If Everyone Thinks The Same, Who Is Actually "Thinking"

What You Aren't Being Told About The Boston Bombings

Aldous Huxley Quote

Football, Beer, Gambling=Orwellian

Prof Disputes Sandy Hook Timeline

Ready? Let's pretend Collectivism doesn't exist

By Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let's all get together and pretend Collectivism doesn't exist, it's an outmoded idea, and only the USSR ever took it seriously.

Actually, denying the reality of Collectivism is already a powerful collectivist movement in America. It has been for some time.

There is a good reason for this. The word collectivism has hideous connotations. It suggests that political power, at the top of the food chain, intends to hold down people who can make a living on their own.

It suggests that these entrepreneurs, especially if they can garner significant profits from their efforts, are evil and selfish. They are intentionally screwing over "the less fortunate."

It's all right for a majority of Congress and even the president to believe these hideous things, along with the three or four quadrillion people who hold down civil service government jobs, but they can't say it.

Well, with Obama, we have to amend that. Our leaders can say these things now. They can say that everybody has to feed from a common trough. They can say that any neighborhood in America where most of the residents have savings accounts is a criminal enterprise, and should face RICO prosecution, unless it "alters its unbalanced population demographic."

They can say that unless everyone is free and happy and taken care of, no one should be free. (Except actors and politicians.)

So they're letting the cat out of the bag, and that's why we need more of us to step up to the plate and declare that Collectivism in America doesn't exist. To provide cover for our leaders.

We all want to help this massive denial persist, don't we?

But here's the downside and the threat. We have millions of young people coming up through schools programmed with sugar-plum idealism on behalf of "save everybody all the time everywhere in all cases for Mama Gaia."

Those kids are formidable. They're in lock step like any good rank and file. With just a little push, they'd all gather in Times Square at high noon and sing the Internationale.

We have to get them to mouth a whole different set of platitudes, to give themselves and us the aforementioned cover.

Then, when everything's ready, and our glorious leaders sense the moment has arrived, we can all step out into full view and declare we are one with Marx and Lenin.

I mean, we are, right?

Isn't this what we want?

I foresee the day when all the 24/7 surveillance of the American people will be used to assess and cap assets. They'll cook up a sweet algorithm for it. X3s/5drt+32sv**-cfq equals: you have too much, give the excess to the government for redistribution.

The kindness and the humanity of it makes me weep.

Yesterday, I wrote an article titled, "Matrix governments pretend to be real in the fantasy called democracy." I asserted, among other things, that all these share-and-care government programs are fakes. It's all about the contracts let out to corporations to create utopia.

The contracts are awarded, but money leaks out of them, on purpose, like a sieve. Millions and billions of bucks disappear down into holes, laundry trucks arrive, load up cash, and start washing it.

I said many ungrateful things in that article.

Today, I have come to my senses. Mea mea culpa.

I'm sitting here with a whip flagellating myself on the back (which is a good trick, while typing). Later this afternoon, I plan to visit a pond filled with garbage and mud and sink myself up to my neck in it.

Then, starting tomorrow, I'll enroll in a self-humiliation seminar, and pay my dues. Yes, I've had a real revelation.

I'm turning in my tank and my howitzer to the local police. They need these weapons, I don't.

I'm air-mailing my 6000 dairy cows to Ted Turner. He has room for them on his 2,000,000 acres. By the way, Ted's land is just a cover story for him. He can pretend to be awfully rich while, behind the scenes, he works to bring down the 400 people who've seen Atlas Shrugs, Part 2.. Ted's with us. He wants to destroy the present money system and start over, allotting $3,000 to every man, woman, and child in America, so we can be free.

He has CNN rewriting MLK's famous speech, so it now reads: "judged by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character."

See, the more black people can be demeaned and cast in the light of absolute helplessness, the easier it is to present the American people with a lowest, lowest common denominator...a bottom class by which our progress as a nation can be measured.

It's cruel, but sometimes scapegoating is necessary in the service of the Cause. Am I going too fast for you?

The underclass has to be pushed further and further down, so the government can point to it as a wretched failure and justify crashing the whole system and everybody in it, in order to institute absolute equality for all.

By the time those who are perceived to be the most unfortunate among us are rehabilitated, we'll look around and notice that we're all residents of a Christ-like police state.

For the common good.

Jesse and Al are definitely on board with the program. They've been doing this kind of shuffle-hustle for decades. They're the pros. When it comes to making "their own people" look bad, they're without peer.

