The Brainwashing Of America

[NNN0LHI]

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html

The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11

<snip>Now, following the logic of my hypothesis, if the bin Laden threat was, pre-9/11, a close-knit propaganda campaign, one would expect to find the same names showing up repeatedly in combination with one another. This, too, applies to the American commentators. Let us return to the August 1998 American bombings of bin Laden's tool sheds as an example. The night of the bombing, Rahimullah Yusufszai received a call from bin Laden aide Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a report from the Associated Press. Later, Yusufszai obtained for ABC News exclusive photos of the damage to bin Laden's camp. Further commentary describing the layout of the bin Laden camp was furnished to the Washington Post by former CIA analyst and terrorism expert Kenneth Katzman, as well as Harvey Kushner of Long Island University. Only little more than a week before that, Katzman and Kushner were offering their assessment of bin Laden's culpability for the embassy bombings in Africa in a Washington Post article penned by Vernon Loeb and Walter Pincus. They were joined in this effort by Vincent Cannistraro, the ABC news analyst who also escorted John Miller to his bin Laden interview, as well as provided running commentary in the days immediately following 9/11. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, provided covert aid to the Afghani mujaheddin in the late '80's, as well as supervised CIA operations with the contras. He was also one of the point men in the notoriously circumspect investigation at Lockerbie. In the above-noted Loeb and Pincus article - in which bin Laden is quoted from the ABC News Miller and Yusufszai interview - Cannistraro weighs in with his assessment of the embassy bombings: "I believe Osama bin Laden is the sponsor of this operation, and I think all of the indications are pointing that way."

Soon after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, a Vernon Loeb Post article, dated October 13, 2000, proceeded to implicate bin Laden through the detailed information provided by Kushner, Katzman, and Cannistraro. Earlier, in a Vernon Loeb Post article dated July 3, 2000, Yusufszai, Kushner, and Cannistraro unveiled bin Laden aides Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muhammed Atef as the men to watch as bin Laden's likely successors, with a helpful tidbit on the Zawahiri biography thrown in by the Saudi-owned al-Sharq al-Awsat.

None of the above, of course, is offered as the "smoking gun" pointing the way to a propaganda conspiracy, nor are my chosen examples meant to be exhaustive in evidencing this point. According to Felicity Barringer, in a New York Times article dated September 24, 2001: "A good deal of the public information on bin Laden comes from the journalists who went to Afghanistan to interview him, including (Peter) Bergen, ... Peter Arnett, John Miller, Rahimullah Yusufzai, and Jamal Ismail." The article further makes reference to Vernon Loeb, Al Quds al-Arabi (Atwan), Judith Miller, Al Jazeera, and Brian Jenkins (formerly of Kroll Associates - the security firm that obtained the WTC position for John O'Neill by way of Jerry Hauer). Clearly, I have also not heretofore made mention of the other experts who have worked assiduously toward building our knowledge base on bin Laden - Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Yossef Bodansky, and various British and EU elites. However, the above examples do show how the information flow on bin Laden could be plausibly managed by the skilfully placed revelations of a relatively insular clique of "experts" called upon repeatedly by the mainstream media.

Here is how it would work: A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the "scoops" that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources - the four TV networks, TIME, Newsweek, CNN - where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain. In other countries, this is what is known as propaganda - or, put less politely, psychological warfare.

more

http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm

Bush's Fake Economic Forum

As this article is being written (August, 2002), Dubya is trying to brainwash the American people into thinking that the economy is okay, that only a few "bad-apple" CEOs of corporations have crossed the line of criminal behavior, and that no new legislation is necessary to stop runaway corporate crime that his administration has encouraged.

Fortunately, a considerable number of Americans, including even some of the usually supine press, are seeing through this propaganda swindle. An August 13, 2002 MSNBC opinion piece by William Saletan brands the effort "Bush’s Fake Forum."

"This afternoon at the President’s Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, President Bush and Vice President Cheney sat side by side on the stage of a packed auditorium for more than an hour. That’s the first time they've been that close together for that long in public since Sept. 11. Evidently they're no longer afraid of terrorists. What they're afraid of is Americans."

An August 14, 2003 Washington Post editorial called the "forum" a confidence game.

"The theme of those reports was that the country needs lower taxes, that most corporate executives are honest and that the solution to corporate scandals is less, not more, regulation.
"Recession and the cost of war and the cost of homeland defense have increased our deficits," Mr. Bush said yesterday. At his forum, there was no one to remind him that tax cuts are playing their part too. In the real world, they're part of the arithmetic."

