Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Are Your Thoughts Being Manipulated?


*******
*******
The Science of Thought Control
Transforming Citizens Into Consumers
The Century of the Self
Film Review
Part 1 (Happiness Machines) and Part 2 (Engineering of Consent)
The twentieth century is frequently referred to as the selfish century. This documentary lays the blame for this at the feet of Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays.
Prior to World War I politicians and businesses used facts and information to win votes or to persuade people to buy their products.
When Woodrow Wilson hired him to run his Committee for Public Information to produce pro-World War I propaganda, Bernays incorporated Sigmund Freud’s theory that human behavior was based on unconscious instinctual drives.
By appealing to these unconscious and irrational feelings, he succeeded in selling World War I to a profoundly isolationist American public.
 As well as his pivotal role in engineering corporate and government propaganda, Bernays was also responsible for popularizing Sigmund Freud’s work by emphasizing its sexual content.
The Shift from a Needs to a Desire Based Culture
Curious whether similar techniques would also work in peace time, Bernays hired himself out to corporations to help them improve their sale of consumer products. His goal was to shift US society from a needs culture, where people only bought what they needed, to a desire culture, where they purchased products to make them feel better. Aware that the word propaganda had an extremely negative connotation, Bernays coined the term “public relations.”
Bernay’s stunning success gave birth to 1920s “consumptionism” and was largely responsible for the economic bubble that resulted in the 1929 crash. Already by 1927, social critics were concerned that Americans were no longer citizens but consumers.
Confident of their ability to engineer consumer demand, banks funded national expansion of department store chains and hired Bernays to persuade ordinary people to borrow money to buy shares in the stock market. Driven to record levels by borrowed money, the stock market collapsed.
During the Great Depression, Bernays shifted gears to focus more on influencing public political views. Neither Freud nor Bernays believed in the equality of man. Frightened by the rise of fascism in Europe, both believed that democracy was a fundamentally unsafe form of government (due to human beings’ dangerous unconscious drives).
Roosevelt Tries to Rein in Business
Unlike Freud and Bernays, Franklin Roosevelt believed that people were capable of knowing what they wanted and relied on the new science of public opinion polling (pioneered by George Gallup) to ascertain what people were thinking. His response to the Great Depression was to grant himself extensive executive power and subject business to central economic planning, which they hated.
In 1936, the National Association of Manufacturers hired Bernays to initiate an ideological campaign against the New Deal (and the rise of unionism as Alex Carey mentions in Taking the Risk Out of Democracy).
When World War II ended, the CIA hired Bernays to advise them on how to control the “irrational aggression” of the masses. In his CIA role, Bernays devised a campaign for the Eisenhower administration to convince the American public they were under imminent threat from Soviet Communism.
As part of this campaign, Bernays mobilized public and congressional support for the 1954 coup against Guatemala’s democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz. Bernays also worked for the United Fruit Company, which was concerned about Arbenz’s plans for land reform, i.e. breaking up their extensive Guatemalan banana plantations.
The Birth of the Focus Group
Meanwhile the public relations industry hired psychoanalysts to set up focus groups to use advertising more effectively to improve consumer demand for corporate products. These early focus groups employed psychoanalytic techniques to help advertisers improve sales by secretly appealing to unconscious needs and insecurities.
*******
*******
*******
Corporate Brainwashing and Thought Control
Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda vs Freedom and LibertyDr. Stuart Jeanne Bramhall, New Zealand
Friday, July 18th, 2014
Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty is a collection of essays written by psychologist Alex Carey prior to his death in 1988. Carey’s book details the 100 year history of the deliberate manipulation of popular consciousness by the corporate elite.

