Part - 2
Part - 3
Recently, there has been several articles popping up in the media praising Gujarat, Modi and the developments happening there, while attributing all these achievements to Chief Minister (CM), Modi (See e.g.). The more you look into it, the more it appears to be a propaganda to white-wash a rotten thug whose image was tarnished in the aftermath of the 2002 genocide. It looks like a desperate effort from the part of corporations and their controlled media to resurrect a nasty criminal from neck-deep shit and paint a whole new picture of him to make him appeal to the masses. It's evident even from this very article cited in example from NYTimes. It starts with talking about developments, achievements, big business, big names but switches gear immediately to Modi, talks about Modi and ends with Modi. After all, media can make and break leaders; media can make and break nations. That's the power of media. Further, it's not the people that make leaders anymore but corporations and their controlled media (Nira Radia tapes are simply the tip of an iceberg or the Indian version of a global phenomena). So in such a virtual world created by the media, figures like Modi or any other clown can be the King or the Hero.
Here, Modi is equated with Development and Development is equated with big business/money/investment/
A dictatorial form of government with ample supply of slave labour is the best form of government for big business to flourish. Such a Government would provide them with the cheap labour and resources they need while the people will be constantly kept under the control of the dictator. Dig a little into the history of the world's most treacherous regimes, dictators, tyrants; you will CERTAINLY find big money and big business behind it. So Modi and Gujarat are no surprise. I think that's the reason why the Ambanis, Mittals, and Tatas were supporting Modi for National leadership during last general elections. Perhaps, the objective of these kind of articles popping up in the recent days, are also aimed at grooming Modi as a potential Prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 elections (as indicated in the article), while at the same time prepare the hearts and minds of the people to accept him, by boosting his credentials.
Between 1997 and 2007, 182,000 plus farmers committed suicide in India. This is 2 to 3 times more than the total number of people killed by terrorists in India over the last 2 decades, since 'terrorism' became a menace. But which of these issues does the media hype? The most number of these suicides came from the state that had the most number of millionaires. Just do a simple math on the suicide rate per year. The suicides were a result of mounting debt incurred by those poor farmers. There's no doubt that multi-national corporations and their promoters in India were pushing many farmers to give up traditional farming and take up new forms of farming and GM cra(o)ps which pushed them to the point of bankruptcy and suicide. But the biggest question is: WHERE ARE THEIR FARMLANDS, PROPERTIES OR POSSESSIONS ENDING UP? Are we slowly slipping into a new form of the the age old filthy feudal system, where people's properties/possessions are being systematically seized by deliberately sending them to debt? To cite an example: Back in late 2005 or early 2006, during the time when the housing bubble was happening in America, I happen to come across a documentary which talked about the fiat money system in America and the goal of the money masters. They said, the housing bubble is a trap and it was to hook as many Americans as possible into the trap, so that when the time is ripe, they will pull the plug and the banks will call back their loans. That's when the Americans are going to lose all their possessions. That's exactly what happend 2 or 3 yrs later. They also said that it was designed to wipe out a major chunk of the middle-class and what remains would be a vast majority of slave population indebted to a small group of extremely wealthy people/owners (bankers/loaners etc.). "... the debtor is a slave unto the lender".
There are numerous other examples like that from across the globe. The best source I've seen so far is the book by John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hitman. In a nutshell, it says, The Primary Goal of Economic Consultants who Serve International Lending Agencies is to Create Massive Debt in Third-World Countries"
In his own words, he says:
...there were two primary objectives of my work [at Chas. T. Main, Inc., an economic consulting firm]. First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back to MAIN and other U.S. companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and Brown and Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received these loans (after they had paid MAIN and the other U.S. contractors, of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we needed favors, including military bases, UN votes, or access to oil and other natural resources".
This barely known method of conquest is very effective and yet very deceptive. In light of this, one can easily get a glimpse of where the mass suicides among farmers in India are going. I have even seen reports from Andhra Pradesh talking about farmlands being turned into mining fields, particularly after the death of former Chief Minister Y.S.R. Reddy. What a 'timely' death Mr. Reddy, else you might have been an obstacle in their way for another 5 years. This, I believe, is also true of what the Naxalite hunting in NE India is all about and where it's going. Steal the land from the very people and turn it over to offshore corporate criminals. The people who pick up arms to fight against are branded as Naxalites/Maoists and those activists who stand for their rights are branded as national security threats.
Reminds me of the saying: "control the food supply, you control the people; control the energy supply, you control the nations; control the money supply and you control the world".
