Coalition to Govern America
December 13, 2016
In a rambling blog entry on the New York Times company website, president and CEO Mark Thompson explored the best path to controlling information on the Internet in order to prevent websites and alternative media outlets from publishing what he referred to as “fake news”.
Using the questionable “PizzaGate” controversy as a back drop, Thompson says that “fake news” is something that needs to be taken seriously. He moans:
Fake news is not new. The spreading false rumors for political advantage, for pure malice, or just for entertainment, is as old as the hills. ... And yet what’s happening now feels different. Whatever its other cultural and social merits, our digital eco-system seems to have evolved into a near-perfect environment for fake news to thrive. In addition to enthusiastic domestic myth-makers, it’s easy for hostile foreign governments and their proxies not just to initiate a fake news cycle – it is now widely accepted that it was Russian hackers who broke into John Podesta’s emails and gave them to Wikileaks, beginning the chain of events that led to Pizzagate – but to intensify it, and on occasion even to manage it with armies of human “trolls” and cyber botnets. This is a form of what the military calls “black psy-ops”, in other words covert psychological operations.
Toss the tin-foil hat over to Mr. Thompson! While lamenting the evils of “fake news”, he helps disseminate the ongoing and unsubstantiated fake news conspiracy theory that it was the Russians who hacked into John Podesta's e-mails. What proof do you have, Mr. Thompson? The CIA's claim? I suppose you're going to take the word of an agency that lied us into multiple wars around the world? An agency that tortures people in secret prisons and is known for engaging in mind control experimentation upon unwilling subjects?
Like much of the Establishment media who look down their snotty little noses at the rest of the writing and broadcasting world, Thompson seems to think that because he says it, it automatically becomes “journalism”. Pardon me, Mr. “journalist”, but may I be so bold to as to school you? There is a universe of a gap between “widely accepted” as fact, and the truth. At one time, it was “widely accepted” that the Earth was flat. In ancient times, it was “widely accepted” that sacrificing to the gods helped improve the fall harvest. Similarly, prior to the evolution of the Internet, which provided the platform by which the people of the world could come together and share ideas, compare notes and research, and publish articles which compete with your rag publication, people “widely accepted” that the New York Times was a credible publication. All of the aforementioned fallacies have been eventually and thoroughly debunked with time.
I will remind the reader of the words of David Rockefeller in his memoirs who admitted to being a subversive globalist. He said,
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
At a Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in 1991, David Rockefeller thanked the New York Times for being a loyal gatekeeper on information, without which, he said, it would not have been possible to put the pieces in place for world government.
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
It is obvious that the Times has a cozy relationship with the Establishment globalists. Is it, therefore, surprising that they publish articles making the Rockefeller family out to be something akin to the Brady Bunch, instead of an evil banking dynasty intent on controlling the world — or in David Rockefeller's own word a “secret cabal” who is working against American interests? It is any surprise they won't report the truth about the conspiracy to rob America of her sovereignty and the American people of their wealth and freedom by controlling the money supply?
The real “psychological operation” — to use Thompson's own vernacular — is the one being played upon the American people every time publications like the New York Times regurgitates the swill from globalist think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, publishing it as an authoritative and objective source and having the audacity to call the result "journalism".
Thompson never acknowledges how the mainstream print and broadcast media, outlets that he calls real journalism, are steadfast in their race-baiting, fanning the flames of riots and civil unrest. He never acknowledges how they all but ignored the endless Clinton corruption and crimes — a real danger to our country — while obsessing over a sexual comment Donald Trump made in private conversation over a decade prior to his running for public office. Or how they continue to push ridiculous memes of Russian tampering with our elections while ignoring the numerous stories where actual election fraud has taken place such as computer machines flipping votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, or Veritas Project documentation proving DNC operatives rigging the vote. Or about how they push unproven, fake news conspiracy theories that Trump, his cabinet picks, and much of the truth media are all subordinates of Vladamir Putin and the Kremlin. This is nothing short of tin-foil hat, fake news, conspiracy theory — the exact menace that Mark Thompson claims to be against.