There's a rumor going around that Jesse wants EBT food-stamp cards to be the new money. Maybe even the global oil reserve currency.

Anyway, here's the thing about Collectivism. It's basically a movement to wipe out the very idea of the individual. The human of the future will only be visible as a member of a group. Otherwise, no one will see him, except to report him to Homeland Security.

Eventually, all singular nouns and pronouns will be scrubbed from the English language. On Thanksgiving, people will say, "Pass the turkeys."

You'll be standing alone on a street corner and a guy you know will come up to you and say, "How are you folks today?"

Obviously, this will be a wonderful improvement. But in the meantime, we have to keep promoting individuals, like athletes and move stars, to hide the fact that, soon, we're going to spring the trap and eliminate all unique references, all singularities, and all individuals.

Remember that.

Ridicule is the best weapon to use against those who claim we're all living in a collectivist state right now. "Typical white male" is a good insult to shoot at somebody if you're white. It suggests a fine degree of insight on your part.

If you're going after a black person who's defending individuality and freedom, you've got the old standby, Uncle Tom. You can also say he's betraying his own people, his own race. Not only does it cut deep, it also suggests that black people aren't capable of being free individuals. This is good because, again, it bolsters the idea of an intransigent, oppressed, and completely helpless underclass.

And to lift up that underclass will require the establishing of universal Collectivism. But of course you omit that part.

This might be a good time to spell out our rights under a collectivist state. The principal right is experiencing the warm feeling from knowing that we're all in this together. It trumps everything.

Now some people might say this isn't really a right, but they're adhering to the classical definition of what a right is. That is exactly what we have to wipe out.

A right isn't a right. It's a higher degree of consciousness and a feeling. Make sure you understand that.

For example, in being willing to give up your assets, earnings, and property to the state, you're feeling honor. And love. Especially love. And after all, that's a Christian virtue. Not the throwing-the-money-changers-out-of-the-temple kind of love. The homogenized, melted-down, undifferentiated, jelly love.

The glazed-donut love that seeks nothing for itself.

Here's how it works. You look out at the world and you see that, in some country you know nothing about, there are a lot of people starving and dying. You insist they be saved. You insist that, in order to save them, we have to revolutionize the entire political, economic, and social system of the planet. That's real love. And it helps bring the world closer to being one collectivist glob of cheese.

The underlying right of all people is: to melt down in love.

Karl Marx was simply Jesus with a plan.

Here's one more thing we need to wipe out. The old idea of will power. Ban it wherever possible. Make it a speech crime and a thought crime. Replace it with: waiting for the universe to implement the next step of its plan for the future.

This puts everybody into a passive holding pattern. Easier then to run them over with the collectivist juggernaut.

Our leaders are ready. They have the wisdom to distribute all goods and services from Central Planning. They have the discernment to take from us what should be given to others. They just need to know enough of us are on board. Until that day, we give them cover.

We firmly assert that Collectivism doesn't exist. It's a fiction. A fairy tale. A ruse. A paranoid delusion requiring treatment. The people who believe Collectivism is here are rigid and warped. They are cut off from being able to love.

And they are. We are the only ones who can really love. That's why the future is ours.

Collectivism? Never heard of it.

Deny it, deny it, deny it, until all of a sudden...zap ZAP, and the trap is sprung. And then we're all in it together, where we've really always been, except now we have the laws and the leaders and the plan and the personnel and the guns and the bullets to officially make it so.

On that day, we'll stand on the peak of the mountain and raise a new flag and all will be well, all will be tranquil, and the seas will part and a man wearing desert robes emblazoned with a red Chinese star and a Star of David and a Hammer and Sickle and a photoshopped picture of Thomas Jefferson embracing David Rockefeller will come striding toward us...and angels and cherubs will dance around his head, and squadrons of mosquito drones will glow in his energy field, and synthetic electromagnetic love will pour out of his every cell, and holographic ads for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Chase and Citi will light up the sky, and we will fall to our knees and submit.

That's the money shot.

Hang in, we're almost there.

Sandy Hook: more television brainwashing using guests as fodder

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Somebody has to write about these things. Since I've worked as a reporter for 30 years, I know enough about how the game is rigged.

I'm talking about the big mass tragedies. Sandy Hook, the Aurora theater, Hurricane Sandy, Katrina.

Many of the interviews with survivors are done on the spot, with no prep. But the biggest interviews are done in a television studio or a home, by a recognized anchor. The setting is arranged beforehand and lit well. A mood and a framework are established.