Sometimes, it's hard to comprehend the ideals behind a people whose opinions are shaped by the purveyors of lies in the media. So, when the 'great' Laloo was inducted into the previous ministry, there was a big hue and cry from the media, and so the people, accusing him as a tainted minister because he was involved in the 1000 crores fodder scam. However, the same cattle had no shame in turning around and supporting another criminal who was responsible for the slaughter of more than 1000 innocent lives. 1000 crores or 1000 lives, either way, you are left to make choices between two criminals. Sounds like the American concept of 'the lesser of the two evils'. While these crooks, crims and thugs continue to plunder India and be praised for that, leaders who may have found some favour among his people (e.g., Y.S.R. Reddy) die in mysterious helicopter accidents, police officers (e.g. Karkare & his Assoc.) and lawyers (e.g. Shahid Azmi) who happen to unearth the deep roots of terrorism and close in on the real culprits die mysteriously or get murdered; human rights activists (e.g. Dr. Sen) who stand for the rights of poor & underprivileged are branded as National Security threats and put behind bars, sensible ministers who find acceptance among the masses (e.g., Shashi Tharoor) are kicked out of the ministry as quickly as possible; journalists and authors (e.g. Arundhati Roy) who try to expose these are mocked and ridiculed by the barking dogs of the modern media.
Above all, it's a national shame that a country with a billion plus population cannot find one decent man who could do the things which Modi is credited with doing and yet not find himself in the hell-fire club.
Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”
Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.
“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”
And that’s the word from inside Fox News.
Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.
“They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Fox News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.
“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”
The source explains:
“Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining; as along as it brought in eyeballs. But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”
What if Fox News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”
The source recalls how Fox News changed over time:
“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.
“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.
"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.
“For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.
“And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous. Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”
It’s worth noting that Fox News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Fox News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Fox News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.
“It was a kick ass mentality too,” says the former Fox News insider. “It was relentless and it never went away. If one controversy faded, goddamn it they would find another one. They were in search of these points of friction real or imagined. And most of them were imagined or fabricated. You always have to seem to be under siege. You always have to seem like your values are under attack. The brain trust just knew instinctively which stories to do, like the War on Christmas.”
According to the insider, Ailes is obsessed with presenting a unified Fox News front to the outside world; an obsession that may explain Ailes’ refusal to publically criticize or even critique his own team regardless of how outlandish their on-air behavior. “There may be internal squabbles. But what [Ailes] continually preaches is never piss outside the tent,” says the source. “When he gets really crazy is when stuff leaks out the door. He goes mental on that. He can’t stand that. He says in a dynamic enterprise like a network newsroom there’s going to be in fighting and ego, but he says keep it in the house.”
It’s clear that Fox News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here’s what the source stresses: Fox News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.
In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Fox News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform.
Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of Fox News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. And in terms of free TV airtime that Fox News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Fox News paychecks.
So, Fox News as a legitimate news outlet? The source laughs at the suggestion, and thinks much of the public, along with the Beltway press corps, has been duped by Murdoch’s marketing campaign over the years. “People assume you need a license to call yourself a news channel. You don’t. So because they call themselves Fox News, people probably give them a pass on a lot of things,” says the source.
The source continues: “I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”
As for the press, the former Fox News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Fox News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.
“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Fox News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Fox, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists] know that. It’s not worth being Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to how Fox News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.
The former insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdoch’s operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Fox News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.
“That blew me away,” says the source, who stresses the White House’s critique of Fox News “happens to be true.”
“THERE AREN’T ONE OF THOSE, THERE ARE MANY OF THOSE”…Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense
“10 YEARS AND STILL LOOKING…STILL LOOKING…STILL LOOKING…WHAT WE NEED IS RUMSFELD STRAPPED DOWN, A FLASHLIGHT, A BLOWTORCH AND A PROCTOLOGIST. “…Gordon Duff, Veterans Today
In 1977 Elvis Presley, “King of Rock and Roll”, died. Since his death, sightings of Elvis around the world have numbered in the tens of thousands. In 2001 Osama bin Laden, CIA asset and critic of Israel’s policies in Palestine, died. Since his death several video tapes and a string of audio recordings have been attributed to him.
In a sense, bin Laden has become “Elvis bin Laden,” the “King of Terrorism”. However, unlike the real Elvis, whose musical legacy will live forever, the legacy of “Elvis bin Laden”, the “Al Qaeda” organization and the illusory underground Tora Bora “terror-plex” is only kept alive by the charlatans of the military-industrial complex and their media partners.
