Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: "We All Lie For The CIA"

[FunkyMike]

Uhm how is this a conspiracy. The BND was a direct result of the CIA and ex "German" intelligence after the 2nd WW.

 

Most people in Germany know that the CIA / NSA has enormous influence within the mainstream media.

 

Whats next .. will people think that the Marshall Plan was a conspiracy or never happened?!

 

Furthermore Udo Ulfkotte isn't some nobody conspiracy nut... He has been a well respected journalist for most of his LONG career ..

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Ulfkotte

 

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by FunkyMike

[E Pluribus Unum]

17 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

Exactly who's told us to think a certain way? Can you provide examples of such telling? 

Mass media, you might know it as T.V.  The opinions of many are formed based on the information fed through these channels.  Any reasonable person with good judgment should be wary of the potential for the corruption of information being dispersed.  In other words, if we're to be careful with this German journalist or any other source outside mainstream media, then it would also  be reasonable to regard the information being presented by the mainstream media in the same manner.  Otherwise, we run the risk of arriving at biased conclusions, which could open up the way for people to make foolish decisions.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

32 minutes ago, _Alexander said:

Russia actually pays people to post pro-Russian comments online.

Ok guys, I'm now gone to the Kremlin Administration to collect my paycheck.

 

If you don't hear from me, you know what's happened.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

16 minutes ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

Mass media, you might know it as T.V.  The opinions of many are formed based on the information fed through these channels.  Any reasonable person with good judgment should be wary of the potential for the corruption of information being dispersed.  In other words, if we're to be careful with this German journalist or any other source outside mainstream media, then it would also  be reasonable to regard the information being presented by the mainstream media in the same manner.  Otherwise, we run the risk of arriving at biased conclusions, which could open up the way for people to make foolish decisions.

+1 

 

the real questions people should be asking are these (if they have a trust issue with "a Kremlin mouthpiece"):

 

1) Is this really the guy who he claims himself to be?

2) Did he really write for those German papers?

3) Did he really come forward and hasn't changed his position since then? Is he being consistent?

 

If you got "yes" to all of the above -> look for more info elsewhere, continue your research.

[E Pluribus Unum]

7 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

+1 

 

the real questions people should be asking are these:

 

1) Is this really the guy who he claims himself to be?

2) Did he really write for those German papers?

3) Did he really come forward and hasn't changed his position since then? Is he being consistent?

Precisely.  Careful investigation should be done before conclusions are formed, but people today are used to jumping the gun and often accept what they hear and see on T.V. without much thought.  This creates a condition of high potential for the effectiveness of propaganda.

[mudslag]

9 minutes ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

Mass media, you might know it as T.V.  The opinions of many are formed based on the information fed through these channels.  Any reasonable person with good judgment should be wary of the potential for the corruption of information being dispersed.  In other words, if we're to be careful with this German journalist or any other source outside mainstream media, then it would also  be reasonable to regard the information being presented by the mainstream media in the same manner.  Otherwise, we run the risk of arriving at biased conclusions, which could open up the way for people to make foolish decisions.

 

For some that is true but that in no way means that it's a one size fits all view. Just because others here disagree with what's being claimed in no way equates that people feel this way because they were told to do so. That's essentially saying "I don't like your opinion on the subject therefore you've been brainwashed by the media". That's a childish and ignorant mentality to have.

 

As you said, "reasonable person with good judgment should be wary of the potential for the corruption of information being dispersed", which would mean that we should be equally wary of what's being presented here as well. Im wary when I see people making claims and pushing their books, for me that's a red flag. If you have a claim that make it, but if you need to support your claim through your book, then your claim starts to lose credibility. 

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

5 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

For some that is true but that in no way means that it's a one size fits all view. Just because others here disagree with what's being claimed in no way equates that people feel this way because they were told to do so. That's essentially saying "I don't like your opinion on the subject therefore you've been brainwashed by the media". That's a childish and ignorant mentality to have.

 

As you said, "reasonable person with good judgment should be wary of the potential for the corruption of information being dispersed", which would mean that we should be equally wary of what's being presented here as well. Im wary when I see people making claims and pushing their books, for me that's a red flag. If you have a claim that make it, but if you need to support your claim through your book, then your claim starts to lose credibility. 