The guests are prepped by one of the producers before they go on-air. This is where the brainwashing occurs. A potential conflict needs to be resolved. The network has its agenda and the guest has his.

The guest is swimming in a welter of emotions, in the wake of the tragedy. A family member has died. The environment of the storm or the murders is still chaotic.

The network wants to "edit" these feelings, to convey something specific."

The producer says to the guest, "What we want to do here is let our audience know how special your daughter was. How wonderful a person she was. We realize, of course, that you're grieving. We understand and honor that. We do. In this interview, we really want to give you a chance, though, to tell the world what a special girl she was. Talk about her life, her interests, her hobbies, how she was thought of by the family and by friends at school. Honor her memory..."

Now, this may be the last thing on the guest's mind. This grieving mother may be feeling angry, outraged. She is feeling absolutely desolate. She is feeling lost. Given the opportunity, she would express these feelings.

But this is not what the network or the anchor wants. The "program" at the moment involves "reflection on the happy moments of the child's life." It's part of the pre-set storyline.

At this moment, for this grieving mother, the happy moments are the farthest thing from her mind. But who cares? She just fodder for the network's agenda.

And if the producer is skillful enough, he can gently convince the mother that she should devote four minutes of commercially sponsored national television to "a celebration" of her dead child's life.

Suddenly, it makes sense to the profoundly confused, profoundly searching mother. Yes. Why not? Why not go along with the program? She'll have a video clip about her wonderful daughter forever. A scrapbook memory.

Under no circumstances, of course, will the producer or the anchor permit the mother to go on camera and show outrage and anger. That's verboten. That cuts too close to the bone. That doesn't fit the mandatory sequence of horror, shock, loss, grief, healing, resolution, celebration of a life lost.

The whole sequence is artificial. It's imposed. It's orchestrated. It's a stage play, produced in great part through interviews with guests who have suffered loss and who are "real."

Except they're not. They're programmed to deliver what the networks want.

And behind all this? Behind the mandatory spooled-out story line, which takes days to reveal in full, on television? The concealed anomalies and lies and contradictions in the commission of the crime and the ensuing cover-up.

The network story line hides as much of that as possible.

This is why the interview-prep is so important. Here is where the guests, before they go on camera, are nudged into the right slot, are shown what to focus on, are brainwashed into doing something they would never do.

Programming guests is a skill. Networks need people who can do that well. They have them. They pay them.

Anchor: I understand your daughter liked to make airplane models. Did you think that was unusual?

Mother: Well, at first we did. But she was good at it, and she enjoyed it so much, we became very enthusiastic about it. My husband introduced her to a buddy of his from the Air Force, and Cindy went up in a jet.

Anchor (smiling broadly): Really? A jet?

Mother: When she came home, she was overjoyed.

Anchor: Did she want to become a pilot?

Mother (laughing): For a few days. But her love of making models led her to want to be an artist. Our son is a graphics person. He taught Cindy to make computer pictures of our whole extended family. (laughing) We have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles. Cindy put their pictures all over the house. She knew everybody's names when she was four...

Completely wacko. But that's what the television audience sees and digests and accepts. And the anchor moves it right along. A fabricated story. Intercut, of course, with Cindy's pictures and Cindy smiling and playing and drawing and sitting at the computer.

And when the dust settles and the mother is being chauffeured home from the interview, her mind wanders and she begins to think about the revenge she wants to visit on the killer of her daughter. As many good mothers would. But it's too late. She's already had her four minutes on television. She feels like a fool, but it's too late.

She'll never get to say to Diane Sawyer, "You know, Diane, I wish somehow I was there at the school, and I had a gun, and I shot that killer dead."

No, that will never happen.

And mothers across America, who are feeling that they, too, would have wanted to be there, in the school, if their child was in mortal danger, and would have wanted to have a gun and shoot the killer dead to protect their child at all costs...those mothers will be, to a significant degree, reprogrammed by the Diane Sawyer interview, and they too will begin thinking of the happier times and the old days and the smiles and the laughter.

This is how a handful of television interviews with skillfully prepped guests can make all the difference in the world. Especially, in the case of Sandy Hook, when gun ownership is now at stake. Do I have to draw a picture for you?

Because, admit it, if you were the father or mother of a child who was murdered, wouldn't you have at least a few serious thoughts about revenge? Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you think about the .45 you have in the closet upstairs?

Television, though, teaches you what to feel.

If after watching a number of these tragedies play out on television, you are completely reprogrammed into some grotesque version of "love everybody all the time and forgive everything," and you need an outlet, a way to vicariously and subconsciously experience what you REALLY feel, you can always:

Go to the movies. The movies give you a different slant. You can be Mel Gibson killing people to get his kidnapped daughter back. You can be Charles Bronson wiping out street scum to avenge the loss of his wife. You can be Stallone or Arnie. You can roam the countryside spilling blood at every street corner.

The movies give you vicarious license to destroy evil. Television news takes it away.

It's called the whipsaw effect, and it's modern mind control, and it puts you in the "excluded middle," where nothing happens and you remain locked up and passive.

Where the powers-that-be want you to remain.

Have a nice, nice day.

Is Drone Slaughter Murder?

October 12, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - - The Wall Street Journal recently reported on debates within the Obama administration about the legality of the drone war in Pakistan. State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, the former dean of Yale Law School and even more former darling of the left for his criticisms of the Bush administration’s aggressive theories of executive power, plays a prominent role in them. Koh apparently concluded that the drone war “veers near the edge” of illegality but does not quite tumble over it. That is a questionable judgment. The U.N. Charter permits countries to use military force abroad only with the approval of the U.N. Security Council, in self-defense, or with the permission of the country in which military force is to be used. The U.N. Security Council never authorized the drone war in Pakistan. Self-defense, traditionally defined to mean the use of force against an “imminent” armed attack by a nation-state, does not apply either, because no one thinks that Pakistan plans to invade the United States. That leaves consent as the only possible legal theory. But Pakistan has never consented to the drone war. Publicly and officially the country has opposed it. Before the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the CIA sent a fax every month to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency that would identify the airspace in which drones would be sent. The ISI would send back an acknowledgment that it had received the fax, and the U.S. government inferred consent on the basis of the acknowledgments. But after the raid, the ISI stopped sending back the acknowledgments. Now what to do? The administration argues that consent can still be inferred despite the unanswered faxes. The reason is that “the Pakistani military continues to clear airspace for drones and doesn’t interfere physically with the unpiloted aircraft in flight”—meaning that Pakistan does not shoot down the drones or permit private aircraft to collide with them. We might call this “coerced consent.” Consider it this way: You walk into a jewelry store and the proprietor announces that he will deem you to have consented to the purchase of a diamond tiara for $10,000, despite all your protests to the contrary, unless you use physical force to stop him as he removes your wallet from your pocket. Imagine further that he’s 7 feet tall and weighs 400 pounds. This is what a Pakistani official meant when he told the Wall Street Journal that shooting down a drone would be “needlessly provocative.” He meant that such an action would risk provoking retaliation from the United States, a risk that Pakistan cannot afford to take. Because Pakistan lies prostrate and endures the pummeling rather than makes a futile effort to stop it, it is deemed to consent to the bombing of its own territory. But don’t blame government lawyers like Koh for devising this theory. International law lacks the resources for constraining the U.S. government. Koh knows this now if he did not before. Since he built his academic career on the claim that international law can and should be used to control nation-states and harshly criticized the Bush administration for violating international law, this must have been a bitter pill to swallow. (Though he has swallowed so many bitter pills that perhaps he has lost his sense of taste: The man who told the Senate at the end of the Bush administration that the United States must “unambiguously reassert our historic commitments to human rights and the rule of law as a major source of our moral authority” has backed away from his earlier opposition to expansive war powers, targeted killing, military commissions, and military detention.) The weakness of international law governing the use of military force goes back to the signing of the U.N. Charter in 1945. The founders understood that a simple rule prohibiting the use of military force except in self-defense, or with the consent of another state, would not be adequate for regulating war. But they could not draft a code complex enough to anticipate all the contingencies that might justify war. Instead they set up the Security Council and reasoned that this body could determine when war might be justified for purposes other than self-defense. But the Security Council was frozen first by the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and then the cold peace rivalries between the United States, Russia, and China. It has authorized only two wars since its inception (the Korean War and the first Iraq War; it also retroactively approved the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001). Needless to say, there have been dozens of wars since 1945. Participants have included countries as diverse as China, the Soviet Union, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel, and Argentina. Even the supposedly pacific European countries participated via NATO in several of these wars. The United States has on several occasions justified wars (for example, in Kosovo in 1999, Libya in 2011) as humanitarian interventions—a principle that can be found nowhere in the U.N. Charter but enjoys some international support. In other cases, including current drone operations in Pakistan, the United States has invoked a new idea of the “unable or unwilling” country, one that outside powers can invade because that country cannot prevent terrorists located on its territory from launching attacks across its borders. But most U.S. wars can be fit into these two categories only with difficulty. Those wars are undertaken to shut down a destabilizing or dangerous regime, one that typically has used violence to keep itself in power. One can put the second Iraq War in this category, as well as the Panama intervention in 1990, the interventions in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the intervention in Granada in 1983. During the Cold War, the United States also often evaded the U.N. prohibition on interstate war by funding and training a domestic insurgency. The U.N. Charter does not permit states to use military force to unilaterally address long-term threats in this way. It is too easy for states to characterize other states as long-term threats regardless of whether they are. And yet this omission rendered the charter unworkable, because all states must take long-term threats seriously, whether or not the members of the Security Council can be persuaded or bribed to agree with them. Government lawyers like Koh must scramble to revise their interpretation of international law so as to keep up with the new events that justify, in the eyes of the president, a military intervention. The “coerced consent” doctrine, the “unable and unwilling” doctrine, and the exception for humanitarian intervention all whittle away at whatever part of the law on United Nations use of force blocks U.S. goals. If the United States ever decides to invade Iran in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, expect a new doctrine to take shape, perhaps one that emphasizes the unique dangers of nuclear weapons and Iran’s declared hostility toward a nearby country. It is curious that there is not a global outcry about the illegality of the wars in Pakistan or Libya, as there was about the illegality of the recent war in Iraq, which the Bush administration dubiously justified on the basis of Iraq’s violations of earlier U.N. resolutions that had suspended hostilities after the first Iraq War. Maybe the world doesn’t care as much about Pakistan, which has no oil. Or maybe people have finally realized that the United States, which has been almost continuously at war since the collapse of the Soviet Union, will not be swayed by legal arguments. A powerful army is too useful not to use, whether you are a Republican president or a Democratic one.

Mind Control: Colorado Shooter Was One of Six Students With Grant for ‘Elite’ Neuroscience Program

By Alex Thomas
theintelhub.com
July 24, 2012

In the wake of the horrific shooting that took place during a showing of Batman “The Dark Knight Rises” in a Colorado movie theater that left at least a dozen people dead, many startling revelations about the suspected shooter have emerged.

Independent journalists throughout the alternative media have written hard hitting reports that detail the numerous facts that point to the shooting being an actual black op rather than a crazed shooter acting alone.

Now, a report from the USA Today has highlighted yet another startling piece of information in regards to who James Holmes supposedly was.

The report details the fact that the University of Colorado had given Holmes a 26,000 grant after he was accepted into an elite neuroscience program that only admits six students per year.

University of Colorado officials disclosed Monday that mass shooting suspect James Holmes was being paid $26,000 a year for his studies — money that could have financed the cache of firearms, ammunition and explosive devices found in his apartment.

{…}

Holmes, 24, unexpectedly dropped out of an elite neuroscience graduate program June 10 after failing part of his first-year final exam.

School officials say they were stunned to learn of his arrest Friday after a shooting rampage at a packed movie house a few miles from campus that left 12 dead and 58 injured. Police found Holmes’ apartment near campus filled with booby-trapped explosive devices.

{…}

The program to which Holmes was accepted last fall admits just six students a year.

Candidates have top grades and “near perfect” test scores, Shur said. They undergo a background check but no mental examination. “No program requires psychiatric evaluation, to the best of my knowledge,”

Elite neuroscience program with only six students? Unexpected dropout and apparent quick personal downhill plunge?

Mind Control Anyone?

Students studying under an elite neuroscience program would be learning and on the literal cutting edge of developing military and intelligence applications, basically working and learning about forms of mind control.

This stunning fact adds a tremendous amount of credence to the early reports by others that pointed to the shooter being under some sort of mind control.

Sadly, the shooting literally has all the hallmarks of a false flag and this recent revelation is simply the icing on the cake of a long line of information that directly leads to elements of our government as the most likely suspects.

False Flag?

Government and new world order talking heads such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for further limiting the second amendment just hours after the shooting.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is set to be debated this week with a huge majority of Americans opposing ANY restrictions on guns.

On the same day as the Aurora massacre, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine held an identical drill that simulated a shooter in a movie theater.

ABC News as well as other corporate media outlets initially reported multiple suspects before the official “story” was fed into the newsrooms by government and law enforcement officials.

Witnesses inside the theater have stated that someone actually stood up in the theater after receiving a phone call and preceded to walk towards the emergency exit that was later used by the shooter. He then preceded to prop open the door in some way.

A 1986 Dark Knight comic actually foretold the theater shooting, a fact that lines up directly with the numerous other predictive programming techniques used in many forms of media in many different ways.

A trailer that played before the movie depicted gangsters shooting up a movie theater. The trailer was promptly removed by Warner Brothers just hours after the massacre

Fear Controls The World & TV Controls You

Who Really Owns All Of The Media In America?

Sadly we now find ourselves in a word where six massive media conglomerates literally control the entire “mainstream” media.

These six corporations, (largely owned by Zionist and Globalist operatives) Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal are responsible for countless lies, propaganda pieces, death, and the ultimate dumbing down of America.

When you take even a small look at the companies that run under the six corporations listed above, a clear pictures emerges.

Time Warner

Home Box Office (HBO)
Time Inc.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
TMZ
Moviefone
Castle Rock
Sports Illustrated
Fortune
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable
Cinemax
Cartoon Network
TBS
TNT
America Online
MapQuest
Marie Claire
People Magazine

Walt Disney

SOAPnet
A&E
Lifetime
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Disney Records
Hollywood Records
Miramax Films
ABC Television Network
Disney Publishing
ESPN Inc.
Touchstone Pictures
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Disney Channel
Buena Vista Games
Hyperion Books

Viacom

Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Comedy Central
Country Music Television (CMT)
Logo
Paramount Pictures
Paramount Home Entertainment
MTV
MTV Canada
MTV2
Nick Magazine
Nick at Nite
Nick Jr.
Nickelodeon
Noggin
Spike TV
The Movie Channel
TV Land
VH1

News Corporation

Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Beliefnet
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network
FX
My Network TV
MySpace
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
Sky PerfecTV
Speed Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
STAR World
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
BSkyB
DIRECTV
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
FOXTEL
HarperCollins Publishers
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Radio Veronica
ReganBooks
Sky Italia
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
STAR
Zondervan

CBS Corporation

CBS News
CBS Sports
CBS Television Network
CNET
Showtime
TV.com
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CBS Outdoor
CW Network (50% ownership)
Infinity Broadcasting
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
Westwood One Radio Network

NBC Universal

Bravo
CNBC
NBC News
MSNBC
NBC Sports
NBC Television Network
Oxygen
SciFi Magazine
Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
Telemundo
USA Network
Weather Channel
Focus Features
NBC Universal Television Distribution
NBC Universal Television Studio
Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
Trio
Universal Parks & Resorts
Universal Pictures
Universal Studio Home Video

We created this website so that we could directly expose the companies and actual individuals involved with the corporate controlled media.

In the weeks and months ahead we will be publishing reports detailing the worst offenders in the corporate controlled media and calling them out by name.

We also plan to delve deep into the actual owners of the media and what they all seem to have in common.

The media graphic below (provided by FrugalDad) documents just how bad the current American mainstream media situation actually is:

Source: Frugal dad

We Love Freedom! What Freedom?

The US Government's agenda to lobotomize the majority of Americans has been an unequivocal success.

Americans now live in one of the world's least free prison camps yet when asked they will tell you they live in the land of the free and, on top of that, they are attacking and occupying countries who did nothing to them because "they hate us for our freedom"!

They've been indoctrinated all of their formative years in mandatory children concentration camps (public schools or private, government regulated schools) and the Government and Federal Reserve has destroyed the economy to the point that it is the rare mother who actually stays home with her kids. Mom and Dad are both out working because they can't afford not to.

And even if they can, the government promotes "women's liberation", which like all government programs, means the opposite of what it is called - and Mom works a full day before returning home exhausted and then giving her kids another few hours of brainwashing via television to complete the full day of programming. They even call it that right to their face... "we now return to your regularly scheduled programming". It's okay, no one ever figures it out.

And if the kids get upset at having to spend eight hours per day in kid jail they are immediately trotted off for their ingestion of toxic chemicals. Adderall. Prozac. Whatever... anything to keep them dumbed down and in line.

You can always spot an American anywhere in the world - not just because they take off their shoes and belt at every airport. Once in Thailand I was in a taxi with an American friend. We drove past a place that looked like it had difficult working conditions (it was a small sewing factory that didn't appear to have air conditioning in the dense heat of Bangkok).