-----------------------

Book Review

Walking the Talk
According to Carey, the main purpose of corporate social engineering is to persuade the voting public to serve the interests of the privileged class, rather than their own working class needs.
This type of propaganda relies heavily on emotionally-laden symbols and a black and white view of society in which people and issues are either good or evil.
Owing to virtually unlimited corporate financing, it’s spectacularly effective. Conservative regimes that enacted reactionary social policy (in the US) between 1919-1929, 1946-1956, and 1976-2014 didn’t just happen – they were deliberately engineered by the business lobby and corporate propagandists.
Women and Blacks Win Vote In the view of the US business elite, a dedicated program of social engineering became essential at the beginning of the 20th century when women and northern blacks acquired the right to vote.
In 1880, only 10-15% of the US population was eligible to vote. By 1920, this percentage had increased to 40-50%. The corporate elite couldn’t take the risk that this large crop of new voters would elect candidates keen on regulating corporate activities that posed a threat to public health and welfare.
Edward Bernays, known as the father of public relations, played an instrumental role in advancing the art and science of corporate propaganda. During World War I, he assisted Woodrow Wilson, who ran as an antiwar president, in convincing a fiercely antiwar and isolationist American public to support US intervention in the war between Britain and Germany.

------------------------------------
Peacetime Propaganda

After World War I, Bernays worked for the National Association of Manufacturers and other corporate groups with a primary agenda of turning public opinion against unions, immigrants and the corporate regulation enacted by President Teddy Roosevelt between 1901 and 1912.
By combining a vast media campaign with concerted employee indoctrination, Bernays created a wave of anti-union and anti-immigrant hysteria. By convincing Americans that corporate regulation was akin to Bolshevism. In this way, he successfully ushered in the first (1919-1921) of three periods of corporate rule.
While post-war Europe enjoyed a wave of radical liberalism resulting in the rise of democratic socialism, the US was caught in the grips of a reactionary agenda that would set the stage for the repressive Red Scare and Palmer Raids (in which politically active immigrants were rounded up and deported).
----------------------------------------
Labor Paralysis, Korea and Vietnam



The other two periods in which a corporate agenda dominated US domestic and foreign policy occurred between 1946-1950 and 1976-80.
Between 1929 and 1946, the Great Depression and World War II dramatically curtailed the effectiveness of corporate propaganda. In the late forties, corporate interest groups roared back with a vengeance.
The ideological agenda they broadcast on radio and in print media equated free enterprise with freedom and democracy, patriotism with social harmony and the New Deal with creeping socialism. Liberals who supported corporate regulation were portrayed as communist sympathizers.
During this period, the Chamber of Commerce launched the first major publicity campaign warning that communists had infiltrated government, universities and other major institutions. Thanks to these propaganda efforts, in Republicans took control of Congress for the first time since 1928. In 1947 they enacted the Taft Hartley Act (1947), virtually paralyzing American unions.
By blanketing the media with their reactionary agenda, pro-corporate ideologues also laid the ground work for the second Red Scare, aka the McCarthy Era from 1950-1956.
Senator Joseph McCarthy’s House Committee on Unamerican Activities had an even more destructive effect on foreign policy than it did on civil liberties. In addition to pressuring Truman to pursue an unwinnable war in Korea, McCarthy also forced Eisenhower to reverse US policy on Vietnam and China.
Under Truman, the US State Department had opposed the French return to Vietnam (i.e. they supported Vietnamese independence). They had also sought to mediate (in 1945) between Mao Tsai Tung and Chiang Kai Shek in the Chinese civil war.

After McCarthy succeeded in stripping the State Department of more than 500 personnel with Asian expertise, the ultraconservative, CIA-linked John Foster Dulles succeeded in throwing US support behind the incompetent and corrupt Chiang Kai Shek and transforming French opposition to Vietnamese independence into a battle to prevent world Communist domination.
----------------------------------
The Rise of Pro-Corporate Neocons

