Who Owns Alternative Media?

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby hoi.polloi on November 26th, 2010, 7:32 am

I was curious why the self-proclaimed most popular radio show in the U.S.A. - the conspiracy show "Coast to Coast AM" - finds it so difficult to talk about 'September Clues' and TV fakery and I wondered if perhaps there were some corporate barrier that might be preventing them from revealing the embedding of the CIA in the people's attempts to uncover complex conspiracies. Why do they buddy up with Alex Jones so much? I don't really want to go into the show's topics - I just want to know why, of all the conspiracies they are able to talk about, they cannot recommend 'September Clues' to the people or talk about the media's ability to edit together completely fake scenarios using simulation software, and I figured the most common reason censorship is the case is because of money. So ... I have no idea if I have found any significant link, but I do find this interesting:

Last time I looked up its connections, I came to this organization: http://www.publicisgroupe.com/

Publicis Groupe claims it: is the 3rd Largest Communications Group Worldwide, Leader in Digital and Interactive Communication (22.4% of 2009 Revenue) and Recognized Creative Talent; No.1 in Creative Performance in The Gunn Report (since 2004) With activities spanning 104 countries on five continents; employs approximately 45,500 professionals; and offers local and international clients a complete range of communication services. In January 2008, Publicis Groupe leader Maurice Lévy
was bestowed the International Leadership Award 2008 from the Anti-Defamation League in recognition of his stance towards tolerance and diversity.[1]. He also financed the 2008 concert at the Trocadéro to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.


Unfortunately, I don't remember how I came to that before, but since then, Coast to Coast has apparently been acquired by Clear Channel - an enormous company - one can imagine why they might have shifted from more open 9/11 programming to an 'Alex Jones'-focused intelligence agencies controlled limited hangout. Here is what I now found based on Wickedpedia's info:

Coast to Coast AM is a part of Premiere Radio Networks syndication, owned by Clear Channel. Syndication basically means it is distributed by them even though it somewhat remains 'independent' they are responsible to provide listeners for their advertising base. So they are able to discuss many crazy issues -- BUT WHY NEVER SEPTEMBER CLUES?

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American media conglomerate company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.

Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital LLC own Clear Channel - both of them based in MITRE-neighbor Boston and both of them rather vague private ownership companies.

Bain is a 'private alternative asset management' company and THL is a 'private equity' company. At this point, I lose the trail because they are basically companies to invest in assets, play with them, sell them, buy them and generally hold enormous transactions for fun and profit. I am not sure if this makes them more likely to be safe from a single influence or less safe.

Meanwhile, back at Maurice Lévy and Publicis, Maurice was the anointed successor of the company's owner and Chief Executive, Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet. Who was this guy? I don't know. Huge, apparently. A figure in French politics.

"The Right Honourable Lord Saatchi" (whew, what a TITLE, can you imagine if we all went around with such high-falutin' monikers?) Mr. Maurice Saatchi is the third of four sons in a wealthy Iraqi Jewish family in Baghdad, Iraq!Interestingly, this group - Saatchi and Saatchi - happens to be under Publicis.

Strangely, or perhaps it makes sense in some odd way, this London fellow Roger Parry (born 1953) is a media entrepreneur based in the UK who became CEO of Clear Channel during the crucial years 1998-2009 - His first job in 1976 was as personal assistant to Charles and Maurice Saatchi the founders of Saatchi & Saatchi. Why was this Londoner linked in with the presumably Zionist-ish Publicis Groupe in charge of Clear Channel during 9/11 and the years after? (Why is any Brit in charge of a giant U.S.A. media company actually?) Why is he connected to a "Pirate Radio" station and is now a wealthy businessman going from executive position to executive position? Was he considered good with handling 'rebel' beliefs because of a pirate rock station?

Anyway, this is a start. I might try to trace Alex Jones, too - I heard something about big media funding for him but that is a serious accusation so I will not assume it's true just yet.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby brianv on November 26th, 2010, 11:00 am

So they are able to discuss many crazy issues -- BUT WHY NEVER SEPTEMBER CLUES?

