By James F. Tracy

The following essay is intended to provide a brief overview of topics addressed in a discussion graciously recorded by Julie Vivier at the offices of the Center for Research on Globalization in Montreal Canada on August 5, 2014.-JFT

Modern propaganda techniques utilized by the corporate state to enforce anti-democratic and destructive policies routinely entail the manufacture and manipulation of news events to mold public opinion and, as Edward Bernays put it, “engineer consent” toward certain ends.

Such events include not only overt political appeals, but also acts of seemingly spontaneous terrorism and militarism that traumatize the body politic into ultimately accepting false narratives as political and historical realities.

Western states’ development and utilization of propaganda closely parallels the steady decay of political enfranchisement and engagement throughout the twentieth century. Upon securing a second term in 1916, the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson plunged the United States into the most violent and homicidal war in human history. Wilson, a former Princeton University academician  groomed for public office by Wall Street bankers, assembled a group of progressive-left journalists and publicists to “sell the war” to the American people.

George Creel, Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays and Harold Lasswell all played influential roles in the newly-formed Committee on Public Information, and would go on to be major figures in political thought, public relations, and psychological warfare research.

The sales effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication. The CPI was not only able to officially censor news and information, but essentially manufacture these as well. Acting in the role of a multifaceted advertising agency, Creel’s operation “examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material.”

The Committee’s domestic organ was comprised of 19 subdivisions, each devoted to a specific type of propaganda, one of which was a Division of News that distributed over 6,000 press releases and acted as the chief avenue for war-related information. On an average week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried data provided through CPI propaganda. The Division of Syndicated Features enlisted the help of popular novelists, short story writers, and essayists. These mainstream American authors presented the official line in a readily accessible form reaching twelve million people every month. Similar endeavors existed for cinema, impromptu soapbox oratory (Four Minute Men), and outright advertising at home and abroad.[1]

With the experiences and observations of these war marketers variously recounted and developed throughout the 1920s (Lippmann, Public Opinion, The Phantom Public, Bernays, Propaganda, Crystallizing Public Opinion, Creel, How We Advertised America, Lasswell, Propaganda and the World War), alongside the influence of their elite colleagues and associates, the young publicists’ optimism concerning popular democracy guided by informed opinion was sobered with the realization that public sentiment was actually far more susceptible to persuasion than had been previously understood. The proposed solutions to guarantee something akin to democracy in an increasingly confusing world lay in “objective” journalism guided by organized intelligence (Lippmann) and propaganda, or what Edward Bernays termed “public relations.”

The argument laid out in Lippmann’s Public Opinion was partly motivated by the US Senate’s rejection of membership in the League of Nations. An adviser to the Wilson administration, a central figure behind intelligence gathering that informed postwar geopolitical dynamics laid out at the Paris Peace Conference, and an early member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Lippmann increasingly viewed popular democracy as plagued by a hopelessly ill-informed public opinion incapable of comprehending the growing complexities of modern society. Only experts could be entrusted with assessing, understanding, and acting on the knowledge accorded through their respective professions and fields.

Along these lines, journalism should mimic the then-fledgling social sciences by pursuing objectivity and deferring to the compartmentalized expertise of established authority figures. News and information could similarly be analyzed, edited, and coordinated to ensure accuracy by journalists exercising similar technocratic methods. Although Lippmann does not exactly specify what body would oversee such a process of “organized intelligence,” his postwar activities and ties provides a clue.

Edward Bernays’ advocacy for public opinion management is much more practical and overt. Whereas Lippmann suggests a regimented democracy via technocratic news and information processing, Bernays stresses a privileged elite’s overt manipulation of how the populace interprets reality itself. Such manipulation necessitates contrived associations, figures and events that appear authentic and spontaneous. “Any person or organization depends ultimately on public approval,” Bernays notes,

“and is therefore faced with the problem of engineering the public’s consent to a program or goal … We reject government authoritarianism or regimentation, but we are willing to be persuaded by the written or spoken word. The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.[2]

Bernays demonstrates an affinity with Lippmann’s notion of elite expediency when pursuing prerogatives and decision-making the public at large cannot be entrusted to interpret. In such instances,

democratic leaders must play their part in leading the public through the engineering of consent to socially constructive goals and values. This role naturally imposes upon them the obligation to use educational processes, as well as other available techniques, to bring about as complete an understanding as possible.[3]