(left: Noam Chomsky – still with us)
The anti-Vietnam War, Nixon’s resignation and public anger over against CIA domestic spying led to a strong anti-business backlash during the late sixties and early seventies. Corporate ideologues fought back with the launch of "treetop" propaganda efforts.
As opposed to grassroots media-based propaganda, treetop propaganda focuses on recruiting rich conservatives to fund conservative think tanks to promote conservative "economic education" and lobby Congress to defeat consumer protection and labor rights legislation.
The American Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) (neoconservative think tank founded in 1970), the Heritage Foundation (founded in 1973) and would be instrumental in promoting "economic" ideological beliefs that full employment and clean air and water initiatives are detrimental to the economy because they hurt business.
These think tanks also hammered Congress and universities with the notion that the US would collapse under a socialist dictatorship unless corporate regulations were rolled back.
Their success in bombarding all sectors of society with these reactionary ideas would pave the way for Ronald Reagan’s election and the rollback of corporate regulation and social safety net programs that occurred during his administration.
During the early 1970s, these conservative think tanks began exporting these reactionary belief systems to British and Australian corporate interest groups. In Britain, American-inspired treetop and grassroots pro-corporate propaganda would lead to Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979.
-----------------------------------
Below is the 1993 documentary based on Noam Chomsky’s book Manufacturing Consent. The title is based on a term coined by Bernays: "engineering consent." Carey had studied with Chomsky at MIT.
*******
Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)
*******

Science Of Persuasion
*******

Friday, July 18, 2014

Who Will Sit in the Mayor's Seat?


*******

Rex Murphy: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford  
*******
Olivia Chow’s millionaire lifestyle
Sexist, Racist, Liar, Millionaire
By Ezra Levant  July 18, 2014
To Toronto mayoral candidate Olivia Chow, being a millionaire is shameful. But isn’t she part of the one percent?
*******

John Tory's Massive Flip Flop
*******
Meet Toronto mayoral candidate Sketchy the Clown
*******

Monday, July 14, 2014

Media Hides the Real Israel - Palestine Conflict! (Part 2)