NOT ANOTHER PHONY BIN LADEN TAPE…
A new “bin Laden tape,” audio only, reputed to sound “something like bin Laden,” was released today. Media insiders have, for years now, referred to bin Laden as “Elvis bin Laden,” a name believed coined by UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave in July 2010. (Corrected references credit Gordon Duff and Raja Mujtaba in October 2009)
“TERROR-PLEX” BIN LADEN’S “UFO FORTRESS”
You see, across the Islamic world, Osama bin Laden’s obituary was front page news back in 2001. His “obit” was in the papers then because that was when he died.
In the years since his death, bin Laden, or more correctly “Elvis bin Laden,” has been a busy boy. The first crude attempts at videos, routinely “found” on the internet by an Israeli group, were laughable. Actors playing bin Laden were chosen like department store Santas. Eventually the videos ceased and Elvis bin Laden went “audio cassette only”, but audio experts quickly debunked these as phony also.
The most recent Elvis bin Laden debacle, one those of us in the media have been dreading as we are tired of writing about this trash, has the long dead bin Laden discussing the fate of two French journalists held in Afghanistan. A few minor inconsistencies are ignored, as is one very major inconsistency, which we will deal with in a moment:
- The Taliban managed to supply video of the kidnapped journalists, but only audio of Elvis Bin Laden. Perhaps the physical deterioration of years of decomposition has made him camera shy;
- The Taliban, warlike, proud Pashtun tribesmen of Afghanistan and Pakistan never accepted bin Laden or any Arab as a leader. In fact, Arabs are barely tolerated as guests, when they “behave”, and then only because the teachings of the Koran demand it. They are not held in esteem and are seen by the Taliban as a nuisance.
As “leaders” or “fighters”, Afghan tribesmen look on outsiders as amateurs, something a thousand years of history seems to support quite easily. In Afghanistan and Pakistan current estimates of Arab strength, a group the US labels as “Al Qaida,” is less than 20. No Arab, especially not one who has been dead for a decade, would ever be allowed to speak for the Taliban.
THE ASSANGE FACTOR
Elvis bin Laden and Julian Assange of Wikileaks have one very major thing in common, both are very “sensitive” to the needs and feelings of Israel. Osama bin Laden, when actually alive, continually berated the United States as being controlled by Israel. The real bin Laden couldn’t order tea without using the word “Zionist”. The phony bin Laden tapes have a “Wikileaks” aspect to them.
- They come from Israeli sources
- They blame America and Arabs for everything
- They call for attacks on America, implying that Israel’s actions against Palestinians are entirely America’s responsibility.
TWO HEADS OF THE SAME COIN
Elvis bin Laden, like Julian Assange, seems to have a powerful “pro-Israel” filter. In continual calls for “holy war”, there is always a suspicious absence of calls to actually attack Israel. Targets are always “America and the West”, even during “Operation Cast Lead”, the Israeli attack on Gaza, which killed thousands of civilians. Elvis bin Laden, instead of calling for a holy war or “Jihad” against Israel, for some strange reason said the following:
Calling Arab leaders “hypocrites”….. “liberating Jerusalem needed honest Arab leadership….It has become clear that some Arab leaders were complicit with the Crusade Zionist alliance against our people”.
Elvis bin Laden then called the Gaza attacks an “historic event and a tragedy”. In place of a the murderous Jihad of Osama bin Laden, Elvis bin Laden called for “devoted committee from the Islamic world to establish an advisory body”.
Does blaming Arab leaders have a familiar “Wiki-ring? Despite Elvis bin Laden’s mention of “Crusader Zionists”, those he holds responsible for Israel’s targeted attack on Gaza schools and hospitals using cluster bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorous, all war crimes and crimes against humanity, not a word about Israel. No, Elvis bin Laden, like Julian Assange, blames Arabs but mostly blames America.
“Crusader-Zionists” are Americans, Evangelical “Christians”, the “Israel-firsters” that Israel lobbies for money, but “throws under a bus” when “blamin’ time” comes. Elvis bin Laden doesn’t blame Israel nor considers Operation Cast Lead a war crime. He calls it an “historic event and a tragedy”. Murder can be an historic event. Murder can be a tragedy. Murder, however, is still murder. Someone needs to remind “Elvis bin Laden” of that.
Our Elvis bin Laden, like Wikileaks Julian Assange, certainly sounds Israeli, but not just Israeli. Elvis bin Laden never demands attacks on Israel. In fact, he never even suggests that Israel bears any responsibility whatsoever. To the new guitar playing bin Laden, Zionism is an American problem.
Assange, however, is far more insidious than bin Laden was ever accused of being. He doesn’t just censor things for Israel, but actively plants “leaks” fabricated by Israel as disinformation. This has been both admitted and widely acknowledged.