Written in the early 1950s, these observations become especially apt in the latter half of the twentieth century, where the US is typically a major aggressor in foreign (and eventually domestic) affairs. Yet what does Bernays mean by, for example, “educational processes”? An indication may be found by noting his central role in the promotion of tobacco use, municipal water fluoridation, and the overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz regime in Guatemala.[4]

With the advent of the national security state in 1947, secret programs emerge where the people are as a matter of course intentionally left unaware of the state’s true rationales and objectives.

Indeed, a wealth of contemporary historical examples suggest how the “engineering of consent” is wholly calculating and anti-democratic, and where the crises requiring such drastic and immediate public relations and military measures are themselves the result of the same leadership’s policies and actions. The US economic provocation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf incident precipitating US military occupation of Vietnam are obvious examples of such manufactured events.

Similar techniques are apparent in the major political assassinations of the 1960s, where to this day the public is prompted to partake in the false reality that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole culprit in the murder of President John F. Kennedy, much as Sirhan Sirhan was responsible for the death of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

In fact, in each instance overwhelming evidence points to Central Intelligence Agency involvement in orchestrating the assassinations while training and presenting Oswald and Sirhan as the would-be assassins.

The US government’s assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., probably the most influential African American public persona of the twentieth century, is not even open to debate, having been soundly proven in a court of law.[5] Yet as with the Kennedys, it is a genuine public relations achievement that much of the American population is oblivious to the deeper dynamics of these political slayings that are routinely overlooked or inaccurately recounted in public discourse.

Along these lines, in the historical context of Operation Gladio, the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing, the events of September 11, 2001, the London 7/7/2005 bombings, and lesser episodes such as the “shoe” and “underwear” bombers, the engineering of consent has reached staggering new heights where state-orchestrated terrorism is used to mold public opinion toward acceptance of militarized policing operations, the continued erosion of civil liberties, and major sustained aggression against moderate Middle Eastern nations to cartelize scarce resources and politically reconfigure an entire region of the world.

Again, the public is essentially compelled to believe that political extremism of one form or another is the cause of each event, even in light of how the sophistication and scope of the Oklahoma City and 9/11 “attacks” suggest high-level forces at work. If one is to delve beneath the public relations narrative of each event, the recent Newtown massacre and Boston Marathon bombing likewise appear to have broader agendas where the public is again purposely misled.

Conventional journalists and academics are reluctant to publicly address such phenomena for fear of being called “conspiracy theorists.” In the case of academe this has severely curtailed serious and potentially crucial inquiry into such deep events and phenomena in lieu of what are often innocuous intellectual exchanges divorced from actually existing social and political realities that cry out for serious interrogation and critique.

The achievements of modern public relations are further evident in the Warren and 9/11 Commissions themselves, both of which have spun the fantastic myths of Allan Dulles and Peter Zelikow respectively, and that today maintain footholds in public discourse and consciousness.

Indeed, the “conspiracy theory” meme, a propaganda campaign waged by the CIA beginning in the mid-1960s to counter criticism of the Warren Commission report, is perhaps as little-known as Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program where hundreds of journalists and publishers actively devoted their services to spread Agency disinformation. The overall effect of these combined operations has been an immensely successful program continues to shape the contours of American political life and mediated reality.[6]

The present socio-political condition and suppression of popular democracy are triumphs of modern propaganda technique. So are they also manifest in the corporate state’s efforts to engineer public acquiescence toward such things as the colossal frauds of genetically modified organisms masquerading as “food,” toxic polypharmacy disguised as “medicine,” and the police state and “war on terror” seeking to preserve “national security.”


[1] Aaron Delwiche, “Propaganda: Wartime Propaganda: World War I, The Committee on Public Information,” accessed September 28, 2014 at http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html; George Creel, How We Advertised America, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1920. Available at http://archive.org/details/howweadvertameri00creerich

[2] Edward Bernays, Public Relations, Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1952, 159-160.

[3] Ibid. 160.

