Archives for posts with tag: propaganda

Читать по русски | Čitajte na srpskom

In previous articles at this site, there has been some discussion of ‘psyops’ (psychological operations) in its ‘civilian’ form (pioneered by Edward Bernays based on his uncle Sigmund Freud’s principles) euphemistically renamed ‘public relations’ or, the corporate form of applying propaganda to the consumer; little different to intelligence agencies targeting populations of hostile states with disinformation. [1], [2]

Each approach, whether ‘civilian’ or military, seeks to manipulate a populace away from their self interest (even survival) to the benefit of the propaganda’s perpetrators. Having seen the greed of Western corporate oligarchs operating within a psyops driven media system essentially ‘legalizing’ what could amount to state sponsored murder with impunity, or shortly restated; propaganda enhanced perversion of law employing a ‘state of emergency’ to authorize use of unstudied, experimental drugs and vaccines on an unsuspecting populace while suppressing a known to be safe, proven to be effective and inexpensive drug, ivermectin, to treat covid, now it’s time to study (shortly) the Russian propaganda machine and open a philosophical question for (perhaps) future discussion; what is the Russian state coping mechanism as put forward in media, and as importantly, why do the Russians apply the method one sees in the Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik & RT?

For those who’ve studied the Western propaganda method, it is clear the Edward Bernays’ ideal has triumphed on behalf of corporate boardrooms. In short, ‘public relations’ (media) is suborned to the sole benefit of the capital/corporate model. Western intelligence has become heavily invested in preserving what the USA calls its ‘vital national interests’, a euphemism for Western corporate control of the world’s resources and markets. All of this plays in the model envisioned by Bernays (pervasive lying to the public while incorporating principles of psychology), refined and applied to the modern media with a robust assist from the USA’s Central Intelligence (to which the NATO and European states intelligence agencies are historically/practically feudal vassals.)

Russian propaganda, on the other hand, recognizes the Western media model is so corrupt, the Russians need only more or less stick to the facts when reporting to the Western audience, to convince intelligent people their news platform is the superior model and ‘go to’ source to discover what is actually happening. Where the story might have ‘inconveniences’ that must be dealt with, ‘lies by omission’ (of certain facts) is a convenient practice as opposed to the outrageous lies more often put forward in Western media.

But then, there is a Russian propaganda method initiating what I call ‘the flip’ where the Russian propaganda skews things along (somewhat goes along with) the Western story-line; to neutralize or even co-opt the method employed by the Western intelligence (modified Bernays) model. In this case, when the Russians run with a Western propaganda lie, in order to ‘flip’ it, it usually is a ‘whopper’ (a really big lie.)

A contemporary example of this would be the Russians allowing the patently fraudulent Dutch Buk missile story (in the MH 17 show trial) to gain traction at Sputnik & RT because the Russians have solid evidence that particular missile was in the possession of Ukraine when MH 17 was downed. That the Ukrainians (independently of the MH 17 downing) exploded that particular missile to create false evidence and blame Russia is not a media war with the West the Russians are interested in. The Russian propaganda approach (flip) is ‘if you want to claim that particular missile brought down MH 17, fine, we have the original Soviet era paperwork showing Ukraine possessed it’, never mind all parties (intelligence agencies) know it was a Ukrainian Air Force SU 25 combat jet brought down the civilian passenger plane. [3]

In this case (at the expense of moral justice for the victims), casus belli is avoided; the NATO propaganda trap of drawing Russia into war with Ukraine is negated but the Russian domestic audience is deceived is a part of the price. Drunk and/or incompetent Ukrainian military can be blamed for what amounts to an ‘unintentional downing’ of the civilian liner (incompetently in turn blamed on Russia in the so-called MH 17 ‘trial’, a kangaroo court) in media whereas the deliberate shooting down of the plane by the recently upgraded Ukrainian Air Force SU 25 could not be excused in the propaganda of geopolitics (or perhaps more importantly, the Russian domestic audience.) MH 17 is evidence prima facie that political expediency drives Russian propaganda. The significant difference is, the Russian model is more often defensive whereas the Western model is almost exclusively offensive (aggressive.)

Whether this immediate preceding justifies the Russian propaganda lies is a straw man argument in relation to the effect lying will have on the sentient awareness of the larger social psychology of the Russian populace; for the fact both models are corrupt. The one cannot excuse the other. Endorsement and application of avenue to a lesser evil nevertheless constitutes an avenue to evil. Any expediency embracing the lesser evil does not resolve the greater evil, the greater evil is not contained over long term, but ‘reboots’ again and again.

“RT is now a global, round-the-clock news network of eight TV channels, broadcasting news, current affairs, and documentaries, with digital platforms in six languages and sister news agency RUPTLY. Round-the-clock news channels in English, Arabic, Spanish, and documentary channel RT Doc, in English and Russian, broadcast from Moscow, while RT America airs from Washington, RT UK from London, and RT France from Paris. Today, RT is available in more than 100 countries spanning five continents”

Note [my] bold in the screenshot caption; RT does NOT broadcast in Russian language except in the extremely limited case of documentary films. What is it this large omission conceals from the Russian language community? Exposure to the Russian state side’s international propaganda in the information wars. Why?

