Debunked: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media"
- Status
Tsadi
New Member
Well, according to The Science Channel's series "Dark Matters: Twisted But True", Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado had developed a means by which to use electromagnetic waves as opposed to the invasive and indiscreet procedure of installing what he called a stimoceiver in a person's brain in order to carry out the means he discovered in the 1950s of controlling human thought, emotion, mood, and behavior.
And then there's this, from the paper From PSYOP To Mindwar, written by Temple of Set founder and Army officer Michael Aquino, though he is officially listed as co author:
"Psychotronic research is in its infancy, but the U.S. Army already possesses an
operational weapons systems designed to do what LTC Alexander would like ESP to do -
except that this weapons system uses existing communications media. It seeks to map the
minds of neutral and enemy individuals and then to change them in accordance with U.S.
national interests. It does this on a wide scale, embracing military units, regions, nations,
and blocs. In its present form it is called Psychological Operations (PSYOP).
Does PSYOP work, or is it a merely a cosmetic with which field commanders would
rather not be bothered?
Had the question been asked in 1970, the answer would have been that PSYOP
works very well indeed. In 1967 and 1968 alone, a total of 29,276 armed Viet Cong/NVA
(the equivalent of 95 enemy infantry battalions) surrendered to ARVN or MACV forces
under the Chieu Hoi amnesty program - the major PSYOP effort in the Vietnam War. At
the time MACV estimated that the elimination of that same number of troops in combat
would of cost us 6,000 dead.5
On the other hand, we lost the war - not because we were out-fought, but because we
were out-PSYOPed. Our national will to victory was attacked more effectively than we
attacked that of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, and perception of this fact
encouraged the enemy to hang on until the United States finally broke and ran for home.
So our PSYOP failed. It failed not because its principles were unsound, but rather
because it was outmatched by the PSYOP of the enemy. The Army’s efforts enjoyed
some impressive successes, but our own PSYOP did not really change the minds of the
enemy populace, nor did it defend the U.S. populace at home against the propaganda of
the enemy. Furthermore the enemy’s PSYOP was so strong that it - not bigger armies or
better weapons - overcame all of the Cobras and Spookys and ACAVs and B52s we
fielded. The lesson is not to ignore our own PSYOP capability, but rather to change it and
strengthen it so that it can do precisely that kind of thing to our enemy in the next war.
Better hardware is nice, but by itself it will change nothing if we do not win the war for
the mind."
And then there's this, from the paper From PSYOP To Mindwar, written by Temple of Set founder and Army officer Michael Aquino, though he is officially listed as co author:
"Psychotronic research is in its infancy, but the U.S. Army already possesses an
operational weapons systems designed to do what LTC Alexander would like ESP to do -
except that this weapons system uses existing communications media. It seeks to map the
minds of neutral and enemy individuals and then to change them in accordance with U.S.
national interests. It does this on a wide scale, embracing military units, regions, nations,
and blocs. In its present form it is called Psychological Operations (PSYOP).
Does PSYOP work, or is it a merely a cosmetic with which field commanders would
rather not be bothered?
Had the question been asked in 1970, the answer would have been that PSYOP
works very well indeed. In 1967 and 1968 alone, a total of 29,276 armed Viet Cong/NVA
(the equivalent of 95 enemy infantry battalions) surrendered to ARVN or MACV forces
under the Chieu Hoi amnesty program - the major PSYOP effort in the Vietnam War. At
the time MACV estimated that the elimination of that same number of troops in combat
would of cost us 6,000 dead.5
On the other hand, we lost the war - not because we were out-fought, but because we
were out-PSYOPed. Our national will to victory was attacked more effectively than we
attacked that of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, and perception of this fact
encouraged the enemy to hang on until the United States finally broke and ran for home.