 

That's reasonable.  I'm afraid it's more than just some that's taken such a sheepish approach, though.  Otherwise, the government wouldn't have grown to the to size it currently is, and exercise the kind of unconstitutional powers that are allowed today.  This is primarily because the majority of people have accepted it.  If it were not so, there would be protests, riots, or even a revolution.  But that's not the case.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

7 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

+1 

 

the real questions people should be asking are these (if they have a trust issue with "a Kremlin mouthpiece"):

 

1) Is this really the guy who he claims himself to be?

2) Did he really write for those German papers?

3) Did he really come forward and hasn't changed his position since then? Is he being consistent?

 

If you got "yes" to all of the above -> look for more info elsewhere, continue your research.

You seem to be of the assumption that other people do not have the same access to additional sources of information and that only you know what's happening in the world and the rest of us have been duped, brainwashed, etc.  Since you seem to be ignorant of other peoples intelligence and abilities, what makes you think anyone should believe what you have to say, maybe you have been equally brainwashed and just aren't cognizant of it either.  Maybe your sources are just telling you what you want to believe and you aren't able to see through the manipulation.  In other words why should anyone believe you're immune. 

[mudslag]

1 minute ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

That's reasonable.  I'm afraid it's more than just some that's taken such a sheepish approach, though.  Otherwise, the government wouldn't have grown the to size it currently is, and exercise the kind of unconstitutional powers that are allowed today.  This is primarily because the majority of people have accepted it.  If it were not so, there would be protests, riots, or even a revolution.  But that's not the case.

 

 

Arguing about the stupidity of people is an entirely different argument, this is about those in this thread that disagree with what's being presented. Which again, arguing that people are brainwashed for simply not accepting this claim at face value is not a valid argument. 

[E Pluribus Unum]

6 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

 

Arguing about the stupidity of people is an entirely different argument, this is about those in this thread that disagree with what's being presented. Which again, arguing that people are brainwashed for simply not accepting this claim at face value is not a valid argument. 

Why isn't it a valid argument?  We all have to pass judgments on everything we hear, see, and do everyday ourselves and with others as well.  Fundamentally, we're all judges, so how can we come to the best possible judgment if we don't even give the defense a chance to present their case after listening to the plaintiff?  And if some, simply by seeing/reading about it at face value has already dismissed it, what does that say about them?

[mudslag]

6 minutes ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

Why isn't it a valid argument?  We all have to pass judgments on everything we hear, see, and do everyday ourselves and with others as well.  Fundamentally, we're all judges, so how can we come to the best possible judgment if we don't even give the defense a chance to present their case after listening to the plaintiff?  And if some, simply by seeing/reading about it at face value has already dismissed it, what does that say about them?

 

Seriously? We just went over why 2 posts ago. Here is another thing you're ignoring, you don't know anyone here. You have no clue the education and level of intelligence that anyone else has on this forum, nor do you know how influenced or not, the media has on others. You can't possibly know these things and as such, you couldn't even remotely make any kind of rational judgement call against someone simply based on a disagreement they have with what's presented. 

 

So yet again, the belief that someone is clouded by the media for not agreeing with what is presented is entirely based on ignorance. 

[E Pluribus Unum]

1 minute ago, mudslag said:

 

Seriously? We just went over why 2 posts ago. Here is another thing you're ignoring, you don't know anyone here. You have no clue the education and level of intelligence that anyone else has on this forum, nor do you know how influenced or not, the media has on others. You can't possibly know these things and as such, you couldn't even remotely make any kind of rational judgement call against someone simply based on a disagreement they have with what's presented. 