*******
Israel savages Gaza - again
What the media aren't telling you
*******
Israel is responding to rocket attacks out of Gaza! That's the headline you see everywhere. But we show you what the mainstream media isn't telling you about this story.
The reality of Gaza. It's called the "biggest open air prison in the world."
*******
How Israel came to be 
The real story
*******
Israel...the perennial victim.  Or is it?  Here is a very different version of the history the news media rams down Americans' throats. Miko Peled is a former Israeli Army soldier and the son on an Israeli general who was involved in the founding of the country. His family, including his father, has a very different version of Israel's founding. One very different than the garbage history rammed downed the throats of Americans by a careless, cowardly and corrupt US news media.
*******
Israel Hits Gaza (Gaza hits Israel? Shhh!)
Last week, the Washington Post ran a headline typical of the Western liberal media:
"Israel hits Gaza Homes." The sub-head said: "Children and women killed." This headline will be defended by all good journalists as no more than describing what happened in the seemingly endless clash between Arabs and Israelis. They will argue that when Israel its homes in Gaza, it is news. When Hamas rockets rain down on Israeli cities and towns—and homes, schools, and hospitals, it is not news. It happens ever day, so it becomes like a weather report. Thousands of Hamas rockets have been fired at Israeli homes. Thousands. This coverage brings to mind the old French saying: This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself.
The late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick saw all this coming. Her seminal article in the pages of Commentary Magazine in 1989—now twenty-five years old—was prophetic. "How the PLO was Legitimized" showed how Yasser Arafat’s PLO ((Palestine Liberation Organization) used the tools of international diplomacy to "dumb down" international law on the targeting of civilians and the deliberate use of terrorism as a tactic for pushing one’s way to power.
Amb. Kirkpatrick’s article begins: "Some leaders win power through inheritance, some through elections, some through civil war or coup d’├ętat. Yasir Arafat and the PLO are trying something different. They are attempting to come to power through international diplomacy—reinforced by murder. And they have nearly succeeded."
Reading Kirkpatrick’s article, which shows the long march of the PLO through the institutions of the UN in the 1980s, is like reading that other tortured rationale for homicide, Roe v. Wade (1973). In fact, these might be called parallel paths to the acceptance of mass killing of innocents.
Domestically, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the protections afforded to unborn human beings by classing the child in the womb as a non-person under the law. In international law, the conventions against piracy and terrorism were amended, in effect, to say that if you were engaged in a struggle of "national liberation," you could legitimately target civilians in airliners, pizza parlors, hotels, beaches, schools, kindergartens. Or hospitals.
The PLO had done all of that for twenty-five years prior to its admission to international forums. The PLO’s asymmetric warfare continued unabated after it changed its public face to the PA. What the PLO did, quite simply, was to subcontract terrorism.
Today, the PLO is headed by Mahmoud Abbas, the loyal lieutenant of Arafat, who died in 2004. For a quarter of a century since 1989, the PLO/PA has gotten diplomatic recognition as a legitimate voice of the Arabs living in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, on the West bank of the River Jordan. Promising to give up terrorism, the PLO has been showered with foreign aid, from the United States, from the European Union, and from the UN. America alone has provided billions in assistance to the PLO/PA.
For what? The PLO continues to teach a genocidal ideology in the schools it controls. It continues to lionize as "martyrs" suicide bombers. Abbas attends ribbon cuttings for public squares and schools named for these mass murderers. In PA-controlled regions, the flaming Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were jubilantly celebrated on 9/11. People fired their AK-47s in the air, danced in the streets, and gave candy to their children when thousands of Americans were murdered in Manhattan and in the Pentagon.
Still, administrations of both parties have treated the PLO and Mahmoud Abbas as if he were a true "peace partner." Most recently, the PLO has bedded down with Hamas. Hamas won the "elections" in Gaza in 2006. Hamas is the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is openly and unapologetically committed to the eradication of Israel.
The PLO, meanwhile, simply soft-pedals its own genocidal objectives. It has yet to remove from its charter and its seal the words and symbols that show its ultimate goal: They want a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, a contiguous territory with no Israel and no Jews. The Nazi goal of World War II—creating a Judenrein—a region with no Jews—in Europe would thus be achieved in the Mideast. And we Americans would be helping to pay for it.
Policy "experts" from our State Department pretend not to see this PLO/PA eliminationist objective. They pretend that Jerusalem in not the undivided capital of Israel. Israel is thus the only state in the world that is denied the right to name its own capital. When Germany reunited in 1990 and named Berlin—Berlin!—as its new capital, our State Department quietly packed up its bags and moved the U.S. Embassy from Bonn to Berlin.
The Obama administration should have used the PLO’s forming a coalition government with Hamas as the necessary pretext for cutting off all U.S. aid to the PLO/PA. After all, we have listed Hamas as a terrorist organization.
But no. The State Department’s weaselly circumlocution tells us that because Hamas has only contributed "technocrats" to the running of the coalition, we can continue the charade. And we can continue to pay for this game of charades.
