Saturday, April 04, 2015

Lying is “Good For Business”


Lying is “Good For Business”: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Mainstream Media (MSM) are “Serial Liars”

Global Research, July 24, 2014
The powerful voices of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) exert a decisive influence on the formulation of US foreign policy.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) describes itself as “independent and nonpartisan…[and] an indispensable resource in a complex world.”
Its website at is heralded as “a trusted, nonpartisan source of timely analysis on international events and trends.” It’s authoritative Journal Foreign Affairs “is widely considered to be the most influential magazine for the analysis and debate of foreign policy and economics.”
Unquestionably the CFR is said to provide a “carefully documented” and “objective” understanding of World events including the crisis in Ukraine and the crimes committed against the people of Palestine.
In the latest CFR blurb on Israel’s ground war against Gaza authored by Hussein Ibish, and posted on the Council’s website, prime minister Netanyahu is said to have a profound “dislike for military conflict”:
These are some of the CFR highlights concerning Prime Minister Netanyahu: the unspoken victim of what the author describes as “unpredictable politics”:

Bibi’s First War

Why Benjamin Netanyahu Has Never Liked Military Conflict
“Few in Israel seem to love him, but they do regard him as safe and reliable.
His government has been sucked into a major conflict with Hamas and other extremists in Gaza, he is at the mercy of events and other actors outside his control.
With all his caution, Netanyahu has managed during his time in power to avoid leading the country in a major conflict.
By contrast, the current conflict seems to embody Netanyahu’s deep aversion to unpredictable politics. It began with the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers in the occupied West Bank by militants that were associated with Hamas but had quite possibly gone rogue.
When their bodies were discovered after 18 days, Netanyahu’s government seemed ready to call it a day. He signaled that he wasn’t interested in a major escalation in Gaza;
Rocket attacks from Gaza increased, and Netanyahu ultimately felt politically compelled to act, despite evident misgivings from the military.
And so now, for the first time in his career, Netanyahu finds himself presiding over the chaos of a war that seems very much outside his control.
Hamas has launched countless rockets at Israel, including parts of the country previously beyond its range,”
Read complete article here:
Wow! Authoritative analysis under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations:
  • No mention of the loss of human life,
  • No mention of the destruction of hospitals
  • Hamas started the war, Israel has the right to defend itself
  • Netanyahu “is at the mercy of events” which are “beyond his control
  • The victims of Israeli war crimes are responsible for their own deaths
  • Netanyahu is “safe and reliable”, he is committed to peace, he was “politically compelled to act”
What Does the MSM have to Say Regarding Israel’s War on Gaza?
It is what you might describe as a MSM-CFR Consensus.
The latest pitch in the Wall Street Journal by an authoritative NYU Law Professor is that because civilians in Gaza are “supportive of terrorism” they should be held accountable for their own deaths:
Let’s state the obvious: No one likes to see dead children. Well, that’s not completely true: Hamas does. … With this conflict about to enter its third week, winning the PR war is the best Hamas can hope to achieve. Their weapon of choice, however, seems to be the cannon fodder of their own people…
The asymmetry is complicated even further by the status of these civilians [victims of Israeli bombing and shelling]. Under such maddening circumstances, are the adults, in a legal and moral sense, actual civilians?
The people of Gaza overwhelmingly elected Hamas, a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of Israel, …
What did Gazans think was going to happen? Surely they must have understood on election night that their lives would now be suspended in a state of utter chaos. Life expectancy would be miserably low; children would be without a future. Staying alive would be a challenge, if staying alive even mattered anymore. (Professor Thane Rosenbaum, WSJ, July 21, 2014, emphasis added)
The above odious narrative goes beyond “authoritative” lies and fabrications. While the deaths of civilians are casually acknowledged, “their right to live” is taken away from them, because in the words of the illustrious associate professor at NYU, “adult civilians” are “terrorists” supportive of Hamas and their children are “cannon fodder.” So much for university scholarship and for “civilian academics” who support US-NATO-Israeli “humanitarian wars.”
The Council on Foreign Relations and the Downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17
In its coverage of the downing of MH17, the CFR intimates without evidence (in an interview with Stephen Sestanovich, George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies) that Moscow is behind the crash of MH17.
“This is not just a case of of somewhat confused and trigger-happy military people shooting down an airliner that they thought was a military target. The really awkward part of this for Putin is that he was caught red-handed, stoking a civil war in another country.
This sweeping and dangerous narrative permeates the MSM, contributing to the breakdown of international diplomacy.
Abandon the Mainstream Media!
The good and long awaited news, however, is that many people across the land in America and around the World have decided once and for all to abandon the Mainstream Media
A lot of people have given up reading the “authoritative and unbiased reports” of the CFR and the MSM. Have a look at the chart below and see what has happened to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) website
The CFR versus Global Research

CFR; Red Blue
Source: Alexa. Global Research is ranked among the 10,250 most popular websites Worldwide
In the course of the last week, the readership of the CFR has plummeted dramatically. Meanwhile, the number of Global Research readers has doubled: in the course of the last five days it has increased to more than 250, 000 a day.
We call upon our readers to help us sustain this trend and endorse GR’s Battle against the MSM
This has been a difficult yet rewarding week for all of us at Global Research, our small staff, our authors –all of whom are volunteers– have been working relentlessly around the clock. We are in solidarity with the people of Palestine who have lost family members, whose schools and hospitals have been destroyed on the orders of the Israeli government. We share the grief of the families of the passengers of MH17 whose lives were taken away in a politically motivated criminal act.