The reasons could be manifold; but there are two instance that should stand out.

1) In a more general sense, RT panders to the Western liberal audience, anathema to the more conservative Russian body politic and Orthodox voter; essentially it should be embarrassing at best, and alienating at worst, were were the average Russian to be aware of much of the material touted as ‘injustice’ by the Russian state in its presentations to the West of controversies concerning Western social/cultural issues. Example given would be what the more conservative personality would take to be [in your face] ‘gay evangelism’ (e.g. LGBT ‘pride’ parades pushing homosexuality in a community’s face & legislation enforcing LGBT be taught in schools) is not presented in a balanced light conducive to protecting traditional (conservative) values, rather the focus is on the (e.g. neo-nazi) extremes of violence unleashed on these people with tepid (at best) defense of the traditional values deserving a more positive light. This phenomenal aspect of the Russian propaganda machine is necessary to attract and keep media personalities on the farther reaches of the Western liberal left and attract a Western liberal fan-base for purpose of anti-Western propaganda (which is not always a bad thing, when assessing the deceits of the Western model.)

2) In this context there is little reason to believe Covid 19 would not be subject to the intelligence agency driven propaganda wars between the Western democracies and Russia. But it is more complex than this. In some respects the Russian covid propaganda ‘flip’ at times resembles an inferiority complex in competition with Western European culture for appearance sake (medical technology/covid vaccine) and what cannot be overlooked is Russian big pharma moves to benefit from the ‘instant gratification’ of domestic propaganda efforts. [4], [5]

This approach depends on lies by omission, a trap-prone approach replete with hazards, in this case:

Falling Into the Trap of the West’s Straw Man Propaganda

Russia is (at this point) heavily invested in ‘flipping’ the West’s covid propaganda; as it touts the (oligarch enriching) Sputnik V vaccine. In the geopolitical world of vaccine propaganda, there are concealed ‘lesser evil’ taints in regards to what is safer, more effective or more widely available to poorer or otherwise disadvantaged populations and nation-states. The Chinese employed the ‘classic’ dead virus method in creation of their vaccine, the safest and most responsible vaccine route, the Russians employ Adenovirus method that has some track record in combating disease in humans, whereas the Western states are massively killing people (driving the pandemic) with big pharma greed driven EUA (emergency use authorizations) experimental mRNA technology that causes the virus to mutate and adapt. [6], [7]

What is the Difference Between the mRNA and Adenovirus Vaccines?

The key difference between mRNA and adenovirus vaccine is that mRNA vaccines usually consist of a copy of mRNA with a protective chemical shell, while adenovirus vaccine consists of a harmless virus that encodes the virus spike protein. mRNA vaccine is a vaccine against infectious diseases such as influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus, Covid 19 and as well as cancer. Adenovirus vaccine is a vaccine mainly against respiratory diseases. It also acts against HIV, Ebola virus, Influenza virus, Covid 19, Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Plasmodium falciparum. Moreover, mRNA vaccine is directly injected into a muscle, whereas adenovirus is given orally. In addition, mRNA vaccines are easier to create than antigen proteins or attenuated virus. The speed of design and production of mRNA vaccines are higher than adenovirus vaccines.

The below infographic represents the difference between mRNA and adenovirus vaccine.

Difference Between mRNA and Adenovirus Vaccine in Tabular Form

Summary – mRNA vs Adenovirus Vaccine

mRNA vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of mRNA to produce an adaptive immune response. mRNA is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. Here, mRNA vaccine introduces mRNA encoding disease-specific antigens and stimulates the protein synthesis of the host cells to produce antigens. This produces an immune response. Adenovirus vaccines are orally administered capsules that contain live viruses. It mainly acts against adenovirus infections. Adenovirus is a double-stranded DNA virus, and it is species-specific, thus consisting of various serotypes for a variety of species. The capsule of adenovirus is usually coated so that the virus passes through the stomach, causing an infection in the intestines. This stimulates an immune response. Thus, this is the summary of the difference between mRNA and adenovirus vaccine. end quote [8]

Note on the immediate preceding would be (among other things in what amounts to a Western propaganda wars piece, keep reading) this ‘explanation’ neglects to mention it is ‘synthetic’ (lab manipulated-inserted) mRNA utilized in the EUA (experimental) mRNA vaccines. Both vaccines are a form of gene therapy, however the Russian adenovirus vaccines have some background/history of use in medicine for human disease, whereas prior to covid, the mRNA technique appears to have been explored in research, primarily animal research, a Western propaganda ‘lie by omission’ in the article.