Secretary Kerry should read Hannah Arendt’s classic work: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. There, he will learn that Adolf Eichmann was really just a technocrat, too. He was concerned mostly with transportation and housing and railroad schedules. The mere fact that he sent millions to their death at Auschwitz is almost incidental to his life story—as he saw it.
Liberals used to understand all this. Hannah Arendt’s reports from Jerusalem originally ran in The New Yorker. From those reports, literate liberals understood that eliminationist anti-Semitism is a real force in the world and must be confronted and not cosseted.
The continued bias of our media, the continued treatment of the PLO as a legitimate party to Mideast negotiations, is a source of wonder. When we look back to the 1930s, we ask ourselves: "How could they be so blind?" When we look to our own media and State Department mumblers and bumblers, we have our answer: That’s how!
Bob Morrison coauthored this column
*******
It’s Only a "War" if Israel Defends Itself
Hamas, the Palestinians, and the Sunni-Shiite hostilities of the Mideast all testify to the complete inability of its Arab population to seek peace with anyone, including each other.
July 14, 2014
There are many reasons why Hamas, a terrorist organization according to the U.S. State Department, has increased its rocketing of Israel. And it is an increase because Hamas has never ceased from rocketing Israel following it seizure of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, also known as Fatah.
Hamas is Iran’s Palestinian proxy in the war on Israel in much the same fashion as Hezbollah which controls Lebanon. It lost its support from Syria’s dictator who is engaged in a civil war with Islamists who, controlling a swath of its northern region, have now declared an Islamic State and are threatening Baghdad in Iraq after a swift military victory in its northern and central region. Hamas has also lost the support of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood which has been banned there.
The rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel have generated four conflicts since 2006 during which Israel took military action to reduce them. Israel is only considered to be "at war" when it takes steps to defend itself.
Hamas knows it cannot "win" a military conflict, but as Middle East expert, Dr. Daniel Pipes, noted in the July 11 edition of National Review Online, "The holy grail of political warfare is to win the sympathy of the global Left by presenting oneself as underdog and victim." The current conflict began when three Israeli teens were kidnapped and killed. This led Israel to round up suspects in the West Bank in the course of searching for the boys. Regrettably an Arab youth was killed in revenge and this was followed by a rain of missiles and rockets from Gaza.
As Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at Israel’s Global Research in International Affairs Center, noted, "There is a tendency to see the Israel-Palestinian arena as somehow set apart from the rest of the Mideast neighborhood, but this is an illusion. Firstly, in the most tangible way, the most potent elements of the Hamas assault on Israeli cities of recent days is made possible only by the movement’s link with Iran."
The primary reason Israel has not suffered the problems of Syria and Iraq has been its defense forces. "More profoundly, in the simple and brutal logic of the neighborhood, Israel is trying to remind Hamas of the cost of tangling with the Jewish state," says Spyer. "The objective of this is not to reconquer Gaza, nor to impact on local politics, still less to impose suffering on the Palestinians for its own sake."
To demonstrate how deeply rooted the hatred of Israel is in the minds and hearts of Palestinians who have never agreed to any terms of peace, David Horowitz, the editor of Times of Israel noted on July 8 that "Gaza could have flourished after Israel wrenched its 8,000 civilians from the 20-plus settlements there in 2005." Yes, it was Israel that cleared Gaza of its Jewish population to provide a place for the Palestinians to live together!
"Gazans," said Horowitz, "could have built an island of democracy. Investment could have grown, as it did in the early 1990s, when expat Palestinian investors, believing better times were at hand, fueled a brief property boom. Gaza’s golden beaches could have been a promising tourism draw. If Gaza had become a seemingly stable area, Israel might even have felt sufficiently trusting of the Palestinians as to attempt a similar unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank."
Instead, "hostility to Israel was so profound that Gazans couldn’t even restrain themselves for long enough to fool us into trusting them." Instead, in recent weeks "Hamas is firing some of its 100,000-rocket arsenal because it has nothing much to lose anymore—that it has lost the support of Egypt, that it can’t get the money to pay salaries…" Hamas, the Palestinians, and the Sunni-Shiite hostilities of the Mideast all testify to the complete inability of its Arab population to seek peace with anyone, including each other.
As a July 9 Wall Street Journal editorial noted, "Hamas may also believe it can repeatedly go to war against a militarily superior foe because Israel has never exacted a fatal price. Hamas’s aggression serves its political purposes, while Palestinian casualties serve its propaganda purposes."
"All of this will be condemned by the usual suspects. But Israelis will be denounced for whatever they do, so they might as well act effectively."
Dr. Pipes noted that, at this point, "Worldwide condemnations of Israel have yet to pour in. Even the Arabic media are relatively quiet. If this pattern holds, Hamas might conclude that raining rockets on Israeli homes is not such a good idea. Indeed, to dissuade it from initiating another assault in a few years, it needs to lose both the military and the political wars, and lose them very badly."
Israel knows this and will engage in a significant military effort that includes sending troops into Gaza in addition to air strikes.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
 