Uhm - they only deal in fiction not facts! They are the lying bastard media!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby MartinL on November 26th, 2010, 11:11 am

Fantastic post Hoi! props!

Is Levy a Levite you think? Priest-caste mofos! :angry:

Looking forward to your next discovery :ph34r:
MartinL
Member
 
Posts: 319
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 11:08 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby MartinL on November 26th, 2010, 12:33 pm

Omg..... does this site auto-log out or something? I had compiled a huge post about Robert Gates, Brahmanical Jonhson family who owns Fidelity Investments and the FRM Corp, their ties to Texas A&M, Clear Channel and mixing of roles and connections to the establishement and political spheres. Feck. Arse!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates

Any VicSIMS from A&M Uni?
MartinL
Member
 
Posts: 319
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 11:08 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby brianv on November 26th, 2010, 1:46 pm

MartinL wrote:Omg..... does this site auto-log out or something? I had compiled a huge post about Robert Gates, Brahmanical Jonhson family who owns Fidelity Investments and the FRM Corp, their ties to Texas A&M, Clear Channel and mixing of roles and connections to the establishement and political spheres. Feck. Arse!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates

Any VicSIMS from A&M Uni?


If you are doing a long post do CTRL A & CTRL C before you submit. If you are logged out, log back in create a new post and do a CTRL V.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby queuebert on December 19th, 2010, 8:21 am

hoi.polloi wrote:I was curious why the self-proclaimed most popular radio show in the U.S.A. - the conspiracy show "Coast to Coast AM" - finds it so difficult to talk about 'September Clues' and TV fakery and I wondered if perhaps there were some corporate barrier that might be preventing them from revealing the embedding of the CIA in the people's attempts to uncover complex conspiracies. Why do they buddy up with Alex Jones so much? I don't really want to go into the show's topics - I just want to know why, of all the conspiracies they are able to talk about, they cannot recommend 'September Clues' to the people or talk about the media's ability to edit together completely fake scenarios using simulation software, and I figured the most common reason censorship is the case is because of money
The late William Cooper outed Art Bell as a shill years ago. Last I heard he does support the official 9/11 narrative though I doubt he's that uninformed. As I noted in a post from the old forum, Alex Jones is part of the group that perpetrated the 9/11 hoax. It's a given that anyone he promotes is part of the same "club" of deceivers.

I think the most common reason for censorship is not money because the "alternative" (I use that term loosely) information sources are already in the hands of this same bunch of people who also own the mainstream media.
queuebert
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 7:34 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby hoi.polloi on December 25th, 2010, 5:23 pm

Next up, I'd like to talk about Wikipedia. People often bring up the idea that Wikipedia cannot err because they have such a rigorous system. Without obvious analogy to systems of domination and control which err so successfully because they are rigorous, let's re-examine poor, door-to-door beggar Wikipedia (aka Wicked-pedia, Wikipeddler, etc.)

Many of us have pejorative names for this collection of data because of how the gang that controls the information at Wikipedia failed to adhere to journalistic standards or outright censored information. Why would something like this happen in an open community? Well, let's look at how the information at Wikipedia is controlled.


Point 1. There is no qualifying a "source" at Wikipedia.

The word "source" has three meanings on Wikipedia: the piece of work itself (e.g. A Theory of Justice), the creator of the work (e.g. John Rawls), and the publisher of the work (e.g. Harvard University Press). How reliable a source is can depend on just one of these factors, or on all three
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Unfortunately for the reader, this is a wishy-washy way of saying the sources are not definable. Let's say I wanted to cite the Naudet Brothers for directing the movie 9|11. Could I do so, even though the Naudet brothers appear to be fictional people? Yes. Because the Naudet Brothers have been "interviewed" in goofy videos as being the creator of that movie, the only citation necessary is that which is obliquely self-referential. By citing the publisher of the poor information - let's say the Charlie Rose show - my information is backed up, even though that Charlie Rose interview exists specifically to identify the Naudets as the creators. In other words, if a lie is backed up by anyone - it is "citation" - with no distinction (or actual research) going into the true nature of either the information, the information's creator, or the publisher. As the quote reveals above, Wikipedia does not distinguish between the three. The rest of the entire page is rendered moot by their poor excuse for a definition of truth and fiction.

