censorship, latest, media watch
Comments 99

English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte’s “Bought Journalists” Suppressed?


by James Tracy

The English translation of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte’s best-selling book, Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists) appears to have been suppressed throughout North America and Europe.

cover of the English language edition of Udo Ulfkotte’s book

On May 15, 2017 Next Revelation Press, an imprint of US-Canadian-based publisher Tayen Lane, released the English version of Bought Journalists, under the title, Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News.

Tayen Lane has since removed any reference to the title from its website. Correspondingly Amazon.com indicates the title is “currently unavailable,” with opportunities to purchase from independent sellers offering used copies for no less than $1309.09.[note from OffG- we also checked on Amazon UK, as of January 7 2018 the book is unavailable there too]

The book’s subject matter and unexplained disappearance from the marketplace suggest how powerful forces are seeking to prevent its circulation.

Gekaufte Journalisten was almost completely ignored by mainstream German news media following its release in 2014. “No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book,” Ulfkotte observed:

Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about.{1]

Along these lines, publication of the English translation was repeatedly delayed. When this author contacted Ulfkotte in early December 2015 to inquire on the book’s pending translation, he responded,

Please find the link to the English edition here http://www.tayenlane.com/bought-journalists

The above address, once providing the book’s description and anticipated publication date, now leads to an empty page.[2] Tayen Lane has not responded to emails or telephone calls requesting an explanation for the title’s disappearance.

When a book publisher determines that it has acquired a politically volatile or otherwise “troublesome” title it may embark on a process recognized in the industry as “privishing.” “Privishing is a portmanteau meaning to privately publish, as opposed to true publishing that is open to the public,” writes investigative journalist Gerald Colby.

It is usually employed in the following context: “We privished the book so that it sank without a trace.” The mechanism used is simple: cut off the book’s life-support system by reducing the initial print run so that the book “cannot price profitably according to any conceivable formula,” refuse to do reprints, drastically slash the book’s advertising budget, and all but cancel the promotional tour.”[3]

Privishing often takes place without the author knowing, simply because it involves breach of contract and potential liability.

Tayen Lane will likely not face any legal challenge in this instance, however. Ulfkotte died of a heart attack on January 13, 2017, at age 56.[4]

Udo Ulfkotte was a prominent European journalist, social scientist, and immigration reform activist. Upon writing Gekaufte Journalisten and becoming one of the most significant media industry and deep state whistleblowers in recent history, Ulfkotte complained of repeated home searches by German state police and expressed fear for his own life. He also admitted previous health complications stemming from witnessing a 1988 poisoned gas attack in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Ulfkotte’s testimony of how intelligence agencies figure centrally in Western journalism is especially compelling because he for many years functioned in the higher echelons of mainstream newsworkers.

The German journalist explains how he was recruited during the 1980s to work in espionage. This began through an invitation proffered by his graduate school advisor for an all-expense-paid trip to attend a two-week seminar on the Cold War conflict in Bonn.

After Ulfkotte obtained his doctorate he was given a job as a reporter at “the leading conservative German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, oddly appointed despite no journalistic training and hundreds of other applicants.

Serving as a correspondent throughout the Middle East, Ulfkotte eventually became acquainted with agents from the CIA, German intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Britain’s MI6, and Israel’s Mossad, all of whom valued his ability to travel freely in countries largely closed to the West.

His editors readily collaborated in such intelligence gathering operations,”[5] for which journalist possess “non-official cover” by virtue of their profession.

“Non-official cover” occurs when a journalist is essentially working for the CIA, but it’s not in an official capacity,” Ulfkotte explains.

This allows both parties to reap the rewards of the partnership, while at the same time giving both sides plausible deniability. The CIA will find young journalists and mentor them. Suddenly doors will open up, rewards will be given, and before you know it, you owe your entire career to them. That’s essentially how it works.[6]

He likewise ruefully admits to

publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.[7]

Ulfkotte’s insider knowledge of the relationship between mainstream media and the intelligence community has special relevance in terms of informing the CIA’s antipathy toward Wikileaks, as well as the media campaign centering on the Trump administration’s alleged “ties to Russia,” while also lending credence to Trump’s frequent claims of the US media’s political biases and deep state ties. Indeed, Ulfkotte “Tweeted” about these very subjects just two days before he passed.

Ulfkotte’s explosive revelations still have the potential to further intensify the much-deserved scrutiny corporate news media presently face. In a society that pays more than lip service to freedom of thought and expression Journalists for Hire would be required reading for college students—and particularly those studying in journalism programs intending to seek employment in the media industries.