Frank Rich's 8/17/02 Op/Ed, "The Waco Road to Baghdad" caught even more of the brainwashing aspect of the fake forum.

"Though the president's harshest critics think he's stupid, I've always maintained that the real problem is that he thinks we are stupid. He never doubts that his show will distract us from bad news. Waco was supposed to make us forget the latest round of economic headlines: stagnant wages, slowed growth, new all-time records in personal bankruptcies and consumer borrowing."

The fake forum was seen in its true colors when the Bushites had to admit that the participants were coached in what to say. Their attempt to call the coaching material "talking points" just didn't cut it.

more

[Flying_Pig]

1. Herrs Goering, Goebbels, and Hitler....(Rumsfeld, Perle, and Bush)

As a journalism major, a former reporter, editor, publisher, and Marshal McLuhan sycophant, I will just say, that I have never believed that binLaden was responsible for 9/11. Everything about 9/11 was way too "pat", and sophisticated, to convince me that a cave-dwelling bin Laden pulled this off, at least, without incredible levels of support from very sophisticated and well connected security service(s) (ie: CIA type - Pakistani, Saudi, Israeli, American?)

The piece by Chaim Kupferberg quoted in your snip, for all its insight, fails to fully expose the duplicity of the media in the dissemination of the propaganda. The media in this nation, with few exceptions, are guilty of complicity and conspiracy, in a joint effort with a now partially known group of political elites (PNAC, and the Bush regime), and their right-wing associates, to knowingly, day in, and day out, deceive the American people. Never, in the history of the world, has there been a more concentrated and sophisticated effort at deception and propaganda, than what has/is being waged against the American people over the last five years or so. Herrs Goering, Goebbels, and Hitler, were mere pikers compared to what this group of people are accomplishing today.

That said, it is so complex, and so "other-worldly", there is no way the average American could ever wrap their brain around all of the facts related to 9/11, the ongoing fascist coup under way in the U.S., and the other conspiracies being perpetrated against them, as we speak. It is simply too much. Of course, the media, if it were honest, and not fully controlled by the fascists, could make an effort to educate the public to the crimes being committed, ....but it won't.

Our democracy was destroyed (thank you, Mr. Reagan) by one seemingly simple gesture: the abolition of the "Fairness Doctrine". Without the reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine", and the complete reform of campaign finance laws (to mandate public financing for all elections), our democracy isn't only dead, ...it's been buried. There can be no more important task for those who oppose what is going on, than to fight for the two reforms I mentioned above, because without them, nothing else really matters...

:evilgrin:

<http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,287510,00.jpg>

[NNN0LHI]

2. But it is just so much easier to blame all of our countries problems...

...on former CIA asset Osama bin Laden. We don't even need to think for ourselves then. Leaves much more time for the important things in our lives like Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and shark attacks. Oops, thats right. The sharks weren't biting this year. My bad.

Don

[cliss]

3. I agree.

The use of symbolism in this administration is staggering. Over the past 3 years, a virtual catalog of symbols, images and relics from our nation's past have been paraded in front of us, usually with the president or someone else in the administration.

There was the photo shoot of Bush making a speech at Mt. Rushmore. His face was turned so his profile matched the stone carvings on the mountainside. There have been countless photos of Bush surrounded by, almost wrapped up in the American flag. There was one photo with Powell standing in front of the Washington Monument. His face was turned slightly upward with a dreamy, hopeful look on his face. Bush has appeared in front of countless paintings depicting our nation's leaders. The only thing they left out was Bush sitting in Lincoln's lap at the Lincoln memorial.

The use of words is an obvious one. We have the "Patriot Act", even though it is everything but that. We have "Homeland", "Victory", "Operation Iraq Freedom", "Hope", democracy, mission accomplished, etc.

These words and images are being used to convey patriotic and positive images. They are being used very deliberately to convey a message. Most if not all photos taken of the president are staged. When Bush was going to appear on the USS Lincoln, the media people alrrived 3 days in advance to prepare the "setting", to get the lighting, angles just right.

This is an administration which relies on history. You can hear it all the time with quotes that they use. Bush made the reference of Benjamin Franklin emerging out of Iraq. There have been lots of references to Iraq like the rebuilding of Germany and Japan.