[4] “You can get practically any ideas accepted,” Bernays reflected on the campaign to fluoridate New York City’s water supply. “If doctors are in favor, the public is willing to accept it, because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows, or doesn’t know … By the law of averages, you can usually find an individual in any field who will be willing to accept new ideas, and the new ideas then infiltrate the others who haven’t accepted it. Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004, 159.

[5] William F. Pepper, An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, New York: Verso, 2003.

[6] James F. Tracy, “Conspiracy Theory: Foundations of a Weaponized Term,” Global Research, January 22, 2013.

Leave a Reply

38 thought on “War, Media Propaganda, and the Police State”
  1. Deceit spurts from war like blood spurts from a knife. The first casualty of war is the simple truth. People are more afraid to tell the truth in wartime because killing is going on, and people are afraid of sudden death. This is the emotional basis of the endless War on Terrorism, which is an ideological fraud from beginning to end.

    A succinct summary of the emotional basis of homicide, killing people, is given by Drew Westin, a political psychologist, in THE POLITICAL BRAIN:

    “More than 250 experiments in over a dozen countries have demonstrated that reminding people of their mortality–activating networks about the fear of death–tends to tilt our brains to the right. …People who are reminded of their mortality become less tolerant of people who differ from them in religion, more nationalistic, and harsher in the way they punish those who transgress traditional moral values.”

    People don’t think so good when we are afraid. So fear has been a constant historical tactic of gangster power. And nothing induces fear like killing people. That is a major historical reason why American power is so homicidal. It makes people afraid to deviate from the conventional ideological deception, and so we do what we are told, and think what we are taught.

    And, as James has pointed out, this occurred before the age of television. In THE ASSAULT ON REASON, Al Gore maintain that the mainstream delusion in the USA is an historical consequence of the transition of print to tv. No, it is the consequence of being ruled by leaders like Al Gore. Who endorsed the War on Terrorism, and Bush jr as well, who stole the Election from him.

    When power systems become old, obsolete, and dysfunctional–and the US political system is well over two centuries old– they lie their heads off to maintain their power. And the lies are resisted much less when they go to war, and kill a lot of persons. People are afraid to object. After all, There’s A War On.

    1. You are completely correct. I would only add that certain people lie their heads off to maintain their power in all circumstances. Those of us who learned that George Washington admitted to cutting down the cherry tree (“I cannot tell a lie, father – I did cut it down with my little hatchet”) and who emulate him in his legendary honesty can find ourselves on the losing end of the axe.

      1. Al Gore allowed the election to be stolen from him.

        People can be afraid to object, but they should be more afraid to lay down their lives and their children’s lives in service to LIES.

        It’s ridiculous when you consider the fact that RFK specifically tore Thane Eugene Cesar’s necktie off before he expired, and yet the utter fabrication that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan had anything whatsoever to do with his murder besides playing the role of a distraction can’t be reconciled.



  3. The no boots on the ground lie is the perfect example of the manipulation being deployed to bring on WW III.

    Suppose the thousands of advisors deployed there already are just wearing loafers to show our kinder, gentler selves.

    The media has taken on the role of the bad cop insisting we need boots on the ground if we are ever going to win. What is winning anyhow?

    Do not believe any poll that indicates Americans want to go to war.


  4. Good points. I’ll respectfully add that the federal government and the U.S. mass media could not engineer this massive disinformation without the complicity of the innumerable watchdogs who supposedly oppose policies promoted by propaganda, who could effortlessly educate the public, yet who instead live the propaganda as an absolute truth.

    How strange that anti-war scholars leaders produce a rich trove of anti-war arguments, some very creative, but always forget to mention that the seminal myth of 9/11 can easily be disproved as a fabrication!

    How strange that Amnesty International keeps exhorting its supporters to promote the human rights of the Guantanamo detainees, yet never shares with them the plain truth that none of them had the mental abilities to take a leading role in the design and the implementation of the twin tower’s criminal controlled demolition!

    How strange that Venezuela’s Chavez spent so many hours blasting U.S. imperialism/militarism/capitalism from his bully pulpit, yet found only about 1 minute to allude to 9/11, and only tangentially!

    How strange that the Iranian government keeps lamenting U.S. military threats over its nuclear ambitions, but has never had the cleverness of launching a public education campaign simply stating that gratuitous warmongering urges come naturally to a government that sponsored 9/11!