By this time, the Russian state is so heavily invested in the covid propaganda ‘flip’ where the immediate takeaways (instant gratification) of making their product appear to be superior (it probably is, although likely not so safe as the Chinese ‘classic’ dead virus technique), together with proselytizing the availability of Sputnik V to disadvantaged nation-states & populations (because in fact the Western democracies HAVE been selfish with distributing their own mRNA vaccines, the deadly irony of this should not be lost on the reader), they’re in too deep to escape the inconvenience of this vaccine geopolitical propaganda war is a straw-man trap; for the fact the covid pandemic could be ended in a few months with simple instruction to the world’s physicians to treat “symptomatic covid” (only) as little more than a common flu that needs a prescription of Ivermectin, and the complex gene therapy vaccines should be altogether unnecessary.

In the vaccine propaganda war from the Russian side, it cannot now be admitted by the Russian propaganda bosses it has been discovered NATURAL immunity (in the unvaccinated/asymptomatic/recovered) is the best overall defense against covid. The Russian state is trapped and cannot employ information that, if it were acted upon, should bless the Russian populace with health & security, and be devastating to the West’s criminal leadership via exposing the liberal democracies corrupt (murderous, actually) domestic mRNA vaccine propaganda efforts. [9]

Essentially, the Russian state has now, with an ever-growing propaganda ‘lie by omission’, become trapped & complicit in what may turn out to be the greatest crime against humanity in the annals of Western civilization.

Russian intelligence should certainly know this and Russians at the top of the political leadership, at least some of them, have to have known these facts for quite some time. How do you admit to the world that you’ve played into the liberal democracies dirty game when your ‘flip’ follows the avenue to a lesser evil that morphs into a greater evil (Russian big pharma & associated industries profits) nevertheless? You can’t. And certainly you cannot admit this to your own people, the political cost is too high. Prior to covid, even on those occasions I couldn’t agree with him, I thought Putin was a remarkable leader. Now, I’m not positively convinced of Putin’s leadership at all. Russian big pharma & ‘friends’ (via Russian propaganda game bosses) would appear to own him. [10]

At the end of the day, leadership in time of crisis cannot usurp the sovereignty of any national psyche (trust/faith based consent of the governed) with lies and a ‘what they don’t know, won’t hurt them’ (lies by omission) rationale and expect fortuitous outcomes over long term. Setting aside the the external targets of the propaganda machines altogether, it becomes a matter of what the domestic audience consumes will determine the fate of any regime. From the monarchies beholden to the Church at Rome to Goebbels to the Bernays model governing for the Biden-Harris regime to Putin’s propaganda bosses, it should become clear to any ‘gifted student of history’ (one who does not suffer the myopia of ethno-centric bias) in position of leadership, that one cannot lie to ones’ own people and ultimately expect positive outcomes. Western civilization hasn’t seen this honest ethic for a very long time. [11], [12]

Five Top Russian ‘propaganda flips’

Covid 19


Death of Bin Ladin

MH 17

Julian Assange


Special Note: Growing Indisputable Evidence; Uttar Pradesh, India. 200 Million People. Down to 17 New Covid Cases daily. 14 Straight Weeks of Downward Trend in Covid Infections. Just Over 400 Total Active Infections. What’s the Other Story Here? Ivermectin is Responsible











[10] see links at [4] & [5]




Covid 19


A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.


“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi


Critical reading to understand nearly all of mainstream media and a good portion of ‘alternative’ media. Arguably, Edward Bernays has done as much to destroy the human spirit in society, in just a few short generations, as the church at Rome had accomplished in two millennia.

Original paper* provided by a contact at Georgetown University, in Washington, DC. Author’s name withheld by request-

Although often taken with a sinister connotation in modern usage, the original meaning of the word propaganda is better described today by the swath of professions encompassing the field of Public Relations. Lobbyists, marketing professionals, media consultants, political pundits, and public affairs liaisons, are just a few examples of the modern professions that have become critical to the success of any organization that must navigate the unsure waters of public opinion.

As the profession of public relations has grown and diversified, the language it uses to describe itself has diversified as well; what would have been called propaganda a century ago is now message management, product marketing, promotional advertising, press releases, off the record, official statements, and most recently; spin. What unites these terms is a focused attempt at capturing the public interest towards some broader goal; sales of a particular product, support for a political candidate, advancement of a religious ideology, or the systematic violation of basic human rights.

Public Relations as a profession and field of study rose to prominence in the U.S. following the success of the Committee on Public Information (“CPI”), commonly known as the Creel Commission, an agency of the federal government established and then later dismantled by President Woodrow Wilson to build public support and enthusiasm for U.S. participation in World War 1. Widely seen as extremely successful, the efforts of the CPI caught the attention of business and political leaders who began to turn to the newly developed concept of a Public Relations Counsel for assistance in manipulating public interest.

As a member of the Creel Commission, Edward Bernays developed the skills he would later use to launch the field of public relations as a professional discipline. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter called Edward Bernays and his contemporary and competitor, Ivy Lee, “professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of foolishness, fanaticism and self interest.” Edward Bernays in particular deserves credit for much of the intellectual roots of modern public relations as his academic writings still encompass much of the theory in use today.