He talks about a recent spike in subscriptions at the New York Times, ironically thanks to the attacks of Donald Trump, during the campaign. However, despite any recent and temporal spikes, readership has been trending downward for big media, as the public flocks to getting their news from social media sites and the exploding alternative media. Though Thompson claims growth in his own subscription numbers (fake news?), the fact that publications like the Times have, for decades, refused to tell the people the truth about the very real, subversive plan by rich, ambitious globalists to systematically destroy the United States, is the reason many have seen their readerships decline. People are waking up and realizing the extent to which they have been deceived. This is precisely what information monopolists fear the most. The Internet has provided the platform by which the genie has been able to escape their bottle. They are now grappling with how to stuff it back while rescuing their shrinking fiscal coffers.
Knowing full well that what he would love to impose upon the alternative/truth media is the exact equivalent of censorship, Thompson very cleverly makes the argument against censorship. He then proceeds to explore how it could be accomplished through the back door, such as starving websites who he deems to be “fake news” of their advertising dollars via pressure on the digital networks which serve advertising on the pages of various alternative media publications. He said,
As for the digital giants, I believe they need to think hard about transparency and accountability. Their ad tech and ad networks help make fake news so lucrative – here too they need to help the whole industry cut off the advertising revenue which enables the fake sites to flourish.
Is this not the very definition of censorship? Pressuring ad networks to defund publications with which you disagree? One might ask how to hold such ad networks accountable, in the world that Mark Thompson envisages? Would it be through the enactment of public policy via the strong arm of government? Who is Mark Thompson, or anyone else — especially government critters — to be the arbiters of what is fake news and what is not? What will be the rules for determining what is and what is not acceptable speech, that it may enjoy the blessing of being properly funded by ad networks?
Should the problem “fake news” outlets develop an alternative source of funding, what shall be the next step in the process of destroying them? Will Mark Thompson advocate taxing them into oblivion? Perhaps Thompson might suggest something akin to a Stamp Act, similar to the one parliament put upon the colonies in 1765. Instead of papers being stamped with government approval, unapproved websites and journalists would have to register and be taxed. Is this the future Mr. Thompson imagines?
From whence will these rules which govern speech emerge, if not from the halls of power? Will Mark Thompson mount a throne and decree what passes for journalism? Would he advocate the appointing of a bureaucratic committee to examine the matter and enact fines or worse for infractions? What of the First Amendment, which was added to our Constitution for the very purpose of protecting all speech and the free press, so that news organizations and any one individual who wished to be a news organization could blow the whistle on government corruption?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment was created to protect against the very type of “approved speech” that Thompson is promoting. Some would argue that the First Amendment was designed to protect extremists and radicals. For without them, how does one define what's not extreme and radical?
As anyone who has ever interviewed eyewitnesses at a crash scene knows, facts are not always clear cut. The more witnesses you have, the more versions of the same event will emerge. Some could differ radically from others. None should be censored, regardless of how crackpot they may seem. It is in true discourse, that the truth can best be found. Limit that discourse under the guise that it is somehow dangerous, or giving rise to violence, extremism, terrorism, or some other equivalent demon of choice, and the truth will be buried. Perhaps, that's the point.
While claiming to be against censorship, Thompson explores how censorship could be accomplished, without calling it censorship. The fact that a very real argument in favor of censorship can come from the CEO of a newspaper, demonstrates the synergistic relationship between so-called “journalistic news” organizations and our increasingly-oppressive government. You shouldn't be allowed to publish, unless you publish the facts according to the party line. Orwell spins in his grave as we salute our new Ministry of Truth.
Thompson then musters the audacity to suggest that social media platforms like Facebook subsidize ailing Establishment media propaganda outlets who lack the ingenuity to adjust their business models to the changing technology and evolving reality of the media landscape. He says,
In all but a handful of cases like The Times with large audiences, deep engagement and real subscription potential, it’s easier today to make a profit on search and social from fake news than it is from the real thing. Where will that take us if uncorrected? The big search and social companies must do more to sustain the economics of real journalism.
When we have so-called “news” networks like CNN interviewing the same crisis actor for three different false flag events, “real journalism” is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Thompson. The truth is that you and your ilk cannot handle the reality that there is a new and successful competitor on the block. Unlike the past, where we had to beg papers to publicize information, anyone can now have a website. Anyone can now publish and be read. Anyone can broadcast, podcast, and disseminate. Anyone can be a journalist, if they tell the truth. If you and your colleagues want to remain a viable player in this new information age, I suggest that you and your staff start doing it.