In fact, journalism professors, some of whom have migrated to the academy following long careers at renowned news outlets, possess similar insider knowledge of the relationships Ulfkotte readily explains. As both journalists and educators they have a twofold burden of responsibility. This is the case more so than ever because the entire professional and intellectual enterprise they are engaged in (and one directly linked to the nation’s accelerating civic deterioration) has been made a farce.

Journalists for Hire’s suppression suggests how Ulfkotte’s posthumous censors refuse for this important examination and cleansing to proceed.

UPDATE: We received this from a followers on Twitter. He ordered Journalists for Hire in January 2017, four months before it was due to be published. He never received a copy and was eventually informed that publication had been cancelled. He has copies of the notifications he received which show his order was cancelled in August 2017

Notes

[1] Ralph Lopez, “Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for CIA,” Reader Supported News, February 1, 2015.
[2] Udo Ulfkotte to James Tracy, email correspondence, December 6, 2015. In author’s possession.
[3] Gerard Colby, “The Price of Liberty,” in Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, Kristina Borjesson, ed., Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 2002, 15-16.
[4] Former US military intelligence officer L. Fletcher Prouty relates a similar experience of how publication of his book, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, was greeted in 1972. “Then one day a business associate in Seattle called to tell me that the bookstore next to his office building had had a window full of books the day before, and none the day of his call. They claimed they had never had the book. I called other associates around the country. I got the same story from all over the country. The paperback had vanished. At the same time I learned that Mr. Ballantine had sold his company. I traveled to New York to visit the new ‘Ballantine Books’ president. He professed to know nothing about me, and my book … The campaign to to kill the book was nationwide and worldwide. It was removed from the Library of Congress and from College libraries as letters I received attested all too frequently.” Prouty, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, New York: SkyHorse Publishing, 2008, xii.
[5] Ronald L. Ray, “Reporter Admits Most Media Work for CIA, MI6, Mossad,” American Free Press, October 26, 2014. See also Tyler Durden, “German Journalist Blows Whistle on How CIA Controls the Media,” Zerohedge, October 9, 2014; Udo Ulfkotte, “German Politicians Are US Puppets,” Center for Research on Globalization, November 9., 2014.
[6] Durden, op. cit.
[7] Lopez, op. cit.

99 Comments

  1. The rather obvious suppression of the English version of what was a “best seller” in Germany suggests that the Western system of thought manipulation and consent manufacture sees itself as weaker and more vulnerable than one might at first imagine. We can see from a year+ of “Russiagate” that Western media is a clown-show, much of so called “alternative media” included. My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on “fake news” and “Russiagate.” Of course now the CIA doesn’t even have to exclusively – “own”- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution to free thought and free speech to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

    • summitflyer says

      ” I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online.”
      You and many others , myself included.It certainly would provide much eye opening for many ,at least for the ones sitting on the fence ,so to speak, open to new information.Too many are comfortable believing the lies and don’t want to be disturbed.
      Cheers.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Google Talpiot Program says

    Just like “200 years together” by Solzhenitsyn which was never officially published in English despite Andrei having authored many works which were big sellers.

    Just an example of other private business and corporations are often fully responsible for pro-establishment censorship.

    Like

  3. Jimbo says

    Matt wins IMO. Just the fact that the book is widely available in Germany, albeit in German, means that it is not being suppressed. It isn’t as if German is a secret code. Why the English version is unavailable no one is saying yet. Could be the CIA got to the sellers but why would they not also hide the German versions? You fought well, Matt.

    Like

    • Harry Stotle says

      The treatment of the book aroused suspicion because of its content – ie supine news outlets forever dancing to the tune of western military imperitives.

      Ongoing support for illegal wars tell us that the MSM has hardly been at the forefront of informing readers why war criminals like Hilary and Obama keep getting away with it.
      In fact Obama, just like Kissinger was awarded a peace prize – so obviously something has gone very wrong somewhere.

      It may be, although it seems unlikely that the mis-handling of an important theme like this is simply due to oversight by the publisher (as Matt claims) but neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody has had a word with someone in the publishing world, perhaps because they are not overly keen on the fact Udo Ulfkotte has deviated from the media’s mono-narrative about why it is necessary for the US to destabilise countries and kill so many of their citizens.

      Lets face it – it would be harder for the pattern to be maintained if the MSM was not so afraid of telling the truth, or at least be more willing to hold to account politicians as the consequences of their disastrous policies unfold for all to see.

      Maybe you want to have a go at answering the obvious question begged by such self evident truths – why are the MSM usually lying?