    Etc. The list is long.

    The justification of “continued erosion of civil liberties and the major sustained aggression against moderate Middle Eastern nations” by false flags is indeed very disturbing. But truly alarming is that the process of engineered obfuscation encompasses powerful entities whose interests are supposedly vested in destroying it. This is arguably the essential fundamental finding of a superficial analysis of 9/11 (www.twintowerscensorship.com), and perhaps of other false flags also.

    On the plus side, the high count, the wide geographical location, and the astonishing diversity of the watchdogs who fail to bark make the process of engineered disinformation easy to unravel: get just any one homogeneous group of watchdogs (for instance all the Peruvian mass media) to bark, and the whole system may fall flat. But this is another story.


    1. You make some excellent points about side-stepping the fundamental truth of things. Not only was 9/11 self-created and an elaborate hoax, but few have the guts to name it for what it is. At least the anthrax was undercut to some less than satisfactory extent, but the 9/11 spectacle has dominated the scene.

      When anyone doubts it, this becomes “evidence” against the doubter. He’s insane, he’s an anti-Semite, he won’t play along, he is to be marginalized. But how else would a guilty party defend itself. Now that we know what we do about NSA, who is to say that any of these entities that skirt the essential facts do not have some secrets of their own, which hang over their heads like the sword of Damocles? Who is to say they are not subject to threats? The bigger they are (as in the case of Chavez) the less they can be forthcoming. It would not be beyond the capacity of a normal imagination to conceive of the late Hugo Chavez contemplating the hangman’s noose a la Saddam Hussein. He was almost an honorary member of the Axis of Evil.

      1. In the video of James, linked to in the article, he talks about the conference he will address, and his prediction that he’ll be the only one to broach taboo.

        9/11 was perhaps the perfect operation. Essentially everyone must structure analysis of the current state of affairs around the assumption that Arab terrorists did it. That must be the base-line, even for otherwise level-headed people–or they will not write for pay or be invited on television. That postulate cannot be questioned.

        If the quadratic equation is wrong, a hoax, all engineering would fail; buildings and roads and airplanes would all be impossible, or at least always be monstrosities, because the fundamentals of math that make it possible to create such things have to be true, if the things are to actually work.

        So what does it mean when the theoretical world of political “science” demands that all analysis be based upon a false premise?

        I am tired of wrestling with this. But there is no changing it. I have to read, and listen to, extremely smart people who should know better but have absorbed doublethink to survive in this environment. I want to lash out at them, screaming that their foundational premise is false, that Arabs didn’t do it, the secret government did, and that most of the clues surrounding everything that indicates the truth of the official story are planted. But 9/11 is perfect. Lashing out that way indicates to the double thinker that the lasher-out is persona non grata. Toxic. Stay away.

        I don’t know how the audience, in their inner minds, responded to his pointing this out (however he attempted to do so), but I’m sure that they did not agree with him to their friends at cocktail hour afterwards. I wonder what cocktail hour was like for James, come to think about it. Maybe some resent him for being able to get away with talking that way in public, when acknowledging these things openly would spell ruin for themselves. Maybe, just being associated with him makes some of them fear the establishment will consider them tainted. One thing’s for certain: I’d bet that they weren’t raising toasts to him for his courage in saying the things everyone knows to be true, bet few can get away with saying.

      2. You are writing like a conspiracy theorist (he!he!). Indeed, the apparent formidable 9/11 censorship is compatible with the theory that the late Chavez and other “rogue” rulers report to the same Grand Masters as Obama’s teleprompter writers. This is why analysts who wish to fix and save the world may want to attempt to analyze it, in case it would really be a conspiracy, in case it would yield to the existence of a yet bigger conspiracy, and in case that conspiracy would have a straightforward solution whose implementation would conceivably carry historically unprecedented benefits.