Truth is a powerful “weapon” and we are committed to using it. We call upon everybody to join a widespread movement to disarm the MSM.
The World is at a dangerous crossroad, the US and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. The relentless threats and economic sanctions directed against Russia, not to mention the massive military deployment of NATO forces on Russia’s border could lead us into a “World War III scenario.”
Let us reverse the tide of war. Peace can only be achieved by dismantling the propaganda apparatus.
To pursue their military road map, the warmongers desperately need the support of the MSM.
Without war propaganda, the US-NATO “humanitarian” military agenda would collapse like a deck of cards. The legitimacy of war criminals in high office would be shattered.
Lying is a money making endeavor, the MSM and the CFR are rolling in cash, their mandate is to sustain the “Big Lie”, to deny the horrendous crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, to distort what is happening in Ukraine. CFR authors and MSM pundits are generously rewarded for spinning the news.
In contrast, Global Research operates on a shoe string budget, all our authors and senior editors are volunteers.
Truth in media is not a money making proposition. You do not get paid by corporate tax free foundations to say the truth.

Economics and the maximization of profit (and lies)
Dan Ariely
Jan 26, 2013
When a friend sent me this paper the other day, I admit that I took a long hard look at myself and my economist friends. According to this study, economists, it seems, are worse than most when it comes to truth telling. This discovery was made by researchers Raúl López-Pérez and Eli Spiegelman, who wanted to examine whether certain characteristics (for instance religiosity or gender) made people averse to lying. They measured the preference for honesty by canceling out other motivations, such as altruism or fear of getting caught.
The way they accomplished this was with a very simple experiment where a pair of participants acted as sender and receiver of information. The sender would sit alone in front of a screen that showed either a blue or green circle. He or she would then communicate the circle’s color to the receiver, who could not see the color or the sender. Senders received 15 Euros every time they indicated a green circle, and only 14 when they communicated that the circle was blue. Receivers earned an even 10 euros regardless of the color, and so were unaffected by either the truthfulness or dishonesty of the senders.
So senders had four strategies:
1) Tell the truth when shown a green circle and get the maximum payment;
2) Lie when shown a green circle, choosing a lower payment;
3) Tell the truth when shown a blue circle and receive the lower payment;
4) Lie when shown a blue circle and gain an extra euro.
All was well and good if senders saw a green circle, telling the truth earned them the maximum amount of cash (as you can imagine, option 2) was fairly unpopular). What if they saw blue though? Well, they had two options: tell the truth and lose a euro, or lie and get paid more. The experimenters reasoned that a lie-averse sender would always communicate the circle’s color accurately while senders motivated by maximizing profit would indicate green regardless.
Participants, who were from a wide array of socio-economic and religious backgrounds, also came from a range of majors. Researchers grouped majors together into business and economics, humanities, and other (science, engineering, psych).  The results showed little difference in honesty as a factor of socio-demographic characteristics or gender. A student’s major, however, was a different story. As it turned out, those in the humanities, who were the most honest of all, told the perfect truth a little over half the time. The broad group of “other” was a bit less honest with around 40% straight shooters. And how about the business and economics group? They scraped the bottom with a 23% rate of honesty.
Keep in mind that this was one study of one group of people; however, it does indicate that the study of economics makes people less likely to tell the truth for its own sake. And this holds water, economically speaking: 1 euro has clear and measurable value, it can be exchanged for a number of things. The benefit of telling the truth in this situation does not carry any financial value (which is not to say lying in finance is not costly—clearly it is). But rationalization, which we all take part in, may be easier for those who think in terms of opportunity cost and percent profit.
This is not terribly surprising to me in the context of the greater history of economics, which has been characterized by the study of selfishness. The concept of the invisible hand (inherent in the notion of self-correcting markets) holds that people should act selfishly (maximizing their own profits) and that the market will combine all of their actions with an efficient outcome. While it’s true that markets can sometimes accommodate a range of behaviors without failing, if we continue to teach students the benefits and logicality of rational self-interest, what can we really expect?
Also See:
Council on Foreign Relations - Friend or Foe?
(Part 1)
29 September 2008
(Part 2)
12 March 2012
Spying Increase, Freedoms Decrease! Welcome to the 21st Century!
22 December 2013
Whistleblower Edward Snowden - Is He For Real?
13 June 2013
Privacy to be Eliminated!
05 June 2013
Secrets of the CIA!
10 June 2012
What's with Google?
11 March 2012
02 December 2010
Big Brother is Watching!
0 September 2009
Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't! (Part 1)
14 April 2007
Aldous Huxley and George Orwell
03 March 2009
I Spy with My Little Eye
15 March 2007