ABC’s Jon Faine (L) and Iraq war (R)
By Dee McLachlan
Comments by Ned and James (and others) to my April 4 article about journalist Andrew Rule have inspired me to push further. How can it be that we live in a “democracy,” whilst the major newspapers and broadcasters protect a gang of criminals? I refer to those criminals who foist on us their irrational explanations about 9-11 and Port Arthur.
The result of the media propagating the “official story,” as in the case of 9-11 — has, as Ned commented:
“…led to the deliberate and planned killing of millions of innocents and the destruction of whole countries. Add the unnecessary killing of our soldiers…”
Is the media helping conceal the most egregious crimes against the Australian people — and against humanity?
To answer the question, the argument below develops these 5 FACTS:
- Governments kill good leaders, and destroy nations for resources or power.
- The mainstream media suppress evidence of criminality by government.
- The mainstream media assist government in propagating the “official” theory.
- The mainstream media deliberately manipulate the outcome of criminal events.
- Media personalities will not discuss the facts — but revert to name calling and denigrating the questioner (as when Andrew Rule recently called us types “mouth-breathing morons”).
It would be ridiculous to claim in 2016 that governments don’t destroy other countries or kill rivals. As I am from Africa, let me start with a mention of Patrice Lumumba.
Lumumba was the democratically elected prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1960. At the ceremony to celebrate the Congo’s independence, Lumumba spoke of the Congo’s colonial unjust past, then said:
“Together we shall establish social justice and ensure for every man a fair remuneration for his labour…make the Congo the pride of Africa…see to it that the lands of our native country truly benefit its children….revise all the old laws and make them into new ones that will be just and noble. We shall stop the persecution of free thought…and we shall ensure for everyone a station in life befitting his human dignity and worthy of his labour and his loyalty to the country.”
His ideals for the Congolese was not to be tolerated. There were others interested in the country’s wealth. He was assassinated shortly after in 1961.
The Guardian, in 2011, got around to saying that the assassination of Patrice Lumumba was “the most important assassination of the 20th century.”
“This heinous crime was a culmination of two inter-related assassination plots by American and Belgian governments, which used Congolese accomplices and a Belgian execution squad to carry out the deed.”
I guess by 2011 it was ‘safe’ to come clean about this covert operation.
FACT 1: Governments kill good leaders, and destroy nations for resources or power.
The question to be asked here is: whom do the governments do this for? It seems a strange concept that politicians — who are only in short-term (re-elected) positions — would operate like this. It seems only logical that they must be working for someone else — and definitely NOT for the people. Imagine if you had a referendum to determine whether a foreign leader should be assassinated.
The Assassination of JFK
Put simply — The assassination of JFK changed the course and the power reality of American politics. James O’Neill made a comment on Kennedy, which I quote in part:
“In the Kennedy case …we now know that there were two “official” versions that had been prepared. The Oswald as lone nut gunman version was Plan B…For those who bother to study the Warren Commission’s 26 supplementary volumes, there is a wealth of material that contradicts the official Report itself. Since then of course there was a Senate Inquiry, the House Select Committee Inquiry (that concluded there was in fact a conspiracy) and most importantly the Assassination Records Review Board that led to the release of millions of previously classified documents. Yet the media still report the JFK hit in terms of that original Warren Report. That cannot be by accident.” [Emphasis added]
FACT 2: The mainstream media suppress evidence of criminality by government
Why does the mainstream media suppress publications and evidence that have emerged over the past 53 years that directly contradict the “official” Oswald story?
Many mainstream journalists are highly adept at analysis and writing. So it must be that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth in regard to various critical, dare I say game-changing, events.
The big one in our lifetime is 9-11. The attack on New York and the Pentagon ranks as the boldest and most brazen of all false flags. I shan’t go into the evidence or the machinations of the “plot” to bring down the towers, destroy part of the Pentagon, the stand downs, the drills, etc. — but it is clear to the unbiased viewer that something is horribly amiss with the official story.
It would be so simple to solve — for example — the “conspiracy” of Flight 77 going into the most guarded building on the planet — the Pentagon. Just release the tapes of the many CCTV cameras. ABC radio host Jon Faine, however won’t dare go there.
I remind Mr Faine that when ABC employee Jill Meagher was murdered in Brunswick, Melbourne — CCTV footage was used from various shops and businesses to eventually track the murderer.
During the live reportage of the WTC hits, that morning in 2001, many TV hosts and reporters on the street talked about “explosions” in the buildings and that it looked like “demolition” etc. But any talk about demolition, explosions or anything else that might damage the official Osama Bin Laden story soon ceased to play on mainstream television.
FACT 3: The mainstream media help governments propagate the “official” theory.
We have to conclude that there must exist an entity that orchestrates this silencing! It has to deal with a range of conflicting points of view — across several media groups.
