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


Recommended Posts

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 by FunkyMike
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze
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. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze
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.  :yes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  :yes:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gary7
8 hours ago, John. said:

weirdalfoil_2322.jpg

 

tumblr_inline_ny2zkahumw1tbrtw8_500.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze
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.   (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By eRajesh
      WhatsApp working on Expiring Media feature that deletes media files once viewed
      by Rajesh Pandey



      A recent report had indicated that WhatsApp was working on allowing users to link their account to multiple devices. A new beta of WhatsApp for Android now reveals that the company is working on bringing a lot more features to the platform.

      WhatsApp is currently working on a feature that will allow users to send media messages that expire after a set time. Dubbed Expiring Media, the media sent by a user will automatically disappear from the recipient's phone once it is viewed.



      WhatsApp already allows users to revoke sent messages, but this feature is different as it will completely disappear from the chat with their being no indication whatsoever that a media file was sent in the chat. As of now, it does not look like WhatsApp will prevent users from taking screenshots of expiring media files, though this can change in a future build. There's also no timer functionality so that sent media files expire after a certain time but they should be presumably coming in the future.

      As of now, the Expiring Media feature is only found in testing in the Android version of WhatsApp, though it should make its way to the beta version of the iOS app as well before its public release.

      Source: WABetaInfo

    • By zikalify
      Alleged anti-5G USB stick that sells for £339 costs just £5 to make
      by Paul Hill



      An investigation by BBC News and Pen Test Partners has revealed that a £339 “anti-5G USB stick” is actually just a £5 USB device with a cheap sticker affixed. The report came after a member of Glastonbury Town Council’s 5G Advisory Committee, Toby Hall, suggested that the 5GBioShield could be used to tackle the alleged negative side effects of 5G.

      The 5GBioShield retails for £339.60 including VAT and you can even get a discount if you buy three. According to the retailer, the device uses “proprietary holographic nano-layer technology” to ward off 5G’s “non-natural magneto-electric waves”. The town’s council committee member, Toby Hall, said in a report by the 5G Advisory Committee that “We use this device and find it helpful.”

      In order to learn more about the device, Pen Test Partners got hold of the product and performed a tear down after plugging it into their computer. It found that the device comes with 128MB of storage and that the device properties were set to default values, which it said, is an indication of a cheap, unbranded device.

      In terms of the hardware, Pen Test Partners found nothing unique about the hardware, explaining that the crystal holder housed an LED and that the circle near the front of the USB stick was just a regular sticker. Pen Test Partners came to the conclusion that the device was nothing more than a £5 USB key that you can find online and said that it believes a trading standards body should investigate the product.

      Following the product's tear down, Toby Hall said that his remarks should not be taken as a recommendation by the council to buy the product. What he did say, however, was that since plugging it in he felt calmer, had better sleep, and noticed "a 'calmer' feel to the home."

    • By zikalify
      Report suggests UK should set up digital news regulator
      by Paul Hill



      A new report - dubbed The Cairncross Review - has been published in the UK today and has called for a new regulator that monitors digital news platforms such as Google News and Apple News. The body would be tasked with amplifying “existing and future efforts to ensure the sustainability for public-interest news” by working with news platforms, publishers, and other bodies, such as Ofcom (communications regulator) and the BBC.

      The report says that the way people find their news has changed from print to digital media and that with that shift, we’ve seen the ad market transformed. It said that with ad revenue moving from publishers to online platforms, the finances of the publishers have been undermined and that this particularly hits smaller publishers. In response to a lack of financial resources, publishers end up cutting back their reporting, which this review believes is bad for the “effective working” of democracy.

      Explaining how platforms such as social media have detrimentally impacted publisher revenues, the report says:

      The large report comes to 157 pages in total but the author’s helpfully highlighted nine recommendations in the form of bullet points. Some suggestions include having an obligation to provide quality news, having the BBC help provide expertise to local publishers, having a fund to help improve the supply of public-interest news, and giving tax reliefs to improve how the online news market works and to ensure an adequate supply of public-interest journalism.

      Another item discussed in the report is fake news, a topic that has cropped up a lot ever since it became a focal point in the 2016 U.S. elections. The authors of the report suggest more needs to be done to tackle the dissemination of fake news, with the report saying:

      It’ll be interesting to see what the government does with the feedback from the report. Prime Minister Theresa May ordered the review a little over a year ago so she will be likely to try and implement at least some of the measures outlined in the report. According to the conclusion of the report, it is not looking to preserve the status quo, or turn back the clocks on the media landscape so it’ll be interesting to see how existing organisations cope under the new suggestions from the report.

    • By boydo
      Update for Plex on Xbox One stamps out glitches, adds interface refinements
      by Boyd Chan

      While Plex for Xbox One initially required an active Plex Pass in order to be able to use the app, that changed towards the end of 2015 when the company removed that restriction from all of its console apps, making it a more accessible choice for the masses. In the interim, the app has received a number of updates one of which included a facelift late last year as well as Plex News, which initially appeared on other platforms last year but eventually appeared on Xbox One this March.

      Now, a new update for the Xbox One app has been released that adds some interface refinements as well as a number of bug fixes:

      If not already triggered, you can manually update the app via the Microsoft Store on Xbox One by visiting the store listing directly. Otherwise, if you've not already checked it out, you can grab it for free as well as the corresponding Plex Media Server software that will enable you to start streaming content from a designated computer.

      Via: OnMSFT

    • By boydo
      Plex brings its virtual reality experience to Samsung Gear VR
      by Boyd Chan

      Back in January of this year, Plex made its first foray into the world of VR after having gained some inspiration from a community project, Plevr. This resulted in the release of Plex VR for Google Daydream compatible devices which enabled people to watch media together in real-time in a virtual theater. However, those who bought VR hardware outside of Google's ecosystem were left empty-handed.

      Addressing this situation, Plex has announced that it is rolling out its VR app to the Gear VR. If the app follows the lead taken by its Daydream app, specific functions, such as "Watch together" will require a Plex Pass, however, everybody should get the chance to try it out for the first seven days of their Plex VR experience at no charge. Plex Pass holders should also gain access to a unique drive-in movie theater scene.

      Plex VR for Gear VR has the following hardware and software requirements:

      Unfortunately, for Galaxy S6 owners, Plex decided not to make its VR app available on this handset due to poor performance.

      At present, the app is not fully featured, but Plex has advised that "Watch together, including Voice Chat on Plex VR will be available on Gear VR within a few weeks." The company also took the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to continue delivering improvements to its app for Daydream devices.