As a founding and vocal member of the public relations profession, Bernays lays out ethical guidance for the professional that is fraught with subjectivity and dangerously broad:

“The profession of public relations counsel is developing for itself an ethical code which compares favorably with that governing the legal and medical professions. In part, this code is forced upon the public relations counsel by the very conditions of his work. While recognizing, just as the lawyer does, that everyone has the right to present his case in its best light, he nevertheless refuses a client whom he believes to be dishonest, a product which he believes to be fraudulent, or a cause which he believes to be antisocial. One reason for this is that, even though a special pleader, he is not dissociated from the client in the public’s mind. Another reason is that while he is pleading before the court—the court of public opinion—he is at the same time trying to affect that court’s judgments and actions. In law, the judge and jury hold the deciding balance of power. In public opinion, the public relations counsel is judge and jury, because through his pleading of a case the public may accede to his opinion and judgment.”

The ethical basis that under-girds the profession of public relations as put forth by Bernays contains no reference to any known or accepted ethical theory beyond a tepid comparison with the medical and legal professions. When taken collectively Bernays arguments for the ethical basis of the field of public relations represents at best a loosely utilitarian ethic; grounded only in self-interest and the maintenance and furthering of a career in public relations.

A comparison of the ethical foundation of the legal profession with that of public relations is dubious at best. As he notes himself, Edward Bernays argument glosses over perhaps the most critical difference; that in a court of law, or any legal proceeding for that matter, there is some impartial third party ensuring that the “spin” being put on the facts maintains some subjective basis in reality. The framework offered by Bernays contains no impartial third party keeping the PR man honest beyond the ability of his conscience to weigh his own self-interest and those of his clients against the greater public good.

His comparison does not compare favorably with the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm” that under-girds the ethical framework of the medical establishment; instead the only criteria for adherence to this code are that the PR professional have some level of belief in the product/service/initiative being promoted, and that he or she avoid tainting their public good name by association with fraudulent products or antisocial purposes.

The parallels Bernays draws between the ethical codes of the legal and medical communities with public relations is without merit because these professions are subject to strict codes of conduct that often carry legal and professional consequences if not strictly adhered to; this is not the case with public relations. The profession of public relations has no such governing body that determines the ethical grounding of a PR initiative beyond public acceptance of the position being offered. Instead of a strictly codified set of rules his ethical framework simply calls upon the PR professional to use his or her own subjective judgment in determining whether or not a particular course of action is ethical.

Bernays argued that effective mass communication is of critical importance to the proper functioning of a democratic society:

“Whatever of social importance is done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” 

According to Bernays, the right to petition others to adopt a favorable viewpoint is central to the function of a free and open society and accordingly the effective use of public relations is the grease that allows the wheels of democracy to turn; where persuasion and guile has usurped raw authority as the prime impetus for social action of any kind, whether it be corporate, government, or private interests at stake.

The “engineering of consent” according to Bernays is required in a free society to direct and form the public support required to accomplish any goal; this is, he argues, because the average citizen is individually and collectively mentally ill equipped to grasp let alone make intelligent choices regarding the intricate issues that face leaders of any kind within a modern society.

That an enlightened educated and well informed public is critical to the success of a democratic and free people was highlighted by Thomas Jefferson as a prerequisite for this form of government:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without
information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

In making his case for the necessity of public relations Bernays explicitly questions one of the important arguments used in furthering democratic forms of government and one explicitly labeled as critical to those ends by many of the founding fathers of the United States. The constitutional protections afforded a free press and the rights to free speech were not envisaged as a freedom to spin and manipulate by the founding fathers. But rather as protection against interference with the unfettered ability of the public to disseminate the facts surrounding government policy and government action; that given access to these facts citizens could decide for themselves the just or unjust nature of government.

The behavior of US Citizens, who enjoyed particularly high literacy rates relative to the rest of the world at the time he wrote Propaganda, brought Bernays to an entirely different conclusion:

“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.”

For Bernays the idea of an enlightened and informed citizenry capable of making intelligent and informed decisions constitutes is little more than a pretty sentiment.

Access to these “rubber stamps” is required when initiating action of any kind in need of a broad base of public support and according to Bernays the public intellect is the last place in which access to them will be found. Bernays argues that propaganda is most effective when directed by scientific (e.g. empirically proven mainly psychological) methodologies aimed at manipulating the emotions, prejudices, preconceptions, social relationships, and unconscious habits of the target audience to bring about a change in or the adoption of a particular viewpoint or call to action.

Bernays then asserts that information is power and that those who can manipulate the modern machinery of communication, which is primarily a conduit for the flow of information, can manipulate society as a whole. That financial means gives access to outsized influence over a free and democratic society is a basic premise put forth by Bernays in making the case for public relations as a profession. The confluence of financial means with power over information constitutes what Bernays calls an “invisible government” that arises informally around those with influence over and access to information either through means of keen intellect, prominent position, or sheer financial muscle. He argues that this unseen influence, enabled largely through the skillful exploitation and manipulation of information, is what provides a free society with a stable ruling class absent the strict hierarchical authority structure in other less free forms of human governance.