Assange lives to punish the enemies of Israel’s ultra-nationalist faction. In America, collecting money for an orphanage, which takes in children whose parents were killed by drone attacks, is considered “material support of terrorism” and makes one subject to immediate rendition. Under this policy, long deemed “legal” by the United States and Britain, Julian Assange would have been named an “enemy combatant” and taken to Bulgaria, Poland or perhaps Southern Sudan for torture or even a shallow grave.
With him would go every person helping him, his “co-conspirators”, not merely a dozen employees at the New York Times, the Guardian and other papers, but his “special internet friends” as well. Anyone who can’t see that amongst his “best friends” and co-conspirators the best of all is Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, simply isn’t paying attention.
Much the same, Elvis bin Laden seems to be equally allied with Netanyahu. If “bin Laden” – albeit a “ghost”, an actors voice on an audio tape or a clownish stooge in Arab “fancy dress” as though going to a masquerade – is considered a terrorist, isn’t Israel, indeed Netanyahu himself, to be considered equally complicit?
Consider this. If bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 why is it that the only terrorists arrested on 9/11 worked for Israel? Five Israelis, dubbed the “dancing Israeli’s for their celebration of joy, later admitted on live television that they were sent to “document the attack.” Of course, the more likely scenario is that this Mossad camera crew was there to guide the planes to their targets, given that they were strategically set up well in advance of the attack, cameras perfectly aligned for either filming the most dramatic footage since Zapruder…
Or were they “painting” the World Trade Center towers with target lasers? Was it something else? 10 weeks of interrogation and they were shuttled back to Israel while Americans hunted for that other bin Laden, by that time dying, his last CIA paycheck uncashed.
Assange, Elvis bin Laden, custom leaks on demand, bizarre threats from a dead man, all have the same things in common. They are two heads on the same coin. Both are Israel.
Assange, now fighting exposure by feinting at attacking Israel, is trying to appear less the Mossad operative by “releasing” stories through selected newspapers and claiming they are secret documents.
Bin Laden, however, remains a mixed bag. His messages are supposedly intended to recruit and inspire real terrorists yet continually advocate only the death of American troops. The even more ridiculous coincidence, if you consider such things either ridiculous or coincidence, and they are neither, is that the same sources who have been caught passing off Elvis bin Laden as real have also released video of Americans being killed by snipers or IED attacks.
Whoever is managing the Elvis bin Laden franchise also seems to be murdering Americans and filming that also. This much is not conjecture. Murdering Americans seems to be the Assange agenda too. An agenda not of peace nor of “openness”, not even of “freedom of speech” emanates from the “Wikileaks Censorship Bureau.”
Two heads of the same coin.
A second independent video and news report emerged today on January 30, 2011 confirming the authenticity of the UFO orb over Mount Zion and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem at 1 AM on the morning of January 28, 2011.
On January 28, 2011 at 1 AM, a UFO orb appeared over the Mount Zion and the Dome of the Rock-Temple Mount in Jerusalem. A video of the UFO orb states, “Two men capture a film of what might be one of the most interesting UFO clips ever caught.
"Witnesses noticed the large oval shaped UFO suspended on the night skyline. At about one minute into the clip the UFO descends almost to ground level directly over theDome of the Rock -Temple Mount. The oval UFO hovers there for a short while, flashes lights into surrounding buildings then shoots upwards at an incredible speed. Witnesses were totally taken back and amazed at what they had just seen.”
View both independent videos of Dome of the Rock UFO orb side by side
To view a video with both independent videos of the Dome of the Rock Video seen one over the other, please click this URL:
One UFO specialist in UFO orbs after viewing this video wrote the following to this reporter, “Presumably you noted the lights on the Mothership near the end of the second video.”
Three questions now linger for UFO and Exopolitics experts and observers around the world
Question #1: Is the Dome of the Rock UFO orb a genuine ET phenomenon?
Question #2: Is the ET or interdimensional intelligence behind the Dome of the Rock UFO Orbs sending an intentional, meaningful “context communication” to humanity by this UFO event?
Question #3: Does the Dome of the Rock UFO event fit the pattern predicted by former NORAD officer Stanley A. Fulham in his Dec. 3, 2010 communiqué that [Extraterrestrial] “Interventions will then accelerate, not so much over our cities, but dispersed over our continents with sightings increasing in duration. The intent of these interventions is to increase mankind’s acceptance of the alien phenomena, so that hopefully, we will be prepared to accept a face-to-face encounter and communicate, perhaps as early as next year (2011).”