However, to make matters far worse, they actually put on a pedestal certain information that has no right being higher or more valued than other information. As a rule, there is no distinguishing between "original research" and "well sourced information". Yet, someone does make the distinction.

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR

When a reliable source is required
Anything challenged or likely to be challenged

This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate. Be mindful of copyright: do not copy text from copyrighted sources, or paraphrase too closely, without in-text attribution.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[4]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Sources

As you have just read, Wikipedia makes two of the most enormous and irresponsible blunders of the century thusfar, and certainly of the decade, in endorsing the poor evidence for "wild Arabs" attacking America. Not only did they fail to provide evidence for any such attack, they have broken their own rules - leaving the story unsourced and badly sourced despite the fact that it highly damages the reputations of millions of living persons and organizations - smearing Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iranians and Saudis as "extremist terrorists" with a great big mountain of no justification whatsoever.

So why does the sheer *amount* of sources outweigh factual information? In other words, why has Wikipedia become a hotbed producer of religious extremist Wikipedian terrorists - to use the same undocumented unsourced phraseology they use racistly on peaceful, Muslim thinking persons - and who are the "priests" of the Wikipedia cult which determine the difference between hoaxes and lies?


Point 2. At Wikipedia, much like on the Senate floor, It is a worse sin to deny a lie than it is to uphold one.

At Wikipedia, there is a group called a Mediation Cabal.
The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We are just ordinary Wikipedians who help facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_cabal

Read a bit about the mediation cabal, and figure it out.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby Unleashed on September 28th, 2011, 4:53 am

Cool thread. I don't know how I've overlooked this.
I had listened to C2C for maybe 16 years off and on. Art Bell has said his father and grandfather were Masons, but I don't recall he ever admitted so himself.
His show was endlessly entertaining. Often you learned things you had no idea was even out there being discussed. But, there comes a point in every local radio show and maybe small local cable outlets, that when you get to a certain level of listenership you are bound to come up on the radar screen and get the infamous "call". And for lack of better terminology, an offer you can't refuse.

The Coast to Coast of today is so far down the totem pole of listenership from the days of Art Bell, I don't know that September Clues would even WANT to be associated with them. So pervasisve is the general contempt most people have for the regular hosts now, and the show. George Knapp is almost exclusively a UFO kind of guy.

They do have a guest host who I would think might well be someone to contact to see his interest level, and that is John B. Wells. There may be e-mail contact info on him on the coasttocoastam website. He recently did a show on 9/11 for the anniversary. I sent in a "fast blast" to him during the show recommending he watch September Clues. I did not like the guest he had on at the time who was the typical disinfo shill, but it seemed that Wells was open to other q and a about what really happened, and didn't happen that day.
Unleashed
Member
 
Posts: 315
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 4:27 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 9th, 2011, 9:17 pm

Who owns 'Russia Today'?

Does anyone disagree that RT is 100% propaganda?

I've seen all the usual suspects on there: Alex, Luke, Bermas, Manny, Gage and so on...

But they've also had people that I thought could be trusted on there like Stefan Molyneux and ....ok, just Molyneux.. :unsure:

The aforementioned 'Moby' on RT:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jil6IR1ECFU[/youtube]

If you haven't read my earlier posts, during the Ron Paul campaign and throughout '07-'09, I met a lot of the main 9-11 truthlings through this guy, who happens to be some kind of high ranking templar knight and supposed 'self made millionaire'.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby nonhocapito on December 10th, 2011, 2:34 am

CryptoAnarchist wrote:If you haven't read my earlier posts, during the Ron Paul campaign and throughout '07-'09, I met a lot of the main 9-11 truthlings through this guy, who happens to be some kind of high ranking templar knight and supposed 'self made millionaire'.