So let me ask you this: how much do you know about what they know about this issue that you makes you think my argument isn't valid?  You see, I can say the same thing about you and your arguments.  My first few posts were neutral and general, not directed against anyone in particular, rather, it was a warning of what could happen if we're not careful.  You might want to go back and read it again, if you haven't already done so.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

30 minutes ago, Raze said:

You seem to be of the assumption that other people do not have the same access to additional sources of information and that only you know what's happening in the world and the rest of us have been duped, brainwashed, etc.  Since you seem to be ignorant of other peoples intelligence and abilities, what makes you think anyone should believe what you have to say, maybe you have been equally brainwashed and just aren't cognizant of it either.  Maybe your sources are just telling you what you want to believe and you aren't able to see through the manipulation.  In other words why should anyone believe you're immune. 

I've just had this same discussion with Nik L recently.

 

I'm not going to go over all of this again.

 

And to be honest, I don't actually have to do anything at all. I can just sit back and know that I've hit the nail on the head just by reading your comments, reactions, and attitudes. You yourselves give me all the evidence by showing your very resistance to an offer to evaluate an alternative opinion. That's all. No one is making you worship it like a holy grail or accept it as the only truth.

 

And as always, the real issue at hand is never discussed. It's so much more convenient to throw an inconvenient thread to the conspiracy section (= garbage bin) and forget about it.

 

So who's being blinded?

[FunkyMike]

Reading sources really helps guys. Just because it was posted by ZeroHedge .. which mind you exposed some of the biggest industry scandals within the financial sector just within the last few years. (exposing HFT, gold rigging) and just because it was posted by RT doesn't mean that the authors credibility is lacking.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/why-spiegel-is-posting-leaked-nsa-documents-about-germany-a-975431.html

 

There has been a trove of information from ex intelligence members on Germany's  lack of sovereignty as a direct result of WW2. Book after book detailing the work conducted by the BND and the influence that the US intelligence apparatus had on the BRD and up to this day on the German society. 

 

Do people here really think the Western Allies packed up their bags and went home after WW2 ....

 

Most Germans know how to read between the lines when going through the news. There is even a specialised  word used by the local populace for the censored media that often only tells half truths - Lügenpresse (Lying press)

 

This word has been used for 50 some years now..

 

As for the Author of the book. He has worked for some of the biggest papers in Germany. One of them being the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung.

 

He has pursued important topics throughout his career - 

 

"Verschlusssache BND" - 1998 - The inner workings of the BND, Success / failures and the way agents operate within the digital age.

 

„Der Krieg in unseren Städten" 2003 -  The War within our cities- How radical Islam is undermining / changing / constructing networks within Germany.

 

„Heiliger Krieg in Europa“ 2007 - Holy War within Europe - How radical Islam threatens Germany

 

 

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

6 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

I've just had this same discussion with Nik L recently.

 

I'm not going to go over all of this again.

 

And to be honest, I don't actually have to do anything at all. I can just sit back and know that I've hit the nail on the head just by reading your comments, reactions, and attitudes. You yourselves give me all the evidence by showing your very resistance to an offer to evaluate an alternative opinion. That's all. No one is making you worship it like a holy grail or accept it as the only truth.

 

And as always, the real issue at hand is never discussed. It's so much more convenient to throw an inconvenient thread to the conspiracy section (= garbage bin) and forget about it.

 

So who's being blinded?

Cognitive Dissonance:  People, by nature, will often try to rationalize anything contrary or inconvenient to what they're used to just so that they can maintain that equilibrium, even if it means living in a state of falsehood.  Fewer people actually take it head on and accept the truth for what it is.

[chrisj1968]

9 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

This probably would be better suited in "It's A Conspiracy" section.  Globalresearch.ca isn't really a credible source as it is anti-western, mostly consists of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda.  This "top" journalist is just trying to sell his book, now just a fake journalist and a Putin propagandist.

 

Besides...this particular "story" is well over a year old.

Age(of the story) means nothing. the CIA is behind a lot of stuff going on in the world. look at the CIA's Iran/Contra scandal. I know of soldiers when I worked at Walter Reed in DC, Who guarded Poppy fields in Afghanistan. the CIA is a known drug running operation by using those funds to buy info, weapons and ammo for allied groups. it's so easy to dismiss everything as conspiracy. 

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

I've just had this same discussion with Nik L recently.

 

I'm not going to go over all of this again.