*******
"Justified Vengeance", The Pretext for Bombing Gaza: Was the Netanyahu Government behind the Killings of the Three Israeli Teenagers?
Global Research, July 13, 2014
The pretext for bombing and shelling Gaza was the death of three Israeli teenagers allegedly killed by Hamas.

‘Operation Protective Edge (OPE) directed against Gaza is reminiscent of the infamous 2001 Dagan Plan entitled "Operation Justified Vengeance" in which the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians had been envisaged and foreseen by IDF military planners.
The deaths are then used to muster the support of the Israeli public as well as provide a justification for a "legitimate" counter-terrorism operation in the eyes of the international community directed against the Palestinian occupied territories.
Contrived behind closed doors in July 2001, the Dagan Plan (named after Mossad chief Meir Dagan) was slated by its IDF and Mossad architects to be "launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians." (See Ellis Shuman, "Operation Justified Vengeance": a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, Intelligence Ploy behind the "Suicide bombings", Global Research, February 01, 2006)
‘Operation Protective Edge (OPE) directed against Gaza was planned well in advance of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. Prime Minister Netanyahu has called up 40,000 reservists. In the wake of the shelling and bombing raids, a major ground operation scenario is envisaged.
Moreover, similar to the logic of the Dagan Plan, the head of Israeli intelligence (Mossad) had "predicted" the kidnapping of the three teenagers. Under the title Mossad chief’s chillingly prescient kidnap prophecy, Haaretz confirms that
"Mossad chief Tamir Pardo had "outlined a scenario that was spookily [sic] similar to the kidnapping of three teens missing in the West Bank" (Haaretz, July 13, 2014, emphasis added)
Israeli civilian deaths are blamed on Hamas without evidence to justify military action against Gaza. The ultimate objective of "Operation Protective Edge" is to break the institutional base of the Hamas leadership and destroy Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, with a view to eventually carrying out the annexation of the Gaza Strip to Israel. As of July 13, Israel is reported to have struck 1,320 sites within Gaza, resulting in 167 deaths and more than 1,000 injured (Mannam News, July 13, 2014)
Were the three boys killed by Hamas?
Israeli press reports intimate that the three teenagers could have been executed by the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist entity the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which just so happens to be supported "covertly" as well "overtly" by the State of Israel.
Under the title Jihadist group takes credit for teens’ killings, the Times of Israel confirms that:
A new Palestinian jihadist group pledging allegiance to the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIL) has claimed responsibility for the killing of three Israeli teenagers last month in the West Bank, … as well as other recent deadly attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians…..
The actions were carried out in honor of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed "caliph" of the Islamic State, the reincarnation of the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL)declared last month, the statement said."(Times of Israel, July 3, 2014)
The ISIL (renamed the Islamic State) (see image) constitutes the main Al Qaeda rebel fighting force in Syria directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad. More recently, ISIL brigades have entered Iraq, confronting government forces.
While ISIL is an Al Qaeda affiliated entity funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, retribution by Israel for the deaths of the teenagers was directed against Gaza rather than Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
The supportive role of the US and Israel to the Al Qaeda affiliated entity is not limited to the realm of covert operations. The Israeli military (IDF) is supporting the jihadist entity out of the occupied Golan Heights. Moreover, amply documented, there are Western and well Israeli Special Forces within ISIL rebel ranks.
In March, an Austrian military officer of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the occupied Golan Heights "confirmed that Israel has provided large-scale logistical and military support to the [ISIL and Al Nusrah] terrorists and rebels in different parts of Syria"
The UNDOF official confirmed the existence of "a joint operation room" between Israel and the Al Qaeda rebels pertaining to "the delivery of [Israeli] assistance to the terrorists."
This assistance is not limited to logistics:
"According to the Israeli Channel 1 television, ‘security sources’ informed of a new missile system named ‘Mitar’, established in Golan for giving backup coverage to anti-Syria militant groups.
The system includes middle-range and long-range missiles, according to the report." (Al Alam May 3, 2014 emphasis added)
An IDF military hospital in the occupied Golan Heights was established to treat wounded Al Qaeda rebels.
In February, The Jerusalem Post reported that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visited the IDF field hospital in the occupied Golan heights, which was set up in support of the jihadist rebels operating in Syria. The hospital was set up to treat wounded Al Qaeda rebels.
The Jerusalem Post acknowledges that the hospital is being used to support the jihadist insurgency. Netanyahu referred to the Hospital as the place which "separates the good in the world from the evil in the world."
"The good", according to Netanyahu "is Israel", which in a bitter irony wholeheartedly supports the Al Qaeda "freedom fighters" in Syria; "the bad" refers to Iran which supports Bashar Al Assad.
The good, the prime minister said, is Israel, which "saves lives from the daily slaughter taking place in Syria. This is the true face of Israel."
The evil, he continued, is Iran, which is arming those carrying out the slaughter. (Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2014)
While the IDF field hospital was established to support Al Qaeda in an operation coordinated by IDF Special Forces, Netanyahu casually accuses Iran for "its support of terrorist groups around the world". (JP, February 19, 2014)
Netanyau does not deny his government’s support of the jihadists. The IDF top brass tacitly acknowledged that "global jihad elements inside Syria" are supported by Israel:
Netanyahu toured the Golan Heights with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz.
At a lookout point overlooking the Syrian border, OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan briefed Netanyahu on the presence of global jihad elements inside Syria, as well as on the work being done to fortify the Israeli-Syrian border fence. (Ibid)
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Shakes Hand with an Al Qaeda Terrorist
Is the wounded terrorist an Israeli intelligence asset? In the image below:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon next to a wounded mercenary, Israeli military field hospital at the occupied Golan Heights’ border with Syria, 18 February 2014″ (ibid, emphasis added)
Who killed the three Israeli teenagers?
Ironically, the same jihadist group which is reported to have kidnapped and killed the three teenagers is supported by Israel’s IDF out of the occupied Golan Heights.
A mere coincidence.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research