Question. Why did you start out by keeping the name of this guy undisclosed, and now you are giving it to us just like that? I can't help the feeling that this has been a way on your part to better "sell" the value of this guy, which appears hardly relevant from outside Colorado (just like for the other one you gave us in another thread).

Despite your status of new member, you seem to be dodging most questions that are thrown at you, including the quite puzzling twist of the "given" agent girlfriend you had -- something I am sure we are all interested to better learn about, since I guess it could happen to any of us (or at least to those of us who are single or unhappy in love :P ).

More importantly. I'll repeat myself but I don't understand why you are giving us these targets, CryptoAnarchist.

Sure, these actors and agents, if real, are "responsible". And I am not saying they are not interesting characters, because they certainly are: for starters, what they say and do can help us better understand the ways of the 9/11 scam. But they also are people in their twenties and thirties (or who were in their twenties on 9/11, and were but children, if they "were" at all, when the plan was in the offing).

Do we seriously have to focus on these peons, these mercenaries who were clearly just hired for the job, and clearly are not the minds nor the promoters of the 9/11 scam? It's not like we can arrest them, put them on trial, and force them to tell us who they work for.

Besides, so many things are yet to be understood. I think it would be rather interesting to try and describe what exactly connects these "truthers" to "ron paul" and to "end the fed". The ties appear to be very strong. Was the Ron Paul movement infiltrated, like you seem to imply, or do they all work for the same entity?

Who controls Russia TV? is a good question. I wondered that myself. But... who controls Ron Paul? is also a good one.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby brianv on December 10th, 2011, 6:16 pm

Coco the fucking Clown Inc. owns Ron Paul. His followers are bandwagon numpties who can't, or are too lazy, to think for themselves.

And CA, what is your definition of Anarchy?

Would that be the ruling elites Dante's Inferno vision of Anarchy or the Utopian Ideal of Anarchy where everyone is master, none are slaves!

a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

I'm with "c".
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby HonestlyNow on December 10th, 2011, 6:29 pm

I'm with "c".


The Market for Liberty
written by Morris and Linda Tannehill, copyright 1970

Laissez Faire Books link
Amazon.com link

I read this book twenty years ago; I think it's time for another read.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 376
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 10th, 2011, 11:46 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Question. Why did you start out by keeping the name of this guy undisclosed, and now you are giving it to us just like that? I can't help the feeling that this has been a way on your part to better "sell" the value of this guy, which appears hardly relevant from outside Colorado (just like for the other one you gave us in another thread).


I have to admit I was a little hesitant at first to come out with his name. I'm pretty paranoid about these people. Also, there is really nothing to directly pin on the guy other than who he knows and who he's descended from. He's a nexus for everyone that everyone on here knows is a perp.

nonhocapito wrote:Despite your status of new member, you seem to be dodging most questions that are thrown at you, including the quite puzzling twist of the "given" agent girlfriend you had -- something I am sure we are all interested to better learn about, since I guess it could happen to any of us (or at least to those of us who are single or unhappy in love :P ).


I upstream's question was irrelevant and inappropriate for the forum, and quite frankly, none of his business. I've explained in other thread that I've experienced enough to convince me that THERE ARE mind controlled agents that generally don't realize that they're being controlled. I think such people have been critical to the 9-11 psy-op.

nonhocapito wrote:More importantly. I'll repeat myself but I don't understand why you are giving us these targets, CryptoAnarchist.

Sure, these actors and agents, if real, are "responsible". And I am not saying they are not interesting characters, because they certainly are: for starters, what they say and do can help us better understand the ways of the 9/11 scam. But they also are people in their twenties and thirties (or who were in their twenties on 9/11, and were but children, if they "were" at all, when the plan was in the offing).

Do we seriously have to focus on these peons, these mercenaries who were clearly just hired for the job, and clearly are not the minds nor the promoters of the 9/11 scam? It's not like we can arrest them, put them on trial, and force them to tell us who they work for.

Besides, so many things are yet to be understood. I think it would be rather interesting to try and describe what exactly connects these "truthers" to "ron paul" and to "end the fed". The ties appear to be very strong. Was the Ron Paul movement infiltrated, like you seem to imply, or do they all work for the same entity?