So our PSYOP failed. It failed not because its principles were unsound, but rather
because it was outmatched by the PSYOP of the enemy. The Army’s efforts enjoyed
some impressive successes, but our own PSYOP did not really change the minds of the
enemy populace, nor did it defend the U.S. populace at home against the propaganda of
the enemy. Furthermore the enemy’s PSYOP was so strong that it - not bigger armies or
better weapons - overcame all of the Cobras and Spookys and ACAVs and B52s we
fielded. The lesson is not to ignore our own PSYOP capability, but rather to change it and
strengthen it so that it can do precisely that kind of thing to our enemy in the next war.
Better hardware is nice, but by itself it will change nothing if we do not win the war for
the mind."
Last edited:
Hevach
Senior Member.
And yet president after president has been plagued by a media obsessed with every silly foible of their being (seriously, George W Bush briefly choking on a pretzel was worth pushing sports news to the next hour) and fomenting scandal on every topic regardless of merit. President after president has to use harsh media blacklists and interview embargoes to keep particularly aggressive outlets at bay. At least three presidents, failing at even that, went on to threats of prosecution or incarceration, at least two to plotting violence, and Nixon as far as hiring goons and plotting murder because he couldn't get the media to do what he wanted them to. And all of those presidents succeeded only in turning one troublesome reporter into the entire national news, remaining utterly helpless in front of the media, a lion before the lambs.
On the flip side, the media has brought down successful and popular presidents, led political parties to deify their most hated rogue elements, and even led the US into wars it was desperately trying to avoid or on the opposite side of standing national policy.
If the government or any part of it has even one hundredth the control you claim is so undebatable, they have either intentionally never used it, or they have been so consistently and grossly incompetent at using it that it simply defies belief that the government hasn't gotten a solid win over the media in so many decades. One would think that at least ONE president would have managed something - that Eisenhower could have silenced all the stupidity about his residency status, that Kennedy could have ended the rumors about his fantastically improbable sex life, that Nixon wouldn't have had to pot ****ing murder, that Ford could have gotten at least somebody to forget that his family really wanted the US to join the Axis in WWII, or that Johnson could have gotten them to stop talking about what he may or may not have done with his Johnson.
On the flip side, the media has brought down successful and popular presidents, led political parties to deify their most hated rogue elements, and even led the US into wars it was desperately trying to avoid or on the opposite side of standing national policy.
If the government or any part of it has even one hundredth the control you claim is so undebatable, they have either intentionally never used it, or they have been so consistently and grossly incompetent at using it that it simply defies belief that the government hasn't gotten a solid win over the media in so many decades. One would think that at least ONE president would have managed something - that Eisenhower could have silenced all the stupidity about his residency status, that Kennedy could have ended the rumors about his fantastically improbable sex life, that Nixon wouldn't have had to pot ****ing murder, that Ford could have gotten at least somebody to forget that his family really wanted the US to join the Axis in WWII, or that Johnson could have gotten them to stop talking about what he may or may not have done with his Johnson.
mazoola
Member
I originally intended to post -- well, not a rebuttal, but at least the forum equivalent of a sympathetic 'there, there' to the original claim. (In brief, while I wouldn't have a problem believing Colby had made such a claim, I'd classify it more wishful thinking than fait accompli -- and certainly not for lack of trying; every week, it seems, I come across a reference to yet another publisher or non-profit or educational association or trade group or political movement or media personality that, at some point in the past 70 years, provided some degree of support or cover for the OSS/CIA/etc.: Wittingly, unwittingly, reluctantly, enthusiastically, once, repeatedly, what have you. Clearly, we're not talking Pravda-level control, here, but unfortunately US intelligence agencies have played a far greater role in framing domestic political debate than most people knew -- or, presumably, would have wished -- at the time.
And it wasn't until I went to my notes for references and citations I realized they all were on the PC that was seized by the FBI...
And it wasn't until I went to my notes for references and citations I realized they all were on the PC that was seized by the FBI...