It is the job of this informal and amorphous “invisible government” comprised of overlapping spheres of influence, intellect, and financial clout to make important decisions on matters pertaining to the public good. Once these decisions have been made it is the job of the PR professional to go about scientifically and methodically deconstructing if public support can be obtained for the measure under consideration. Focus groups, market research, surveys, and public opinion polling are modern examples of this scientific deconstruction at work.

If the plan under consideration is deemed sellable, a process of what amounts to a professional and very thorough scientific manipulation of the target population is undertaken in an effort to win public support for an idea, program, goal, election candidate, or genocide. This process features at its center an appeal to the irrational meant to move a target audience in a chosen direction through indirect, i.e. manipulative, means; via an appeal to the intellect and understanding of the audience. Consequently the ultimate measure of success in public relations is achieving movement in the desired direction without the subject even being consciously aware of his or her shift in perception.

When viewed collectively Bernays’ argument for the necessity and place of public relations within a democracy results in at best a form of enlightened despotism; where those in key positions of influence decide on matters of import and turn to the public relations profession to win public support through manipulation and guile rather than an informed conversation with an involved citizenry.

When consent is engineered through these methods the end result is artificial; something that did not previously exist or come about organically and is not natively integrated with the host population has been unleashed via overt manipulation. The end result of is often catastrophic and unpredictable for the subjects of these machinations. This is at the heart of what makes Bernays vision of public relations ethically dubious and antithetical to the function of a democratic and free people; he denies the average citizen true franchise and attributes to a lack of intellect the universal human response to strong visual, emotional, and psychological stimuli.

Extreme examples of evil such as Goebbels use of Bernays writings in Nazi Germany to build support for the persecution and eventual extermination of the Jews or the demonizing of Bosnian Croats and Muslims by the Milosevic regime are rare examples of accountability. The events perpetrated by these individuals and their accomplices within media and government illustrate exactly how dangerous it can be to engage in the mass manipulation of society through the use of Bernays style public relations tactics.

Lesser transgressions in spin are generally overlooked or labeled as “reasonable people can disagree”; the rampant and overt consent engineering directed at the American public by the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war is a good example of this slippery dynamic. Bernays emphasizes the use of facts as central to the effective use of public relations tactics; he held that facts when coupled with the proper packaging and directed at the emotional/psychological aspect of man was the most effective means of procuring public support for any endeavor.

The selective use of facts by the Bush administration in Iraq represents a textbook employment of Bernays public relations methods . The invocation of a “mushroom cloud” as the smoking gun that would attend the failure to contain the regime of Saddam Hussein resonated with a US population steeped in Cold War imagery of an atomic holocaust and primed for action following the traumatic events of September 11th 2001. As Bernays advocated; an appeal to emotion, fear, the irrational and subconscious enabled by the selective use of facts paired with an interpretation geared towards a specific outcome was an effective means of gaining public support for preemptive war.

The coupling of overtly manipulative tactics aimed at what Bernays cousin and mentor Sigmund Freud called the “irrational nature of man” with an outlook that views collective humanity with a degree of intellectual contempt has set the tone for a century of public relations practices. This unfortunate precedent permeates modern public relations and it is my belief that it is contributing at a fundamental level to the increase in public distrust and disillusionment with large powerful organizations of any kind, be they government, private, commercial, non-profit, religious, or secular.

The pervasive use of public relations tactics as embodied by Edward Bernays becomes particularly problematic when in unholy trifecta with the National Defense and National Intelligence communities. The overtly manipulative practices advocated by Bernays can, and in a free society should, only be contradicted by complete access to the facts used to formulate the position being put forth for public consumption. This crossroads of secrecy and a culture pervaded by public relations and the temptation to and acceptance of “spin” as a viable way out of difficult decisions leaves the average citizen not only in the dark about the behavior of the US defense and intelligence establishments but government as a whole.

Given that the defense and intelligence communities under current laws retain the right to classify information for decades if not indefinitely this leaves the average US Citizen in a position of enforced ignorance with regards to the actions of his or her government in contemporary matters of national defense and intelligence collection. Without access to the facts surrounding a given issue the citizen is completely at the mercy of the consent engineer; whose job it is to steer them in a chosen direction through manipulation and guile on behalf of those who purportedly know and are better equipped to understand the issues at hand.

When the source of engineered consent is the government of the United States which wields more financial muscle and informational might than any other single entity in existence little can be done to forestall these tactics when the facts that would illuminate falsehood, artificiality, and bias are closely guarded secrets. Bernays argument for the necessity of public relations within a democracy is shockingly undemocratic because it undercuts the very heart of what constitutes a free and open society and does so through the use of covert and overt manipulation. His argument for the place of public relations within a modern society would reduce the average citizen to an emotional punching bag subject to the constant manipulation of public relations personnel; whose job it is to stimulate in the herd the proper and needed response.