Who controls Russia TV? is a good question. I wondered that myself. But... who controls Ron Paul? is also a good one.


You kinda answered your own question. My original question is "Who funds Russia Today?" and I brought it up because all the people that I know are perps have been on there, with no real counterbalance (unless Simon turned down some invitation from them).

As far as the RP - truther crossover, there was a lot of that because people who are smart enough to want personal responsibility and smaller government tend to also be smart enough to know 9-11 was bullshit. I'd say over 90% of the original Denver Ron Paul supporters in '08 had at least some kind of doubts about 9-11.

At this point, I'm fairly confident that the whole Ron Paul thing was/is a limited hangout for people who can see the real problems and consider real revolution. The campaign HQ steered everyone towards the MeetUp site and that probably made it real easy to keep track of us all.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby nonhocapito on December 11th, 2011, 5:17 am

nonhocapito wrote:Despite your status of new member, you seem to be dodging most questions that are thrown at you, including the quite puzzling twist of the "given" agent girlfriend you had -- something I am sure we are all interested to better learn about, since I guess it could happen to any of us (or at least to those of us who are single or unhappy in love :P ).


CryptoAnarchist wrote:I upstream's question was irrelevant and inappropriate for the forum, and quite frankly, none of his business. I've explained in other thread that I've experienced enough to convince me that THERE ARE mind controlled agents that generally don't realize that they're being controlled. I think such people have been critical to the 9-11 psy-op.


Well it was you who hinted at having had a "fake distraction girlfriend", and it was me who first asked you to better explain this. I mean, what makes you think she was an agent? What makes you think she was mind controlled? Why was she a "distraction"?
Asking you for her identity is certainly inappropriate, but asking for more details is not only because people are curious, but also part of learning if a new member is here to bullshit us or not.

I am also curious to know your opinion on the vicsim research, another thing you have been asked a few many times about. Just to see if we are on the same page on the crucial issues...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Who Owns Alternative Media?

Postby CryptoAnarchist on December 11th, 2011, 2:41 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:Despite your status of new member, you seem to be dodging most questions that are thrown at you, including the quite puzzling twist of the "given" agent girlfriend you had -- something I am sure we are all interested to better learn about, since I guess it could happen to any of us (or at least to those of us who are single or unhappy in love :P ).


CryptoAnarchist wrote:I upstream's question was irrelevant and inappropriate for the forum, and quite frankly, none of his business. I've explained in other thread that I've experienced enough to convince me that THERE ARE mind controlled agents that generally don't realize that they're being controlled. I think such people have been critical to the 9-11 psy-op.


Well it was you who hinted at having had a "fake distraction girlfriend", and it was me who first asked you to better explain this. I mean, what makes you think she was an agent? What makes you think she was mind controlled? Why was she a "distraction"?
Asking you for her identity is certainly inappropriate, but asking for more details is not only because people are curious, but also part of learning if a new member is here to bullshit us or not.


Whether I give you some details is up to me and doesn't necessarily mean I'm bullshitting you or not. I DID give some though - I asked whether you read Fritz Springmeier's work on mind control. Like some other people I've met, I noticed a lot of similarities and coincidences between his book and real life. Let's leave it at that.

nonhocapito wrote:I am also curious to know your opinion on the vicsim research, another thing you have been asked a few many times about. Just to see if we are on the same page on the crucial issues...


I already answered this - is this some kind of litmus test? I've known the victims were bullshit before Simon put out the vicsim report. There were videos on YouTube about the lack of SSDI info and I did my own research. I never bothered going over each and every one though, and I still thought there may have been people that died in the buildings. I certainly think the perps would have used the opportunity to whack real people they didn't like and blame it on terrorists if they could.

But yeah, logic says if there were no planes than there were no people dying on those planes, which would explain no grieving families at LAX. The only thing making me wonder if I'm getting duped is how persistent you have been in asking. That's not how you weed out an infiltrator, that's how you check if someone is brainwashed.
CryptoAnarchist
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: December 1st, 2011, 5:07 pm

Next

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests