Sunday, 9 January 2011


We assume that when we hear or read the news that we are being informed, yet most of it is focused on celebrities, to keep us distracted from the truth. What we perceive as the truth is meticulously scripted. How many budding journalists dream of pinning down a leading politician, only to find their questions heavily scrutinized before they go into a press conference. Slipping in the unwanted question will get your press pass withdrawn and most likely cost you your job, since you can no longer be despatched to cover any leading stories. So, you either suffer the fate of loosing your conscience and comply, sacrificing your principles to become complicit in the lie or you focus on ensuring the celebrity is made aware of their true role in society as a public figure, which is to distract the public and pay the price of fame, ensuring the masses are kept anesthetized by popular culture. This leaves the journalist with the choice of two evils, to focus our attention on the personal life of a celeb, or to manipulate the truth about what our selected political representatives are secretly engaged in, allegedly on our behalf. Surely, this ought to awaken us to the true nature of the beast. A couple of typical demonstrations of my point are the sad death of Michael Jackson,   (re. my website article) as already, some of us have forgotten when he died or who was accountable, and the failure of any of us to pick up on the connection between David Cameron and the devastating floods of Pakistan? When we see a political correspondent reporting from Westminster, our attention is engaged only because of the location. The news they are delivering is fed to them from a politicians press agent. That is the role of the press agent. We've heard the term, "on a need to know basis" before.

The HAARP facility, Northern Alaska
As mentioned on previous posts, Cameron jetted off to India, where he labeled an already impoverished Pakistan as a "terrorist state", just as it was hit by catastrophic floods, killing over 300,000 and displacing many more. The desired reaction was a timely restriction on aid to the stricken region, as the media ensured Cameron's label had already gained maximum publicity, thus leading to apathy and a distinct lack of compassion for the suffering Pakistan people. Instead, the media chose to divert our attention away from the horrors of the suffering masses to dwell on a bunch of trapped Chilean miners, whose fate had already been established as positive. We had to endure an incompetent, sycophantic and unbearably immature Jon Snow getting childishly over exited about the freedom of a bunch poker playing miners. The media then sought to overshadow events in Pakistan by focusing on an utterly irksome and irrelevant alleged Pakistan cricketing scandal.  It was the Haiti effect  all over again.  When the 2005 tsunami had claimed over 300,000 lives, it shocked us. However, it was almost a year after Haiti was hit by an equally catastrophic earthquake that some of us had learned that no international aid had gotten through and that the death toll was over 300,000. "Why didn't the media question what had happened to the aid?" "Why didn't the media shock us by the growing numbers of deaths in the region, as it did with the tsunami? Was it because it had conditioned us to learn to accept such huge death tolls??" "Why didn't the media focus on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez's accusation that the devastation in Haiti was induced by a US secret weather modification weapon (HAARP), which I have already substantiated in a previous post?" "Why didn't the media pick up on Cameron's timely visit to India?" "Why hasn't the media picked up on the increase and acceleration of alleged global natural disasters since 9/11, and that all such disasters have been in the most impoverished regions of the world??"  "Why didn't the media report that almost all the victims  of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans were black and the less affluent, while the authorities focused on rescuing  the wealthiest neighborhoods?" "Why doesn't the media report that each of the stricken regions suffer further devastation because the World Bank hits them with billions of dollars in loans that they can never repay, leaving them in eternal debt, unless of course they repay by surrendering every natural resource they have to the banks?" Why doesn't the media report the fact that almost in conjunction with this, the global economy in 2008 is suddenly hit overnight with an unrecoverable recession by design, causing the slightly less impoverished regions of the world to collapse like dominoes, again forcing each nation into eternal debt to Rothschilds World Bank?"

One thing the media did inform us about, although, almost deliberately subliminal, and upon his return from receiving his instructions from Lord Rothschild at Buckingham Palace, was that David Cameron's next duty as the new PM was to assure Barak Obama that Britain would remain in Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally, I draw your attention to my use of the term, subliminal. The media don't want us dwelling too long on the prospect that such commitments from Cameron and Obama, really means murdering the innocent and condemning many to "untold" suffering and despair.

"Who owns the media?" "Who owns you?"