'conceivable' lies, aka corrupting propaganda (MSM; AusBC, crime)

.. even older than Hitler ...

  .. tell whoppers ...

    .. repeat


Subtitle: An opposite of honest[1] is corrupt[2].


Trigger article (an entire comment to BobW's GG link):

Saturday, December 26, 2009 07:01 AM
Well written propaganda trumps facts every single time.
  «William Schaap gives expert testimony on government use of media for disinformation and propaganda purposes.
A must watch.

Comment #1: (Grrr! How I deplore videos!)

Comment #2: Mentioning Hitler here is entirely appropriate.

Comment #3: The principle of propaganda is quite simple - even if (of course!) a bit tricky.


Part of the video relates how long ago now, a couple of CIA operatives sat around and discussed how they could counter Cuban expeditionary assistance in a conflict in Angola. One of them came up with the idea: "Rape!"

They called in the press/PR people, and wrote - purely from their fantasy - a series of stories alleging that some Cuban personnel were raping Angolan native women; how the (fictional!) raping caused uproar amongst the Angolan tribes, then finally Angolan actions leading to the Cubans' capture and execution - with their own (i.e. Cuban) weapons. All pure fantasy, but sent off by the CIA then distributed by the MSM of the time.

In general, it's made easier if a) the lies are 'conceivable,' b) the presentation is 'impeccable' (government/'expert' sources, MSM conduit AND often amplification(!!?)), then c) repetition brings sheople-belief; subsequently d) mere mention of the keywords causes the recalling of the whole sordid story, then e) if/when the truth is finally uncovered and publicised, the sheople mostly reject that truth!


Note how simple it was/is, then think of "Saddam, WMD, Al Qaeda, 9/11!"


PS I see a possible danger; merely repeating the lying propaganda keywords could provoke the desired (sheople) response. Good thing some of us are a) smarter and b) immune to such mind-rot - eh?

[PPS below ->]



[1] honest —adj. 1 fair and just; not cheating or stealing. 2 free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. 3 fairly earned (an honest living). 4 blameless but undistinguished. —adv. colloq. genuinely, really. [Latin honestus] [POD]

honestly adv. 1 in an honest way. 2 really (I don't honestly know). [ibid.]

honesty n. 1 being honest. 2 truthfulness. ...[ibid.]

[2] corrupt —adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. —v. make or become corrupt.  corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [ibid.]


PPS Q1: Do we think that repeating «Iran West nuclear bomb» over and over could be propaganda?

IF A1: 'Yes,' THEN Q2: Why does the AusBC/Barker propagandise us, we the sheople/voters?

Q3: Who allows the AusBC/Barker to corrupt our democracy?


  1. News! Schaap transcript found.

    Get it (<r-click>; choose 'Open in New Window' OR if you want a personal copy, 'Save Target As') here.

    Note: The video begins with:

    «Q. Why is it so effective over time?»

      .. and ends with:

    «The actual shareholder of the company turned out to be some CIA front.»

    It is a gold mine.

  2. An update on a previous item posted elsewhere by a well-known propaganda outlet. I refer to the claims about Iran testing "neutron initiators" that appeared in Murdoch's Times of London. Well, US intel apparently considers a bit of forgery has been perpetrated. A case of round up the usual suspects?

  3. a lie = deceit = dishonesty = criminal [part 1]

    .. we do know ...

      .. that they tell despicable lies ...

        .. and not for any good purpose - Oh, no!


    Preamble: Just like the bad old times; the PNAC/Z cabal, GWBush/Cheney and US/Z world domination - err, ooops! Bush replaced by Ramb-O-Bama ('change we could believe in'), but almost nothing changed at all. Oh, poop!

    Back then we had Iraq; Ledeen, Feith with their "Nigerian yellow-cake," lying Rice's "Mushroom clouds," berserk Bush's "We will disarm him!" What we got was a) nooo WMDs (not a single, lonely one), and b) an illegal invasion morphed into a brutal occupation (100s of 1000s if not 1.3+mio dead, 2mio internally displaced and 2mio more outright fled); US murder for Iraqi oil.

    Despite what some lying propagandists may try to assert, Iraq is a puppet-state, destroyed from without and within. The 'best' (actually, of course, the worst (and most accurate)) is probably this one from ICH/Petras (previously cited.)

    Now we have Iran (also lots of oil); Murdoch, a "neutron initiator" and "All options!"

    G'day Bob, 'nice' article; snips below. (End preamble.)


    From Bob's cited article:

    Giraldi: US Intel Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged
    by Gareth Porter, December 29, 2009
      « ... intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.
    Discrediting the NIE has been a major objective of the Israeli government for the past two years, and the British and French governments have supported the Israeli effort.»