    2. Daniel, I thought a good portion of your site had some profound questions that we forget to ask, like ‘are all countries essentially conspiring against their own people in a concerted effort to globalize?’
      However, I noticed several logical fallacies, where you provide an assumption and lay out possibilities but fail to go back and analyze the initial assumption. Example: liberals are complicit because they didn’t expose the right wing neocons 9/11 myth. This is easily debunked if one is knowledgeable of the 2 party illusion and recognizes the system as one.
      Another: why don’t our enemies expose the truth and since they don’t, they are also complicit. This is a scary thought, however a cursory look at our enemies reveals that their propaganda is contorted or censored completely (ahmijenadad comes to mind).
      Lastly, sorcerers? Really?? It’s annoying that you don’t provide any references to your bold conclusions.
      This leads me to believe you are a disinformation agent. This is not welcome in any truth seeking venue.

  5. Very nice essay. I would say that it is all about control. It is about maintaining the illusion of democracy. That is not out of fear of the population, it is out of expediency.

    “Poppy” Bush once spoke of “the end of history” as a noble goal. Some of his son’s operatives in their unintended truthfulness spoke of “creating realities”. It is much easier to control opinion in a “reality” of one’s own making.

    These “specialists” have melded psychology, marketing and communications into a suffocating brew. Indeed the real idea of the CIA was not “foreign intelligence” gathering. It was as a shadow government operation with cover to facilitate the wishes of the elite.

    The public government is a stage play. It is a distraction. The “news” functions as a sporting event designed to engage the audience in the competition between two imaginary forces and their reaction to manufactured events.

    I think all of that is beyond question. The real question is what is one to do about it? Like a magician’s trick, once the methods are exposed it is impossible to duplicate the effect. Awareness is the key.

    1. When you are aware, what then? Some of the players have been so transparent, it is easy to see them for the opportunists they are (case in point, the shallow Mrs. Clinton). How do you not feed the beast? One of the dangers might exist in being what you think is a Paul Revere.

      When in order to report some facts you have to resort to exile, there is a new baseline set, but who treats the revelations as emblematic of business-as-usual? So often the truth-teller becomes the focus and not the substance of his evidence.

      One thing we might evaluate is our own self-interest. And not in the Hillary Clinton way. We can ask where this endless war, American supremacy, full spectrum dominance, has gotten the people, the environment, posterity’s prospects. I tend to believe that the reason we are in the Mideast is to control what one pundit from the Pentagon told me was “the lynchpin” (he meant Iraq at the time), the choke-point for most of the world’s energy. Even if we were to become “energy independent” that would not be enough because “winning is not enough, others must lose.” The only problem is, Russia is already energy independent, it appears. They beat us to it, and their environmental standards (as well as those of China) are so low.

      Our country is destined to keep up the dirty tricks for a long time to come, which 9/11 gave blanket permission to pursue. Reality will indeed be shaped to the needs of the scenario-designers, but every so often, a reality of massive proportions shakes the foundations of such a theater.

      The world is still not fully malleable to the imaginations of the opportunists. “Time and chance happenth to them all.” But perhaps not soon enough.

      1. Musings, looking at Iraq, for example, is looking at one group’s scam. If you see this as a big plan, with many individual objectives, and within that are smaller objectives that operatives are allowed to exploit, it makes better sense (to me at least).

        Things like “oil” or “wealth” are not the objectives. They are the rewards of those who help advance the plan. They want the Middle East fragmented and broken, for example, because there is a part of the plan that requires it. Those affecting the plan are “allowed” to take what they like while they’re at it. It’s their reward.

        Those who supply the wars acquire wealth as well. That is not necessarily a part of the plan, it is a byproduct. Those who control the plan use self-interest and bribes and blackmail to ensure assistance.

        America plays a role, so do all the others. We are certainly not in charge of our own destiny. The government does not work for us. Neither do the corporations or the banksters. They are all running their scams but beholden to the controllers. They are allowed to play but if they start interfering with the plan they are “removed”.

        So yes, we can look at any individual scam, or a host of them, but we are not looking at the engine of this thing. All I was saying is that, if we don’t want to be a participant we have to be aware of how the manipulation works. Beyond that it may help to see where things are heading. In that way we can stay out of the way, for a time.