*******
Also See:Israel! Israel! What are You Doing in Palestine?
27 December 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2008/12/israel-and-palestine-news-history-etc.html
and
Israel, Israel, God is Calling!
20 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/israel-israel-god-is-calling.html
and
Israel and Iran - Who will Bomb Who First?
21 July 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/07/israel-and-iran-who-will-bomb-who-first.html
and
Israeli Navy Kill Unarmed Peace Activists!
03 June 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2010/06/israeli-navy-kill-unarmed-peace.html
and
Israel in the 21st Century
(Part 1)
09 June 2011
and
Media Hides the Real Israel - Palestine Conflict!
(Part 1)
21 December 2014
and
James Traficant Does Jail time for Opposing Israel!
02 May 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/05/james-traficant-does-jail-time-for.html
and
Zionism is NOT Judaism!
12 January 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/01/zionism-is-not-judaism.html
*******

History of the Federal Reserve!

*******
*******
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks
Global Research, February 08, 2014
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."
- The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:
"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."2
This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):
"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."
"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."3
If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:
* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
* "The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."5
So let’s review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."
Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine." He wrote:
"When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."
As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.
If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com
*******
Also See:
Another Look at the Federal Reserve!
(Part 1)
02 April 2011
and
(Part 2)
01 February 2014
and
The Federal Reserve Bank is Not a Government Agency
30 June 2007
and
Bankers and Money!
(Part 1)
15 December 2011
and
Behind Closed Doors at Goldman Sachs!
16 March 2012
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
27 February 2013
and
Okay Federal Reserve, Empty Your Pockets!
07 March 2013
and
Peter Schiff - Inflation and the Federal Reserve!
25 March 2013
and
*******