In 1983 in the US there 50 companies – now 6 media giants control 90% of the news. In Australia it is even more conglomerated. The merging of media giants has allowed the control of information — i.e., has allowed the suppression of information.
Therefore, if it’s proven that the government orchestrated a crime (such as murder or, in the US, treason) against the people (i.e. 9-11, or the Port Arthur massacre) the mainstream media could be implicated as an accessory after the fact for aiding the government entity.
The Port Arthur massacre is a clear example of media’s colluding with the planners.
FACT 4: The mainstream media deliberately manipulate the outcome of criminal events.
A seminar in Hobart had been arranged for 500 or more reporters from 17 nations around the time of the massacre. But let’s not consider that to be collusion. The media was instrumental in cultivating the idea that Martin Bryant would be the culprit from the get-go.
Note how when the media is dealing with a run-of-the-mill homicide, they are wonderfully cautious. Yet here they put all journalistic protocol aside — by immediately convicting Bryant for the murders.
With regard to 9-11, the media in Australia pushed the Osama Bin Laden story unquestioningly — and Australia went to war.
If the media challenged the facts around 9-11, exposing details of the 9-11 drills, the put options, and the way in which three buildings collapsed, the government may very well have thought twice about assisting in the destruction of Iraq. In fact, I believe honest politicians across the Western world would have tried harder to stop war.
It could be said that elements of the mainstream media were chanting for war.
As we now know, the destruction of Iraq was planned before 9-11 — and the media helped make it happen.
As a side note, let’s follow the money — as they say.
One would imagine the media would benefit financially if they aired all possible culprits and outcomes. Right? Imagine the protracted news that would be generated if there were several theories that had to be played out over months and months. The “who-dun-it“debate in the papers would be endless. The financial windfall for the press would be huge.
But the mainstream media push the official line to persuade the public — then shut the story down. In other words, certain topics become “verboten”. Therefore, one could conclude that there has to be an entity more powerful than the media groups, and that they are being dictated to as to what they can or cannot say.
FACT 5: Media personalities will not discuss the facts — but revert to name calling and denigrating the questioning view.
Jon Faine refers to those questioning the official story of 9-11 — as the “lunatic fringe.”
In an exchange between Gumshoe’s Christopher Brooks and Derryn Hinch, Christopher wrote in reply to Hinch:
“…The chanting mob usually join the crucifixion. Sorcery only works on people and in places where power and fear rules, and reason and logic have been suspended. Some people even hold the attitude that by calling an idea a ‘conspiracy theory’ they become superior and automatically assume their opinion is correct.”
The problem here is — these media personalities are leading the “chanting mob” away from the (criminal) evidence.
Is this like a wife washing away the blood on her murdering husband’s overalls because she doesn’t want the status quo of their family life to change? Like such a wife they could be called “accessories after the fact” and may be held liable for obstruction of justice.
It would be so simple for a media personality to avoid acting an accessory. Just allow discussion of rational thought and allow the facts to be aired.
We keep asking on Gumshoe: why are intelligent, educated (and often highly paid) media personalities unable to tackle the realities of events such as 9/11?
Adapted from The Age editorial, December 2014
What to do
I have been trying for some time to make sense of the mainstream media’s actions – which could be seen as a tort of deceit — fraudulent misrepresentation.
On one occasion, I interviewed Professor Jonathan Barnett who claims to be part of a scientific group that looked into the collapse of Building 7 at the WTC. I was shocked, and I got the impression that (as Mary W Maxwell is always saying) these people are under mind control.
Barnett said several times that the group had no agenda – and that it is no conspiracy. He said they were “the best minds in the country” coming together to investigate causation. I said to him, “But Building 7 looks like a perfect demolition.” He agreed, but replied with great sincerity, …but “There was no need to investigate for explosives“. I suppose this group was in some way mentally instructed to close their options and look away from the obvious.
The once Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO (1997 to 2000) General Wesley Clark revealed in 2007, that there was ‘the plan’ by Neocon factions in the Pentagon to destroy “7 countries in 5 years…. starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” This extraordinary revelation has never been brought into the mainstream debate over the last nine years — even while these countries were being destroyed.
Similarly we have tried at Gumshoe to get several media personalities (e.g., ABC’s radio host Jon Faine, and Fairfax media’s Derryn Hinch) to be open and discuss — but they revert to insults and name calling. Both men are highly intelligent and can analyse evidence (Faine was trained as a lawyer). They both take pride that we are a democracy – yet they are willing to forgo all legal avenues when debating these topics.
When it comes to false-flag events — analysis and honest reportage is completely ABSENT.
It has taken me these two years, and with prodding from Gumshoe’s audience, to face up to the reality of Australia’s mass media. They are the enemy within. They harm us every day and their actions must not escape punishment. They are conspirators par excellence.
Adapted photo: Photo by Jim Eddie (L), usatoday.com (R)