  6. […] By James F. Tracy The following essay is intended to provide a brief overview of topics addressed in a discussion graciously recorded by Julie Vivier at the offices of the Center for Research on Globalization in Montreal Canada on August 5, 2014.-JFT Modern propaganda techniques utilized by the corporate state to enforce anti-democratic and destructive policies routinely entail the manufacture and manipulation of news events to mold public opinion and, as Edward Bernays put it, “engineer consent” toward certain ends. Such events include not only overt political appeals, but also acts of seemingly spontaneous terrorism More… […]

  7. Obama is changing the War on Terrorism ideologically to the War on Extremism. This rebranding ideologically fits better in imposing a selective despotism on America to replace the traditional American political system.

    Included in this fight against Extremism is the war against Conspiracy Theorists and false flag truthers, as well any effective critique against American power. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I think this kind of transformation is inevitable in the institutional transformation to an American police state, since it is necessary to restrict the internet.

    The first public announcement of this change, as far as I know, was in the Atlantic magazine by Marc Ambinder. He wrote a short, vague piece called THE NEW TERM FOR THE WAR ON TERROR. It was tried out first on the political class in various forms before going public.

    The term was Publicized by the British prime minister Cameron in a UN speech yesterday. It was primarily directed against ISIL, branded as ‘Violent Extremism.” Thrown in the middle of the speech for a few sentences was the statement that “non-violent Extremism,” like Conspiracy Theorists, and 9/11 and 7/7 truthers, ( a suspected British false flag) WERE AS DANGEROUS AS Violent Extremists.

    In reality we are MORE DANGEROUS to despotic power than ISIL, and this war against ISIL may have partially been formulated to attack us. The fact that the entire political class in Washington, and London as well, all mainstream political parties, have been implicated in a sequence of homicidal false flags, requires this to be combated vehemently by power to prevent the people from realizing it.
    It effectively threatens the evolving despotic power system. It is necessary to prevent the people from understanding that American power in 9/11 may have deliberately murdered nearly 3000 Americans.

    That will be the function of the War on Extremism, including additional false flags as needed. It is now necessary for dissident truthers to attack the War on Extremism, the successor to the War on Terrorism, itself the successor to the War on Communism. An unsuccessful resistance has ominous implications.

    1. I don’t know how many realize this, for what it is worth, but David Cameron is a direct descendant of George III, against whom we battled for our liberties. Britain has never had an entirely free press (though it is a lively one) and the common law right to sue for libel and slander is pursued there far more often than in the US with our many Supreme Court cases of the past that upheld free speech.

      The global nature of the internet has already posed problems for top-down societies like China, where freedom of expression is so often trampled upon. In Cameron’s remarks we can see evidence that Britain and the US were once two societies “divided by a common language.” The issue will come up again.

      Talking points by one party or another are one thing. But being prosecuted under speech laws or being sued for libel and slander can move the privilege back from the people to the leaders. Tyranny must be named when it shows its face.

    2. “[…]The term was Publicized by the British prime minister Cameron in a UN speech yesterday. It was primarily directed against ISIL, branded as ‘Violent Extremism.” Thrown in the middle of the speech for a few sentences was the statement that “non-violent Extremism,” like Conspiracy Theorists, and 9/11 and 7/7 truthers, ( a suspected British false flag) WERE AS DANGEROUS AS Violent Extremists.[…]

      The Brits look to take action to stop these dangerous “extremists” from speaking with “extremist disruption orders” if the Conservatives are re-elected.

      Extremist Disruption Orders. Sounds OK. Like The Patriot Act.


      1. This is pretty funny and yet sadly true.

        Would be interested in what the well informed Mark’s thoughts are on this subject. Getting the sense that we were once on totally opposite views of the world’s problems but now are running close to parallel.

        That was a very interesting news cycle, the secret service is doing a terrible job of protecting the white house with thousands of breaches, our leader said the cia did not properly inform him of the threat in the Mideast and thus he had to bomb them, the cia claims he did not read or care to listen to their reports and now EBOLA is here from an African visitor to TX!

        No worries though, it is only contagious after the symptoms appear and those exposed will be found and monitored. Found the news conference, which blocked out one of my favorite shows The Five, to be bizarre. The emcee in charge kept cheerfully saying, and the next speaker is.. It really does not matter which plane he was on coming to America, we are certain he was not contagious then…..