The pervasive nature of public relations in modern society is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where constant appeals to base instinct and emotion from every conceivable direction are creating a fishbowl of lies in which the American people swim; robbed of the intellectual capacity to make intelligent choices as informed citizens because they are not at the most basic level being allowed to participate.

Examples of this dynamic are found in the deposing of legitimately elected leaders in foreign countries on behalf of US economic interests in places like Guatemala, where United Fruit’s banana monopoly was under threat; or in Iran where the duly elected president Mohammed Mossadeq promised to nationalize the oil industry which was perceived as a threat to US and European economic interests.

In both of these examples public relations tactics were used to spin US actions in these countries as primarily geared toward undercutting the communist threat posed by an expansive Soviet Union during the cold war. This artificiality was spun from the cloth of Edward Bernays public relations playbook and left the public in large part ignorant of the full scope of US interests in deposing legitimately elected foreign leaders. US actions in foreign coups were justified nearly completely on the basis of covert action against Soviet expansion during the cold war. After the fact examination of these incidents has revealed the artificiality of the justifications at issue, but this is far too late to effect policy decisions that have been the source of substantial blow-back for the US in both Latin America and the Middle East.

Unless coupled with full and contemporaneous access to the facts under-girding the policy position being pursued, the use of manipulative public relations tactics that play to the base instincts of a population is unethical to a truly free democratic society. These tactics when used by the government of that society to engineer outcomes outside of full public view is when the practice become not only unethical but abhorrent and smacks uncomfortably of paternalistic despotism.

The relative frequency with which the US public is bombarded with cryptic warnings and carefully packaged statements supporting activities from raw intelligence collection, to unmanned drone strikes, and even outright invasions serves to indicate that these tactics are thriving even today. With the death of Osama Bin Laden the national defense establishment has been busily constructing a strong justification for massive investments in “cyber warfare” technologies as the next profit maker as the war on terror cooled down (but since reheated with policies resulting in the rise of IS.) This effort is showing many of the same signs of consent engineering that are evident after the fact when examining the Bush Administration effort to sell the public and world at large on preemptive war in Iraq.

Perhaps in addition to being known as the father of public relations Edward Bernays also deserves some substantial credit for popularizing the “sheeple” or people as sheep argument; that as a collective humans are no more capable of processing complex ideas than a herd of domesticated animals. Subtle variations on this argument are often used to defend the status quo in our national policies where only those with access to restricted information are allowed, at a functional level, to make critical decisions in these areas. This in and of itself would not be a problem if decoupled from an approach to public relations that relies on fear and manipulation rather than an appeal to the intellect and an attempt to expand the understanding of the American people with regards to the issue under consideration. The widespread use of manipulative public relations tactics on behalf of the US Government when directed towards its own people will continue to be a blatantly unethical violation of the spirit of, if not the letter of, the intent our founding fathers had in drafting the documents that form the basis of our political tradition.

When viewed in this light the modern field of public relations as it is currently practiced is ethically fraught through the use of dubious tactics of manipulation and guile even when the public has access to the facts at hand. Without full and contemporaneous access to the factual basis undergirding a government sponsored consent engineering, effort the modern practice of public relations represents a real and persistent threat to free and democratic forms of governance that place the accountability of the rulers in the hands of the ruled.

This is because without access to the complete informational picture used to formulate particular government policy the citizen is denied franchise through an inability to discern spin and fear mongering from fact and legitimate existential threat. This enforced ignorance ensures that a propagation of the status quo will necessarily result in a population ill prepared to make tough decisions in a complex world, as they have been shut out of the real conversation.

Jefferson amongst other founding fathers of the United States held that an enlightened and informed citizenry is the only safekeeping afforded the liberties, freedoms, and property of a democratic society.

Edward Bernays turns this argument on its head and gives shockingly little credit to the ability of the average citizen to decide for themselves the best course of action in a given situation, and in so doing sows the seeds of demagoguery and despotism achieved through power, financial means, and the skillful manipulation of information directed at herding the public in a desired direction.

From the standpoint of utilitarian ethics, in a true democracy, only the people are allowed to decide what is in their own best interest; and this is a premise Bernays explicitly rejects; it would seem many of Bernays’ contemporary intellectual heirs see it his way too.

* paper’s citations omitted

Read Edward Bernays “Propaganda” online HERE

Alternative link HERE


Robert Parry’s false flag journalism is classic example of professionally engineered disinformation; utilizing method that attacks false narrative with alternative false narrative:

Spreading the Left’s Anti-Federalist Urban Legend

Poison Fruit Supports the official 9/11 narrative (and more)

Poison Fruit Encore 1 Flight MH-17 disinformation

Poison Fruit Encore 2 Flight MH-17 disinformation (and more)

Poison Fruit Encore 3 On Robert Parry’s Iran-Contra reporting

The CIA And Nonviolent Resistance

The outstanding questions are, how this came about, and especially the extent to which Robert Parry is knowingly complicit; or that is to ask, are Parry’s claimed ‘sources’ manipulating him, or is he taking prepared scripts? Although I cannot rule out the possibility Parry is in denial and consequently ripe for being unwittingly manipulated, this seems unlikely. I am strongly of the opinion he is knowingly pushing out scripted material.