I would have to assume that these people have historians who spend a lot of time doing research. They most probably have hundreds of images, quotes, historial references which fit the current situation, and present it. I would have to assume that man is Karl Rove.

The similarities to Nazi Germany are striking. By the way, they went down to defeat.

This is a massive, powerful machine at work. These are people who are very intelligent. They use history, facts, images, patriotism, to their advantage. We don't know who they are. They are shadowy figures. All we see are the "front men", Bush, Cheney etc. But they are definitely driving this machinery.

[NNN0LHI]

4. They were even using subliminal images during the campaign

Remember the RAT stuff in their political ads? They have and continue to use every trick in the book. Because it works.

Don

[Don_G]

5. Here's An Image For You

[NNN0LHI]

6. And another for you, Sir.

[ewagner]

16. Do we know

What agencies, producers, directors worked on those commercials?

Do we know who is heading the WH "Advance Teams" to set the proper stages?

[NNN0LHI]

20. Here is about all I can remember from the incident in this article

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/09/13/ads/

Rats infest the GOP

Did the Republicans engage in subliminal advertising tactics with their Gore attack ad?

Sept. 13, 2000 | NEW YORK -- The Republican National Committee was trying to give George W. Bush a needed boost when it started running its "Priority" ad attacking Al Gore's prescription drug program for seniors last month. But that helping hand backfired when people began noticing something unusual: The spot's makers seemed to have adopted a bit of subliminal advertising. For a fraction of a second, toward the end of the 30-second spot, the word "rats" appears in big, capital letters.

Bush himself denied any foul play, saying that the flash was a coincidence, and insisted that the ad would continue to run. Only a few hours later, Bush announced another coincidence -- the ad was scheduled to be dropped anyway. But a panel of advertising experts convened by Salon says the decision came too late -- the damage has already been done. snip

Jean Craig is a former advertising executive.

The word rats is much more obvious than I would have thought. Usually, a single frame from a 30-second spot isn't recognizable, much less readable. I would suspect that it happened inadvertently, but having done it, the producers of the spot decided to let it go. Maybe they thought it was funny. Maybe they thought they could explain it away as part of the word bureaucrats but still get some buzz from it. They certainly got the buzz. My guess, however, is that the buzz will end up being negative. While professional advertising people don't use subliminal techniques, consumers suspect it, and they don't like it. Nobody likes to be manipulated. It also smacks of a Nixon-style dirty trick. One, big backfire, if you ask me.

more

[cliss]

7. No sorry, I don't watch TV

so I missed the subliminal messages. It doesn't surprise me, though. You're right; this is a group of people who stop at positively nothing to further their agenda.

The question is, who are they?

A book in the near future, NNNOLHI? Flying Pig? You're both awesome writers.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Sorry but I'm sick and tired of this shit

If I hear one more Bush scares and brainwashes people into supporting his foreign policy or I will be sick. If Clinton had been in office for another four years his foreign policy would be damn near identical to Bush's and you'd all be supporting it. The difference is he'd have a good defense department. The differences would be this.

War on Terror: Pretty much the same concepts, the Taliban needed to go and we needed to catch Al'Quaeda. The first difference was that Clinton was already paying attention to Bin Laden and Al'Quaeda way before 9/11. Clinton concievably would've caught him before 9/11. Bush on the other hand decided to put idiots in his defense department who didn't follow through with Clinton's plans, mostly because they were Clinton's plans. Is it Bush's fault YES of course did Bush intentionally not catch Binladen so 9/11 would happen, no.

War on Iraq: Face it Clinton was serious on Saadam Hussein by the start of his second term. He started up the air strikes there when Saadam threw out the weapons inspectors. Now after 9/11 (had it happened if Clinton stayed in office) he would've become even more serious about Iraq. The differences would be this. One, he wouldn't have morons like Paul Wolfowitz making our plans for the aftermath. Two, he wouldn'tve fucked up our diplomacy and we'd have a lot more countries helping us than we do now.

Face it, many Americans have formed their own opinions about Bush's foreign policy and support it. What we need to do is show them all of the mistakes he has made and change their minds without all of these conspiracy theories.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Don't you realize that you are proving the point made in this post? n/t

[uhhuh]

10. God I'm so tired of RW Talking Points

Recycled by Dems. If I hear one more time that Saddam threw out the inspectors, and that's why Clinton bombed Iraq, I will be sick.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. First of all I was saying that's a good thing...

Second of all, there's no question that it was one of the reasons. The other big one as I recall being that Saadam's regime was not respecting Kurdish territory. If you really want to debate this I will look it up.

[uhhuh]

12. Go Ahead

The U.N. inspectors were WITHDRAWN not "kicked out", just ahead of the bombing campaign.

Here. This link may help you understand why you are a victim of The RW brainwashing campaign on this and many issues. Read it and think about it.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Richard Butler pulled the inspectors without any authority to do so, and without consulting the U.N. security council. There are lots of stories that he and several of his team were CIA.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Nope didn't do that...

What it did make me believe there are two sides to the story.

[uhhuh]

18. Wow!!!

What a lively debating point! I am convinced now that Clinton would have done exactly the same thing as the chimp and attacked a country that didn't have WMD and was not involved in 9/11. You make a persuasive case! :eyes:
It think it is much more likely that Clinton would have done EXACTLY the same thing he did when the WTC was bombed the first time, and used the great outpouring of international support for our trajedy to convince the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden for something us old style Americans would call a trial. I'm sure that that's what the chimp really meant to do.

On edit: I read your response below. It's true that the chimp asked the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. All the Taliban asked was for him to show evidence that he was the guilty party. The chimp refused. They decided not to spend their men and resources on executing what would surely be a violent capture on a person in their territory that had not been shown to have perpetrated a crime. They were still in discussion on this issue when their country started being bombed.

I think Clinton would have presented evidence to them that Bin Laden was the guilty party if they had it. I think Clinton would have extended negotiations with them and would have tried to get them to turn over Bin Laden through diplomacy. I don't think it would have led to putting oil execs and criminals in charge of Afghanistan.

[leftofthedial]

14. ludicrous

a) 9-11 likely would not have happened. Instead of a phony "war" on terror we would have continued the successful policy of prosecuting terrorists for the crimes they commit, along with occasional very targeted military intervention.

b) invasion of Afghanistan would not have happened

c) invasion of Iraq would not have happened

d) rift with allies would not have happened

e) chinese plane take-down would not have happened

f) North Korea would still have been in the process of disarming nukes and normalizing relations with the South and with us.

g) I/P peace process would not have been shelved for 18 months and the US would not be a rubber stamp to Likud's fascism

Almost NOTHING would have been the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Okay...

a) 9/11 wouldn't have happened is very iffy. Military intervention afterwords is a given no matter who's president. You get attacked you attack back, it's that simple. Remember nearly everybody supported the War on Terror and I still would support it fully if it weren't being run by idiots.

b) See above, the Taliban was harboring the terrorists who attacked us. Bush even gave them a choice to turn them over to us.

c) I think there's so many if's that this one can't even be debated

d) Agreed

e) please explain

f) Agreed

g) Agreed

[hang a left]

19. Really! Listen bub, not only is the propaganda

incessant, but unprecedented. It is like there are in such a hurry, for whatever the overall scheme is. There isn't a day that goes buy that I log on to read the news, and go to DU, and see some new in your face, incredible story. Today for example, DICK telling us about the 500 lbs of uranium that was found and unsealed. 87 Billions more needed and it's just the downstroke. No WMD's found. 9-11 cover-up, I could go on and on and on and on ad infinitum. I can't believe that the American public doesn't get in their face. I truly think it is a test. How much can they pull without anyone really putting up much of a fuss. It is a test for what is to come. No conspiracy here. Lone shooter.

[maggrwaggr]

13. Does Faux News have subliminal stuff on their screen?

I've found there's something oddly arresting and soothing about their screen, those intense blues and reds sort of wave and undulate in such a way that I just sorta want to keep watching it.

Sure there's the obvious symbolism of the flag in the corner and the right-white-and-blue, but there's something beyond that, the look is quite different than that of any other network.

Someone needs to look into this. :)

I work making images (TV commercials) so I'm usually very savvy to this kind of shit, but I can't figure out what Faux does, unless it's just some psychological thing with that range of deep blue .....

Any psychologists care to speculate?

[NNN0LHI]

21. I am neither a psychologist or a FOX news viewer

You will need to decide for yourself. Enjoy your Fox news viewing if thats what you enjoy watching. Toodle loo.

Don

[maggrwaggr]

22. well there's an open mind

don't you think if they were putting subliminal messages on their screen, somebody should bust them at it? Call it to the public's attention?

But nooooooo, you'd rather just not ever watch them.

"I won't lower myself to watch what the riff-raff watches" he sniffs.