      2. Hey Pat, I have an idea. How about we “tap” in to the EMS system which takes control of all TV and Radio channels and play this video in a loop for 24 hours…

  8. I heard about these ” disruption orders” today.. its going the same way as the USA. sounds like anyone who has views that questions ‘democracy ‘ is to be outlawed.. we will soon have no freedom of speech to ask questions,or give out facts that prove the government have duped the people.. whether it’s posting on the internet.. or gathering in a hall.. non violent extremist, are in their view..the likes of Granny Brown and your next door neighbour who have all the facts about 9/11 and 7/7… will be given a court order..to shut up….!! its just unbelievable..! We knew they were trying to keep the masses quiet..and it’s all happening now… but it shows that UK Government are getting quite worried about all the internet discussions..

    1. No, you have freedom of speech. It is not a grant of a higher power (except the very highest, one might say, from God). Never forget that when your freedom of speech is infringed, the criminal is not you but your government. So often the victim may blame himself. Some victims will put up a fight, some will go for passive means of civil indifference. Contempt of court in not shutting up (cf. Code Pink whatever you think of them, or Cindy Sheehan when she was fighting Bush) is the right and one even might say duty of citizens.

    2. I thought “Phony Tony” was insufferable. Where do they find these guys? How do they remain?

      We get “Obongo the Narcissist”. Prior to that it was “Sparky Bush”. It is all one great joke. They are rubbing our noses in it.

    3. Poppy, that’s precisely how i see it. They are worried that those nasty ideas might catch on. They are having visions of angry villagers with torches and pitchforks marching on their Bastille.

      This Cameron is smug but has the eyes of a ferret. It is truly amazing that they have the nerve to suggest something like this publicly. Outlawing dissent and claiming to be a democracy. Interesting.

      1. Lophatt – Thank you for the comedic relief of where we have been. If there is nothing we can do about it, we sure can laugh on how our hard earned tax dollars spent more on donuts and bagels with cream cheese than the talent for the players!

        Patrick – You go off on these diatribes that as far as I can read, and admittedly it is not long, to subjects not at all related to the article at hand. This, I find disrespectful to our gracious host.

        Someone much smarter than me once stated, “be careful what battles you choose to engage in”.

      2. With all respect, Skirt, if you notice, I don’t start these things–but I’m happy to finish them. I had no idea the explosive emotion my casual aside about Ruppert would set off. But once I was called a liar for accurately characterizing him I had no choice. This came as a real surprise–it’s not as if he were a Lincoln or Roosevelt or even an Ernesto “Che” Guevara, so-called “Great Men” who were truly horrible, yet people today widely hold in almost religious devotion. Ruppert was in no sense a “great man,” just a creepy shill.

        And I believe that I have always been impeccably polite in this forum, so I was pretty much astounded by dino’s false memories of nastiness toward her in the past, and her false attributions of the things I believed and the ideas and people she supposedly introduced me to. It was beyond weird, but I don’t like being lied about, so I had no real choice but demonstrate what actually happened, from the record.

        Finally, she obviously holds some real resentment about my past observations about the emptiness of the evolutionary religion. When she scorned a mention I made about the impossibility of one particularly obvious evolutionary-model-stumper (that she had also pretty much completely misremembered, incidentally), again, I was astounded by the vehemence with which she launched back at me. All I though I was doing was setting the record straight, correcting her false memory. Well, we now all know how much she does not like that.

        Still, even if I knew how out of hand it was going to get, would it be better to stand silent when being called a liar (Mark), and being lied about (dino)? Lots of people read my comments and articles here, and many are newcomers. If I am silent when characterized as a vicious, irrational, attacker, it tells the reader that I agree with the characterization. If I reproduce, at length, the true record, everyone can judge for themselves who’s story is the correct one. It’s not as if I asked for this to happen, but once it started, I had to see it through.

        And if you think my responding to calumnies at the length required to dispel the false impressions they created is “disrespectful” to James Tracy, you are entitled to your opinion. He is an academic, and a very refined thinker, and I’d imagine he’d be disappointed if I didn’t do my best, truth be told. In my mind it’s as if I’m in a graduate seminar under him sometimes, and I want not only to get a good grade, but to be cogent and entertaining, with all respect possible in the process of interacting.

        And if he doesn’t like it, he’d say so.

Leave a Reply