In espionage there are three basic means (and several possible combinations thereof) to penetrate and/or use a hostile organization or movement to one’s advantage:

1)  Turning an employee or activist/journalist through some means such as intimidation, blackmail, sex, bribery or appeal to a psychological weakness such as working on someone’s conscience or ideology and convince them to become your organization’s asset (agent/traitor)

2)  Placing your own officer within the organization or dissident movement as an employee or activist (spy)

3) Using psychology and disinformation to convince a movement or organization’s staff to work to your advantage and/or commit acts against its own interests (false flag/sale)

My take is, Robert Parry’s work within the so-called ‘alternative media’ and ‘dissident’ movements profile as a probable category 1) with Ray McGovern playing supportive role of 2) in combination with 3)

Robert Parry had crossed one of the most evil and powerful men on the planet, George H.W. Bush, with his reporting on the 1980 October Surprise. You typically don’t pull something like that off and live to tell. My hypothesis is, Robert Parry’s is a case where the George H.W. Bush criminal cabal (integrated to the CIA’s clandestine services) had managed to turn him, with blackmail and/or threats, into a CIA asset.

One purpose Robert Parry serves, in common with players Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, is to draw attention away from the central core of the corruption and its minions behind empire; that is the several cells of an exclusive club within the western intelligence agencies:

Sociopaths & Democracy

Their purpose is pointing people away from this hyper-right-wing Christian religious club’s coup at the Pentagon and related intelligence agency cells responsible for a metastasized GLADIO false-flag terror apparatus spread via ‘democracy’ throughout the globe. Former Pentagon liaison to the CIA, Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, had labeled this deep state cult ‘The Secret Team’ and described it as a “new religion.” Investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet has documented the related Doug Coe cult extensively. Seymour Hersh and more have touched on it. It has both Catholic & Protestant chapters that overlap with Opus Dei and Assemblies of God (and other sects.) This endeavor had begun in the 1930s with Hitler sympathetic-religious businessmen, bankers & armaments industry personalities (overlapping with spy agencies) organized into cells based on intelligence security model. Their immediate post WW II rescue of the  3rd Reich intelligence apparatus, subsequently integrated to the several western democracies intelligence agencies, is the prima facie cause behind, and evolved to the present, covert rule over our nations and lives.

The goal of an elite, weaponized (Nazi inspired) Christian hierarchy usurping western democratic institutions (an international endeavor based in powerful corporate board interests integrated to our most powerful law enforcement, intelligence agency and military personalities) is nearly within reach for what amounts to a self-annointed extreme Christian religious cult-international criminal syndicate. That goal is rule by corporations guided by a global Christian-cult ‘chosen’ elite.

On the political and intelligence sides, initial key players were Allen and John (Foster) Dulles:

The Dulles brothers were traitors -Justice Arthur Goldberg

Subsequent ‘annointed’ leaders have been George Herbert Walker Bush; who in turn mentored Robert Gates, Gates was a shepherd minding George W. Bush & subsequently played baby sitter to Barack Obama. Gates bowed out and handed affairs to David Petraeus who’s tenure became complicated for undisclosed reasons (never mind the ‘affair’ cover story) and had to hand off the responsibility to John Brennan who may or may not have had his successor chosen to now.

Alternative media ‘cult personalities’ such as Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange, all serve to divert attention away from this necrotic phenomena-



A spy versus spy episode


a Ronald Thomas West assessment


CIA veteran Melvin Goodman on David Ignatius: “The mainstream media’s apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency”

Glenn Greenwald on David Ignatius: “The CIA’s spokesman at The Washington Post”


Body of Lies

I’d been perusing titles at ‘Books in Berlin’ (an English language bookstore) somewhat absent-mindedly, but noticing quite a few titles dedicated to international intrigue. I suppose that should come as no surprise, there are many CIA and other English fluent ‘spooks’ in town, as well they must have quite a few local acquaintances and it is reasonable to assume they’d be interested in ‘shop-craft’ reading.

I had no particular interest in the fiction side of the game, it is difficult enough to sort through the propaganda and disinformation rife in non-fiction titles, but then a book I happened to glance inside the front cover caught my eye.

“Body of Lies is fiction but reads like fact. CIA officers admire [author David] Ignatius because more than any other writer he understands the nuances of their trade – fascinating” -George Tenent, former CIA director.

‘Well then, why not’ was my thought and I purchased the used paperback Body of Lies.

If George Tenent was accurate in his assessment of the book, and there is no reason to expect otherwise, he’d have done the agency a favor to have kept his mouth shut.