 

And to be honest, I don't actually have to do anything at all. I can just sit back and know that I've hit the nail on the head just by reading your comments, reactions, and attitudes. You yourselves give me all the evidence by showing your very resistance to an offer to evaluate an alternative opinion. That's all. No one is making you worship it like a holy grail or accept it as the only truth.

 

And as always, the real issue at hand is never discussed.

 

So who's being blinded?

Why do you insist on assuming that that no one has checked any alternatives?   And claiming, based on no evidence whatsoever, that anyone is worshiping or accepting anything as the only truth.  You are the one who is blinded, by your own arrogance.

 

The real issue as determined by who, you?   Maybe if you spent less time insulting people, and actually discussed the issue you'd get the results you want.  In thread after thread you attack others intelligence, acting as if only you know anything.

 

@E Pluribus Unum and how are we to trust what you have to say, maybe you are the one plagued with Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

Take your arrogance down notch or two, you may find people react better and you can have a productive, worthwhile discussion. 

[FunkyMike]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

 

Quote

Further details of Operation Mockingbird were revealed as a result of the Senator Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congressreport published in 1976:

"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."

 

[mudslag]

Just now, E Pluribus Unum said:

So let me ask you this: how much do you know about what they know about this issue that you makes you think my argument isn't valid?  You see, I can say the same thing about you and your arguments.  My first few posts were neutral and general, not directed against anyone in particular, rather, it was a warning of what could happen if we're not careful.  You might want to go back and read it again, if you haven't already done so.

 

I don't know how much anyone else knows. I just know that you made a claim that others are brainwashed by the media, a claim that is unsubstantiated. You made the claim, not me, so it's on you to support your claim for which you haven't done. I also showed you why such claims are ignorant to make in the first place. 

 

 

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

Just now, Raze said:

 

@E Pluribus Unum and how are we to trust what you have to say, maybe you are the one plagued with Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

Take your arrogance down notch or two, you may find people react better and you can have a productive, worthwhile discussion. 

Can you show me where anything I posted that was unreasonable?  Or is common sense now beyond the reach of that many?

[E Pluribus Unum]

1 minute ago, mudslag said:

 

I don't know how much anyone else knows. I just know that you made a claim that others are brainwashed by the media, a claim that is unsubstantiated. You made the claim, not me, so it's on you to support your claim for which you haven't done. I also showed you why such claims are ignorant to make in the first place. 

 

 

 

So is propaganda, the use of it, and those affected by it unheard of?  Ever heard of this thing called learned behavior?  You should read up on it some time.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

Can you show me where anything I posted that was unreasonable?  Or is common sense now beyond the reach of that many?

Your remark about Cognitive Dissonance was, IMO, out of line.  You're not an authority.  And neither are you about common sense. No reason to be condescending.  And my final remark was in regards to the both of you.

 

1 minute ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

So is propaganda, the use of it, and those affected by it unheard of?  Ever heard of this thing called learned behavior?  You should read up on it some time.

Again, no reason to be condescending.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

12 minutes ago, E Pluribus Unum said:

Cognitive Dissonance:  People, by nature, will often try to rationalize anything contrary or inconvenient to what they're used to just so that they can maintain that equilibrium, even if it means living in a state of falsehood.  Fewer people actually take it head on and accept the truth for what it is.

In finance, almost all portfolio managers fall victims to the so called "investor bias" at least once in their careers. It's when an investor's brain would subconsciously accept positive bits of information and refuse the negatives in regards to the position they are holding, the decisions they've made. As a result, they'd make a wrong decision (i.e. hold, when they should be selling) and lose money.

 

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

Maybe if you spent less time insulting people

You got this right! The sole reason I visit this board is to insult people.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

8 hours ago, John. said:

 

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Just now, Mirumir said:

In finance, almost all portfolio managers fall victims to the so called "investor bias" at least once in their careers. It's when an investor's brain would subconsciously accept positive bits of information and refuse the negatives in regards to the position they are holding, the decisions they've made. As a result, they'd make a wrong decision (i.e. hold, when they should be selling) and lose money.

 

You got this right! The sole reason I visit this board is to insult people.

Good that's progress, admitting our faults.  It teaches one humility.