
contradicting and opposing views to that opposed the
wars.
It is to the credit of the US democratic system and
mature political leaderships that tolerated the dissenting and
conflicting broadcasts that did not support nor give any credence
to the Administration's agenda.
With the continued existence of these alternative
broadcasts to the main core despite the differences in their
opinions, it spelled hope in the diversity of robust
opinions.
It remains a fact that no single group of propaganda can
possibly hold sway the attention of a population of 100
million, and can so cleverly mould public opinion.
George Bush and Dick Cheney was able to sneek in their
agenda to open a new war against Sadam Hussein's Iraq, as both were
fortunate to have Rumsfeld success in Afghanistan war against Osama
and the Talibans with so little manpower and cost.
They thought they could do the same in Iraq, but failed
miserably in understanding the history of Iraq and its different
social and communal background.
Both were proven to have little understanding or even
any clue as to what was to be their next step after deposing
Saddam.
Seriously, George Bush and Dick Cheney were almost
on the edge of being purged by the US Congress, which they were
both fortunate to have slipped away from, as the country was at war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Republicans held the majority
seats in Congress and in a balanced Senate.
Both were fortunate that the US political system could
not tolerate another exhausting impeachment exercise after the
last drawn-out dogged attempt at Bill
Clinton resulted with his fore-skin getting
scraped.
Can the monopoly take on a globalised World with a
competing cyber-world that remains scattered and independent
?
I am basically at peace with the directions of where I
am heading and prefer not to be influenced by any colored
pills that color my appreciation in the full spectrum of
white.
Without the assistance of any pills, I can agree with
you on state-sponsored terrorism as seen in the Singapore
Government sponsored terrorism towards any qualified and credible
Singaporean who will dare stand up against LKY and his
PAP.
See my post on the thread "Chee Soon Juan cheated Wall
Street Journal" - in which a Canadian Legal Group has taken up
CSJ's position against the State sponsored terrorism towards
opposition politicians.
* Sorry for the late reply, other worldly affairs call.
Evidently, yes, five corporations own the MSM in the US
although there seems to be a huge variety of cable news
channels.
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart
Yes, I knew Bernays was the nephew of Freud. But his
first foray into shaping public opinion was not influenced by him
(though psychoanalysis played a part), because Freud was in Vienna.
The event I'm referring to is his work for the tabacco lobby in the
US where he helped them break into the women's market (then, a
taboo for women to smoke) by associating cigarettes with torches of
liberty. Interesting trivia to lighten the mood.
I admit there were dissenting opinions during the
lead-up to the Iraq War, but I dont think they were able to
overshadow the war drums played out by Faux News etc, especially
with Bill O "shut up" Reilly on the airwaves. In the end, we know
that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the MSM was wrong in
parading that lie. Equally damning is the Downing Street memo where
Bush and Blair discussed how to manuever Saddam into firing the
first shot. I'm sure the MSM cover that one right?
Launched 2 years before Iraq, I dont see how you can say
that Afghanistan was a success, or even justified. The invasion had
already been planned before 9/11 (energy politics) and after that,
the MSM played the lie that Bin Laden=9/11=Invasion of Afghanistan.
On hindsight, thanks, that helped me see how the MSM is able to
influence public opinion to absurd extents, beyond reason. Even
today, Afghanistan is on the brink, with the nationalist (not
terrorist) Taliban gaining on NATO/US troops. C'mon, learn from
history. The British sent 25,000 troops into Afghanistan in the
19th Century and 2 (not 2 thousand) survived.
Again, "US democracy" is a complete sham unless you mean
"fake US democracy". After all, in 2007, Bush signed NSPD 51/HSPD
20 that states in the event of a "catastrophic emergency" defined
as:
"any incident, regardless of location, that
results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or
disruption severely affecting the U.S. population,
infrastructure, environment, economy, or government
functions"
....there would be "enduring Constitutional Government"
defined as "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by
the President".
Orwellian doublespeak aside, it is simply a declared
plan for total dictatorship by the executive branch in the event of
any (staged) emergency, planned for the future. Expanding executive
powers (C[old] War stuff, just that it became prominent since 9/11)
Remember Hitler? He burnt down his own parliament to become
dictator of Germany.
And thats not even considering the illegal torturing,
warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and FBI, the breaches of civil
liberties in an emerging Big Brother state. "Democracy"? Its too
tragic to even laugh.
Now, as the media influence on public opinion, it is
only through media cover-ups and influence that the status quo can
be preserved where the public does not challenge conventions. In
other words, the MSM serves to maintain the establishment. One BIG
example, the Bilderberg group. Every year, 125 of the world's most
powerful corporate and political elite meet up in a 5-star hotel,
in secret (not mentioned by the MSM) and under armed guard. These
people include governmental officials, CEOs of prominent
corporations, NATO sec-generals and academia. Now, where is the
"democratic" element in this? And why has the MSM totally
maintained a media blackout on this? Ask the average person, or
even the informed person like you, What is Bilderberg (and
observe)? (I'll tell you why, because the MSM is also in this crap
game, I mean, they also take part in it.) What you dont know cant
harm them. What about the Internet? Well, its because of the
Internet (the alternative, not corporate-bought MSM) that social
outsiders like me have the opportunity to study about these and
tell you this. But otherwise, to people still under the sway of the
MSM, its business as usual, in a Matrix designed to blind them from
the truth (that corporate elites dictate policy, not elected
officials).
Lastly (phew, this is tiring), if governments have
carried out terrorist attacks (not the SG-type you refer to, but
the major ones in past years), then why is the MSM parading the lie
that Islamic extremists are behind it, even though the
CIA/MI6/Mossad have a rich history of doing this kind of thing?
What are the implications for public opinion (public opinion=
fraudulent perception that terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists)?
Why do the MSM perpetrate the lie that 19 hijackers (some of whom
were haboured by the CIA/FBI) crashed 2 planes into WTC 1 and 2,
collapsing them (conveniently leaving out WTC 7) when some of those
19 hijackers have been reported alive?
If anything I mentioned is strange to you, praise the
MSM. Thats their magic! Pristine, sanitised news that exists only
in the spectrum of white.