    Comment: The I/J/Z-plex motives are as clear as they are criminal; to expand their stolen Lebensraum (see map in "on the 2nd day ...") and to dominate the surroundings they don't already (illegally!) occupy.

    [To be continued...]

  4. a lie = deceit = dishonesty = criminal [part 2]

    There are a couple of problems. (Only a couple? Haw!)

    IF a regime murders for spoil THEN that regime is rogue.

    Clearly, having one's life prematurely terminated is the absolute worst thing that any person could ever suffer, and the fact that the US&Z rogue-regimes don't merely kill people in small numbers but rather they tend to mass-murder, means that any so-called 'bagatelle' crimes like lying are pretty-much 'small beer.' Nevertheless, the US&Z way to mass-murder starts with lies - as the Iraq imbroglio Oh, so clearly *proved*.

    Try this:

      «But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, ... » 
    [wiki/The Big Lie]

    Comment: It doesn't (much) matter who says what, the question goes to the truth of what's said; one supposes even tyrants can tell the truth. As it happens, the Jews are not just known liars, they are also known to boast about their lying.

    The preliminary conclusion here, is that we are not at all surprised that the US&Z campaign against Iran is based on lies, nor that some/all/the worst lies originate from Jews - repeating; it's a 'perfect' re-run of the war crime campaign against Iraq.

    Now, recall Silber's injunction "Don't argue the intel; argue the *policy*."

    It's clear to see that US&Z are deploying lying propaganda purporting to be intel, trying to build a casus belli against Iran.

    We, the truth & justice seekers a) identify the lies, b) point them out, and c) reject the policy of (illegally!) attacking Iran.

    The *BIG* question is, where are the other truth & justice seekers, the ones who might be able to enforce the laws against illegal invasion, enforce the laws against mass murder for spoil?

    It's clearly easy to delude large numbers of sheople, but clever people will not be so easily deluded. Does it mean there *are* clever people watching these horrible crimes - and doing nothing to stop them?

    What about Merkel, say? It'd be truly amazing if she couldn't see what we truth & justice seeking bloggers can see; why doesn't *she* do something? Bah! Double bah!

    Where are the adults, where is our justice?

  5. G'day ID, following up on possibly dodgy documents and the MSM playing its part, the NYTimes featured a Xmas eve OpEd that paid scant attention to accuracy in its beating of the war drums. This analysis of the piece is large with plenty of links so picking an extract is difficult. Howeever, as MSM reports usually refer to the UNSC resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, here is:

    Therefore, any resolutions calling for Iran’s inalienable right to be relinquished are, in and of themselves, wholly illegal. Paranoid suspicions, demonizing propaganda, and allegations without evidence are totally insufficient to demonstrate any violations of the NPT by the Iran government.

    Cyrus Safardi of IranAffairs, in addition to supplying supporting documentation from the UN’s own International Law Commission and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, explains,”

    Article 103 of the UN Charter says that UNSC resolutions trump obligations under international treaties such as the NPT. However, Article 103 does not apply to sovereign rights and jus cogens. It is a general and well-recognized principle of international law that UNSC resolutions that are contrary to jus cogens are ultra vires and NOT binding.”

    With this in mind, it is clear that all UNSC resolutions that “demand” Iran suspend enrichment and close its intrusively monitored and meticulously inspected nuclear facilities – UNSC resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), and 1803 (2008) – are contradictory, illegal and consequently non-binding.

    Furthermore, Safardi writes that “Iran’s safeguard agreement with the IAEA, and the IAEA statutes, only permit a referral to the UNSC when there has been a diversion of fissile material for non-peaceful use.” Since the IAEA had previously confirmed that there had been no such diversion and without any evidence of a nuclear weapons program, its referral of the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council was, as CASMII founder Abbas Edalat points out, “politically motivated and illegitimate.” Edalat continues,

    “On February 15th [2007], Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-proliferation confessed that the two crucial votes by India against Iran in the Governors’ Board of the IAEA which led to Iran’s referral to the Security Council were indeed the result of US coercion. Incidentally India, like the other US allies Pakistan and Israel, is not a signatory to the NPT and has developed nuclear bombs which is tolerated and supported by the US.

    Because the IAEA’s referral of Iran’s file to the UNSC was unwarranted and because the UNSC resolutions are themselves illegal, Iran has no reason to abide by them and is therefore under no obligation to halt its nuclear program, as Mr. Kuperman keeps insisting

    Not a point made for the first time, but one that if of no interest to some.