Psychic
Senior Member
Assuming 'the media' includes Hollywood, how do the backers of this theory account for movies that promote cynisim toward the government and mainstream media? (I'm thinking of movies like Doctor Strangelove and Wag the Dog, which follows government officials and media executives collaborating in a grand conspiracy to manufacture news stories, including an entirely fabricated war.)
Hevach
Senior Member.
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one buried down in rambles, but the answer's been given on this forum in a way - when I point out that Watergate happened in part because the President could no, even when exerting all his legal and illegal influence, actually control even a few rabblerousing reporters, the answer is that Watergate was simply crafted to appear that way to diminish the appearance of control in other events.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I'll never be classified as a defender of the "media,"
but to characterize this as unworthy of significant attention doesn't feel right to me.
How many times in history has the most powerful man in the world been forced to explain an injury
(and only did because it occurred in a place that could not be hidden)
and confirm that he actually lost consciousness and fell
--only luckily not hitting, say, his temple on the corner of a table--
as zero Secret Service or others were there to assure his safety? That isn't remarkable?
Pics of the U.S president's injuries seem "worth pushing sports news to the next hour" to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1758848.stm
Last edited:
BombDr
Senior Member.
That depends on what qualifies as 'support' or 'working for the CIA'. Oliver Stone would have us all believe that Clay Shaw was 'working for the CIA', and even says so at the end of the film, claiming a former director confirmed it under oath.
Once you do some digging it turned out the CIA had a programme in the 1950s where they would interview people that travelled overseas regularly in order to ask things like have entry requirements changed in country x, is the atmosphere one of revolution, what are you business associates doing with their off-shore banking etc, in order to build up a picture of countries they are interested in or may infiltrate people in.
This kind of atmospheric survey is hardly the same as planting bugs or shooting people in the head with a silencer, but Stone and his ilk will have you believe its the same thing.
trevor
Active Member
Do you actually have a "Quality" source? like, not amateur youtube videos or rense.com? you know, stuff that isn't EFFORTLESLY refuted? I've never understood this kind of debating before. "DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA, THEY ARE ALL LYING" (Goes and believes everything he sees on youtube instead)....classic!
Last edited by a moderator:
mazoola
Member
Somewhat OT, but the depiction of Clay Shaw as just one of many US businessmen who benignly cooperated with the DCS (the CIA's Domestic Contact Service), while still proclaimed loudly by Max Holland's article still self-servingly posted on the CIA website, doesn't jibe with the reality. In addition to having paid for at least one of Shaw's international trips, the CIA revealed in a 1992 memo to the HSCA that Shaw had been a "highly paid CIA contract source" [my emphasis] until 1956; neither would have been true of your typical DCS contact. (At the time of Garrison's investigation into Shaw, of course, the CIA claimed Shaw's assistance was of limited value, and they "have never remunerated him.") This is entirely independent of his involvement with Permindex, which may or may not have been CIA-affiliated, or with other organizations associated with or controlled by US intelligence agencies but not explicitly part of the CIA.
deirdre
Senior Member.
For some reason (unknown to me) James Tracy has recently written a piece where he is trying, i guess, to suggest Alex Jones is controlled by the CIA. (even though in the same article he "quotes" second hand Alex Jones giving a perfectly plausible reason why he 'censors' some material "He said his broadcasting empire has “gotten so big” with many mainline affiliates that he cannot afford to lose those stations by criticizing Jews")
Anyway, I'm bumping this thread in case James Tracy missed it the first times around.
bold added for emphasis
Anyway, I'm bumping this thread in case James Tracy missed it the first times around.
bold added for emphasis
“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the media,” CIA Director William Colby once noted. And such “alt media” personalities are highly significant, perhaps even manufactured whole cloth by the intelligence community, as some observers (e.g. here and here). Pike’s remarks alongside the Pozner episode outline a pattern of behavior that might help to explain why, despite all the bluster about “defeating the new world order” and “defending the republic” Jones simply won’t embrace the truth, why he vigorously defends and promotes corporate media narratives of bogus events
- Status
Similar threads