But first, the author. It has been a very long time since quality fiction has been appreciated, and David Ignatius adds to the thought. Though not as cheesy as, say, The Da Vinci Code (a profound disappointment) the quality is far short of classic American literature. It is not so much a phenomena of dearth of quality writers in modern American literature, so much as it seems there is a dearth of readers who can appreciate quality, which sadly is no longer seen in best selling works, we have not seen a Washington Irving in quite some time. David Ignatius is no Washington Irving and Body of Lies is no ‘Astoria’ .. but is better (not by much) than Dan Brown’s cheese that passes for literature.

If Body of Lies accurately depicts CIA covert operatives and actions, as Tenent claims, I should recommend the book as a lesson in why CIA is about as useful to my nation as the folk proverb ‘tits on a boar.’ Other than revealing his taste for crass literary shallowness, Tenent also should have kept his mouth shut because what he authenticates has endorsed:

1)  Cowboy culture and mentality. Throughout, there is a hackneyed and simplistic theme of ‘if we kill first, they won’t kill us’ coupled with the idea ‘what the politicians don’t know (breaking laws, committing murders), won’t hurt them (or us)’ leading to:

2)  CIA operations officers who are culturally so self-centered, narcissistic and vain, there is no qualm felt whatsoever at sending repentant jihadists, even innocents into intrigues, as pawns in circumstance that more often than not gets them killed, to further any objective, no matter how minimal or trivial the gain; attended by the thinking 2 wrongs or 10 wrongs or 100 wrongs can add up to make something ‘right’ for the American people (by a virtually lawless CIA.)

One gets a sense the author/book deliberately cheats certain social realities to promote a fantasy ideology, and one gets this is how a ‘body of lies’ so to speak, is fed to the agency’s fans who worship this author.

The simplistic protagonist is a CIA officer with a ‘conscience’ who falls for the books heroine who does charity work in refugee camps, with plot set in the radicalized Islamic world of the ‘war on terror.’ She works on his head with a principled demand he cannot be CIA and have a future with her because someone has to be the ‘good American face’ with a demonstrable commitment to social justice for the Palestinians. But this aspect of the plot altogether fails to convince because the author hammers on a theme of ‘they all want to kill us’ [Americans] without any delving AT ALL into the WHY.

There is zero honest history presented (zero history in fact, as though it were too embarrassing to present to the reader) of the long time habit of the CIA and other western intelligence agencies manipulation and exploitation of the Islamic world on behalf of western economic models (corporate boards) with deceits, corruption and violence.

In this novel, Murder Inc (CIA) happily runs amok murdering with patriotic spin, while going after Murder Inc Jr (Al Qaida) with no end in sight and no honest attending story line of how we had arrived in this circumstance.

Our CIA operational officer protagonist dutifully follows orders he knows will get people killed without cause, rhyme or reason, repeatedly, and demonstrates little conscience in this regard, if only it might lead to one more ‘tip’ and in fact it is obvious he (or the author) only is capable of caring when it comes to the woman he thinks he wants to fuck, a portrait in actuality of a sociopath (at odds with any suggestion the man has real feelings.) Her character is developed almost entirely on chauvinist habit of perception, what a great lay she should be, and no aspect of her ‘caring’ in the purported Palestinian social cause is developed, bringing across the idea the author (and his fans) are in fact incapable of any depth in this regard.

The sympathy for Islam set in the book is mainly based in admiration for duplicity, and emphasizes the idea Islamic culture is based on a principle of ‘dissembling’, and there is no ‘ordinary’ Muslim character developed in any depth or sense of a sympathetic human understanding (other than admired as a fellow killer in the trade.) In fact the books ‘happily ever after’ ending strongly sends the message there is none, and cannot ever be, any American with Muslim heritage accepted as a patriot or trusted to work honestly for CIA.

Body of Lies would be excellent reading for the ideologically driven intelligence agent who wished to keep his or her head in the sand and promote killing without conscience, all the while maintaining the self-deceit a worthwhile action and patriotic goal is pursuit of western economic domination (modern corporate board colonialism.)

In fact the novel, Body of Lies, is at its heart Islamophobic. It is small wonder the neo-conservative criminal George Tenent has endorsed what amounts to a shallow and ignorant work serving as a propaganda tool as much as anything, if there were to be any useful description of this novel, subsequently made into a movie. The book appeals to a visceral chauvinism, excusing every criminal excess in a guise of patriotism. That David Ignatius is considered to be a responsible reporter on intelligence issues generally, and CIA particularly, points to how widespread ‘information operations’ have been turned loose on the American public, essentially proselytizing naked aggression far beyond buying reporters, as well proselytizing agency personnel:

“The emails also show that the CIA asked the Post‘s Ignatius to speak at a May 2012 off-the-record conference, “Political Islam’s Future: Challenges, Choices, and Uncertainties,” for U.S. government intelligence analysts and policymakers. The invitation was extended in an email from the press office, which said that the conference organizers “would like you to draw upon the insight from your field experience, reporting, and broad network of contacts during the lead up to the Arab Spring to share how journalists sense that major political, social, or religious changes are in the making.””

The tripe Ignatius writes for CIA is clearly ‘institutional’ propaganda-


%d bloggers like this: