Saturday, May 22, 2021

A huge photo of a Jewish soldier giving candy to a supposedly Palestinian child

"Propaganda and the Media — Part 3 – Establishing and Controlling the Narrative" (Romanoff): 

"The Globe & Mail is a respectable broadsheet long recognised as Canada’s national newspaper. Some years ago, the Globe published an article detailing the atrocities then being committed against the Arabs in Palestine. The article wasn’t inflammatory or ideological, but simply an accurate chronicle of events the editors believed should be brought to the attention of the world. The very next morning, the entire top half of the front page of the Globe carried a huge photo of a Jewish soldier giving candy to a supposedly Palestinian child, with text to match. You don’t need an imagination to know what must have happened behind a closed door somewhere. The date was 1983 and, in the 38 years since then, the Globe hasn’t published a single article that was critical of either the Jews or of Israel. Much the opposite, in fact. One of their more celebrated pieces was titled, “Shmeck the Halls”, a story about how two Jewish songwriters “created Christmas”. (1)

It is widely-known that a relatively small handful of people, all Jews, either own or exercise virtual total control over all Western (and much other) media. This includes not only newspapers, but radio and TV stations and networks, plus most recognised magazines, virtually the entire book publishing industry, all of the social media and related internet platforms like Wikipedia and Google, as well as 90% of Hollywood which includes both motion pictures and television programs. The people involved do not like this information stated publicly, but the facts are not in dispute and indeed Jewish publications boast privately about the extent of their ownership of the media as well as of their control of movies and television.

Philip Weiss wrote an article in Mondoweiss titled, “Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?” (2) In his article, he inserted this observation and quotation: As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, “We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias … We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism.” (3)

Yes, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending of course on the orientation of the facets of that prism. Much of the reporting through that “Jewish prism” is harmless, while some of it is helpful. In fact, much of the second and third tier of the Internet consists of platforms that provide us with our only alternative sources of publication and information, and are operated mostly but not entirely by Jews. The Unz Review, Global Research and many similar. Without these, our world would be one-dimensional. The problem is that, aside from the ‘helpful prisms’, the vast majority of these Jewish contributors are low-level conscripts. I don’t mean to denigrate their abilities or contribution; merely to state that they are nowhere near the top of the pyramid where the “values” are decided and the narratives constructed. And it is the top of the pyramid that requires our focus.

In the comments section of my article Propaganda and the Media – Part 1, one reader related the following paragraph by Michael Cieply:

By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative”. We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line. The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.” (4) (5)

This is the real issue: The NYT are not in the business of reporting news but of creating and then editorialising it with ideology, with ‘viewpoints’, and with their ‘agenda for the country’. And they aren’t alone. Within these parts of the Jewish-owned media scaffolding, there exists a commonality, a synchronicity, a simultaneity, a shared identity, that does not originate within these scattered pieces of the media herd but comes from somewhere higher in the pyramid, from a central source quietly operating behind the scenes in Europe. It cannot be otherwise: When every newspaper in the Western world and much of the rest can repeatedly report on the same events in the same way with an astonishing total uniformity, this cannot possibly be random and cannot be attributed to use of a newswire service. Someone, somewhere, as Bernays was so fond of saying, is “pulling the wires which control the public mind.” (6)"

and (my emphasis in red)

"As another example, much effort has been made to tally the assets of the Rothschild banking family. A creditable result obtained some years back with an estimate of between 6 trillion and 7 trillion US dollars, with many of the European Jewish banking families being similar. Since that time, I have obtained a graphic that displays the vast holdings of the Rothschilds. It appears similar to a corporate organisation chart, with small boxes and lines indicating the holdings and the directions of control. To print this graphic in the smallest readable type, would require a sheet of paper 1/2 a square meter in size. It was recently reported that Rothschild established a new bank simply to hold his accumulation of arable land that has been acquired in so many nations.

In a brief abstract taken from a database of Chinese scientific and technological journals; The Age of Innovation 2013 Issue 6; 95-97 pp. 3 of 1003, the text says: Rothschild was “sitting on a $6 billon fortune in the 1850s, and was known (in China) as “the enemy”. It even accurately addresses the deep Jewish influence on the US government at the time: “The Democratic Party belongs to the Morgan family, and the Republican Party belongs to the Rockefeller family.” Rockefeller and Morgan, however, belonged to Rothschild.”

This is admittedly speculative because hard facts are seldom available and because of the intense secrecy and use of so many tax havens, but my updated estimate of the accumulated wealth of the Rothschilds is between 20 trillion and 30 trillion US dollars. You can imagine the power associated with wealth of this magnitude, including political power which has existed and grown for centuries.

Much has been written, and many tallies presented, of “The Richest Man in the World”, an honor alternating for years between Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim and, more recently, Jeff Bezos. This has all been false propaganda emanating from the same source as every item on the ‘agenda’, Rothschild and the Jewish banking families of Sassoon, Warburg, Montefiori, and many others disappearing entirely from view and apparently non-existent. We have many Jewish websites ‘debunking’ the fiction of Jewish banking families being wealthy, and Wikipedia tells us that the Rothschilds were once rich but they so freely distributed their wealth among their many children and are now merely middle-class Europeans. This silence, and the associated fiction, is one part of the ‘agenda’ emanating from the central core.

As one quick example, Canada, through its cleverly Jewish-controlled central bank, has paid these European bankers more than one trillion US dollars in interest during the past 30 or 40 years. And this is only one of dozens of central banks they control. The real truth about the ‘richest man’ that no medium anywhere has had the courage to state openly, is that compared to these European Jewish bankers, Bill Gates is pocket change. The interest alone that these people earn each year from these central banks is far more than Gates’ entire wealth, and this isn’t accounting for the revenue deriving from their hundreds of huge multi-national corporations.

Rothschild’s Sanofi-Aventis-Connaught is perhaps the largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world. If a few members of this elite group stand to benefit from the sale of COVID-19 (or other) vaccines, their close media partners will cooperate to heavily promote vaccinations, while elected officials will legislate them as compulsory, with their controlled governments scheming ‘vaccination passports’ to ensure sales (one of the ‘benefits’ of democracy), while relieving the vaccine makers of all liability. They will heavily pressure poor governments into the purchases and will utilise every portion of the UN, including the World Bank and IMF as well as the WHO, to tie loans and other assistance to these purchases – while stipulating the avoidance of such vaccines not manufactured by their group, such as those from China and Russia, the media helpfully denigrating these as ‘untested’ and ‘ineffective’, with the UN and various Western governments helpfully withholding approvals. It’s a very small club."

"An interview with Emily Wilder, recent Stanford grad fired from AP job over criticisms of Israel" (Ting):

"In Wilder's eyes, her firing is the latest example of right-wing cancel culture."

Maybe she is just trying to save her career, but I can't think of a more ridiculous way to describe what happened as calling it an example of "right-wing cancel culture" (is that even a thing?).  The 'right-wing' part comes from her firing first being advocated by The Washington Free Beacon.  It is certainly 'right-wing', but who owns it?  (((Paul Singer))).  The cancelling is pure Zionism, and transcends right- and left-wing politics.  When a shit like Tom Cotton jumps on the bandwagon it is solely because he is shekeled to do so.

And:
"In one post, Wilder referred to the late Sheldon Adelson — who was a Jewish billionaire, Republican mega-donor and staunch defender of Israel — as a "naked mole rat."

Wilder, who is Jewish, said she would not have used such language today. Not long after the thread started to gain steam on Twitter, Wilder says an Associated Press editor called her and said she would not get in trouble for her past activism and social media activity. 
"The editor said I was not going to get in any trouble because everyone had opinions in college," Wilder said. "Then came the rest of the week.""
blog comments powered by Disqus