      Liked by 2 people

    • You mean because it isn’t suppressed in Germany it isn’t suppressed anywhere else – even if it is, in fact, being suppressed?

      Like

      • “Yeah, because if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, well, it just might be an elephant, I mean how do we really know until we do DNA testing right?” This nonsense argument seems to be the response of some posting here who find facing reality either a bit too challenging, or who perhaps have a paid opinion that renders common sense verboten.

        Of course this book is being suppressed in English. What publisher is going to refuse to print and distribute a best seller that addresses media bias and manipulation issues at a time when trust in MSM is at an all time low – then when asked about it – refuse to communicate whatsoever with those of us inquiring of that publisher when/if/why the books hasn’t been released? The book has been relegated to Orwell’s “memory hole.”

        Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for the support! I thought folks here would use their common sense. After all, if the book became a bestseller in Germany, a country the so-called “alternative media” tells us is a “vassal” of the U.S., then it means there is no suppression ocurring.

      I made a lengthy post here with direct links to the author’s posts from 2010 and onwards, explaining that he lied frequently and made wild, baseless claims. But the post, along with others, mysteriously dissapeared, hence, I lost my motivation to make additional posts. Now imagine if I began accusing off-G of censoring me? It would be a false accusation, as a glitch probbaly caused my posts to dissapear. It’s the same with the author’s book not being available in North America.

      Like

      • Marcus says

        The book was never published in English. It was advertised, and then withdrawn. That is suppression. It doesn’t matter if Ulfkotte believed in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Aryan Supremacy or Creationism. His. Book. Was. Suppressed. That is never a good thing.

        Like

        • You assume it was surpressed, but first, one must address the numerous counter-arguments that involve normal, non-malicious reasons causing the book to not be in stock anywhere. And secondly, one must prove that the statements in the book warranted surpression. They are false statements.

          And it does matter if “Ulfkotte believed in the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Aryan Supremacy or Creationism.” Why, you ask? Because everything written in the book relies on his word, with zero corrborating evidence. Considering his wild statements made in the past, including about Muslims in Europe waging a “fecal jihad” by pooping in fields, this makes the case that he is a liar.

          The current environment makes many assume the worse. It seems that one can write whatever one wants about the U.S. government and its associated organisations, without evidence, and most folks relying on the so-called “alternative” media will believe them. But if one dares to accuse Russia of, say, lying about MH17 and spreading disinformation to obscure what really happened, then these same folks become Olympian logicians, demanding the highest standard of evidence. The irony is great. This is why I don’t rely on either the MSM or alt media. It’s better to choose specific authors, like academics, and follow their rigid thinking.

          Like

          • The English version of Ulfkotte’s book was prepped for publication, up to and including jacket design. It was then pulled without being issued. If you think this is even likely to be because of questions of accuracy you clearly haven’t worked in modern publishing.

            The publishers have been contacted to ask for an explanation but none has been forthcoming.

            Like

          • The Russian press is supposedly censored, you can’t say anything against Putin, dare to and you die……………
            But apparently lots of people publish lots of things against Putin, and lots of media, and get away with it.

            Just not in any mainstream media.

            There’s a big difference publishing in German (are there even any former colonies where it is spoken?!) and in English, the international language, as well as being the national language of the main Western powers!

            Like

  4. Michael McNulty says

    Somebody said banning books is the modern form of book burning, and like Heinrich Heine said two centuries ago, “Where they burn books, in the end, they start burning people.”

    Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they’ll do to their own people what the Nazis did to those they didn’t want alive. If enough water sources are lost to fracking, and enough food sources lost through poisoned seas and forest fires, many people will go to their camps as refuge but few will survive them. This ecological destruction is for future population reduction.

    In the US they use newspeak to say what the Nazis described with more honesty. Their master race became the indispensable nation, their world domination became full spectrum dominance, and Totalerkrieg became the global war on terror. There will be others.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. jones says

    Farzad Basoft anyone ? Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It’s strange how Dr. Ulfkotte’s revelations have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Connect says

    As the economy growth has this so-called invisible hand, journalism also has an ‘invisible pen’.

    One of the questions that need an answer: how come feminists are so anti-Putin and anti-Russia?

    Easy to connect to dots?

    Like

      • Are Pussy Riot anti-feminists?

        Are the women protesting in Iran anti feminists?

        You don’t see much of that kind of thing in African countries even though Putin is a feminist gay lover in comparison?!

        Like

  7. I pre-ordered the paperback version of the English translation of Udo Ulfkotte’s book from Amazon at the beginning of 2017. By June 2017, Amazon had posted a notice that the item was unavailable. It’s remained unavailable ever since.

    I don’t know (of) anyone who’s managed to obtain a copy of the paperback English translation either.

    Like

  8. I am sorry for making additional posts about this, but I made some comments yesterday and none have appeared.

    Like

    • you have no comments pending

      added: if you want to continue a discussion about Ulfkotte’s alleged lies you need to be more specific. Find some actual quotes from the man and put that alongside some evidence of refutation. Try to limit it to one or two links that TRULY illustrate your point. Otherwise you are just cluttering the site with massive collections of links many of which do not support your claims. People react poorly to this as it seems like trolling.

      If you continue to ignore these suggestions I can’t help you.

      Like

  9. bevin says

    The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and paid circulation is finished.
    Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition.
    Those days are gone: none of the newspapers make financial profits, they now exist because they have patrons. They always did, of course, but now they have nothing else- the advertisers have left and circulation is diminishing rapidly.
    The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom, nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA’s PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists’ salaries.
    As to competition that is restricted to publishers competing to demonstrate their loyalty to the government and their ingenuity in candy coating its propaganda.
    Anyone doubt that Luke Harding will be in the running for a Pulitzer? Or perhaps even the Nobel Prize for Literature?

    Like

  10. Matt says

    Reply to candideschmyles:

    “Your signature is a good fit. Multiple IP addresses from vpn networks. Plethora of meaningless and useless links to distract, confuse and divert others from discussing and making more relevant investigations. Constant claims that cannot be substantiated including ad hominems on those not present to defend themselves……Pattern of posting during set ” working” hours. Claims of expertise on every subject engaged in, ie were you even born in 1984? Long winded posts full of nothing that are put together on script sheets by the “employer”. And more.”

    Every single statement here is false. And don’t try and weasel out by saying you were “merely floating possibilities”. These are indeed accusations, all of which are easily debunked, and which the Admin can confirm.

    First, as I already told Admin a few weeks ago, I post from multiple I.P. addresses because I post while at home, work, school, etc. Each network has a unique I.P. address. Again, I had a lengthy discussion about this last time with Admin.

    Secondly, none of my links are useless or meant to distract. I pointed out that the MSM did cover this topic which the author claims was surpressed.

    Thirdly, how is it “ad hominem” when I simply repeat claims made by Ulfkotte? “Fecal Jihad” – that’s a thing, according to the author of the book.

    Fourthly, if you have to know, none of my posts are during “set working hours.” This is so false that it’s funny, considering you don’t even know which timezone I’m in! Most of my posts are either when I get home, after 5:30 PM, or very early in the morning. Again, Admin can confirm this.

    “Claims of expertise on every subject engaged in”

    When did I every claim this?

    “ie were you even born in 1984?”

    Of course not. But why would I have to be born before 1984 in order to link articles from then to disprove the lies by Ulfkotte? Bizarre.

    “Long winded posts full of nothing that are put together on script sheets by the “employer””

    Really, and who is my “employer”? Is it the Israeli government, according to you, our sooper-dooper smart “expert” who can spot Israeli shills with their eyes closed? When I read that part of your post, it sounded so ludicrous that I burst out laughing.

    So lemme humour you again: I’m paid 100 shekels per post by the Israeli government. I also work for Soros, as well as the banksters, reptillians, and extraterrestrial beings.

    How did you ever figure me out?

    Like

    • I have said my piece. If you are not being paid to hijack, waste people’s time and otherwise subvert the conversation here then that is even sadder.
      As for the relevance of 1984, if you had been alive then – and if you had any understanding of how news works always, then you would know that reporting can be done without it entering mainstream conciousness by a variety of tactical reporting methods. I was aware of the reporting in 1984 but only because I trawled the news to find it a story that was killed as soon as it was published. Finding links, as you do, that lead nowhere are a meaningless deception, no more.

      Like

  11. For what it’s worth, I skimmed through this very long link by Matt, and could find no mention of poison gas — certainly no denunciation — just horrific conventional arms :
    Der Spiegel 1984: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13508659.html

    Also for what it’s worth, the German publisher’s blurb which I got Google to translate above, says there is much more to the book than old Soddem: the author names names and points to organizations.

    Now, without any evidence, based only on my faulty memory and highly biased interpretation of events strung together on a timeline, here is my conspiracy story about a very nice country called Iraq and a very nasty Iraqi called Saddam who came to a very nasty end at the hands of his much more nasty friends, who first gave him a boost and then put in the boot.
    !914 Great Britain invades Iraq and BP takes over the Iraqi oilfields.
    1968 Iraqi govt member under Yaya wants to nationalize the oil. CIA coup replaces Yaya with Saddam as a safe pair of hands.
    1970 Saddam the dirty dog does the dirty on the friends who put him in power; he nationalizes Iraqi oil. And nationalizes Iraqi banks. From now on Saddam is a dead man walking. Like Mossadeq in Iran whom the US-UK replaced with the Shah
    1978 But in Iran the Shah is replaced by the Islamic Socialist Republic — who again nationalize Iranian oil. Saddam’s friends now face a dilemma: kill him first, or kill the Ayatollah’s first? They decide to first go for the Ayatollahs — with Saddam’s help.
    1980 Saddam invades Iran with help from US and Germany — including, strangely enough, generous supplies of poison gas.
    1984-1989 Saddam’s invasion of Iran flops. Reports about use of poison gas by Saddam begin to emerge, first in German newspapers then even debated US govt.
    1990 Saddam thinks he has restored credit with the US & Germany by using their weapons against Iran, and now has the green light to invade another country. Finds out his mistake in the Gulf War. He is once again, a dead man walking. So is his country.
    2001 Saddam is accused of harbouring Islamic terrorists who knocked down 3 skyscrapers by flying 2 passenger planes into them. The idea of Secular Baathist Saddam in league with religious fanatics is ridiculous, but what the heck it’s a story.
    2003 Saddam hanged for, inter alia, use of chemical weapons; likewise his minister whom the MSM have a field day comically calling “Chemical” Ali.
    2017 Who’s next? The Ayatollahs, of course. And anyone else who dares to nationalize “our” oil. Or “our” banks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • George Cornell says

      That is more than plausible
      Unfortunately. Hard not to sympathize with the Iraqis and feel shame for what has been done in the name of the US and UK
      Rotten to the core, and sanctimonious to boot.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Carrie says

    FAO this Matt character who keep spamming links which he claims support his allegations when they don’t (see Admin’s post below), and who is also trying to make out that Ulfkotte’s book is not being suppressed by his publisher – Ulfkotte’s name is not mentioned anywhere on the publisher’s site:

    http://www.tayenlane.com/search?q=udo%20ulfkotte

    If his book is just out of print there still should be pics and text about the book in multiple places on the site. Why has it been totally wiped from the site? And why didn’t the publishers get back when asked about it?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. rtj1211 says

    To understand how journalism is bought, go analyse the output of the Uk’s Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds.

    The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever there is a US war on i.e. all the time.

    It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they serve only their own….

    Liked by 4 people

    • Carrie says

      The Guardian sells space to lobbyists too. Not ad space – article space. It’s literally hiring itself out to whomever wants to buy the right to publish an article under its name.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Re evidence I too would like to see the CIA chits and memos; also hear their recorded conversations. Re English trans, I copy/pasted the publisher’s puff from Alun’s link above, and Google’s machine produced this in no time (Please don’t shoot our pianist, he’s doing his best):

    The journalist Udo Ulfkotte is ashamed today for having worked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung for 17 years. Before the author reveals the secret networks of power, he consistently practices self-criticism. Here he documents for the first time how he was lubricated for his reporting in the FAZ and how corruption was promoted. And he reveals why opinion leaders report tendentiously and how the extended arm of the NATO Press Office prepares wars medially. As a matter of course, the author was included in the networks of American elite organizations, in return for positive coverage in the US even received a honorary citizenship certificate.
    In this book you will find out which lobby organizations are represented by which journalists. The author mentions hundreds of names and also looks behind the scenes of those organizations that influence our media unilaterally propagandistic, such as: Atlantic Bridge, Trilateral Commission, German Marshall Fund, American Council on Germany, American Academy, Aspen Institute and Institute for European Policy. It also reveals the intelligence behind lobbying groups, the propaganda techniques and the forms that can be used, for example, to obtain funding from the US Embassy for projects aimed at influencing public opinion in Germany.

    Der Journalist Udo Ulfkotte schämt sich heute dafür, dass er 17 Jahre für die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung gearbeitet hat. Bevor der Autor die geheimen Netzwerke der Macht enthüllt, übt er konsequent Selbstkritik. Er dokumentiert hier zum ersten Mal, wie er für seine Berichterstattung in der FAZ geschmiert und die Korruption gefördert wurde. Und er enthüllt, warum Meinungsführer tendenziös berichten und wie der verlängerte Arm der NATO-Pressestelle Kriege medial vorbereitet. Wie selbstverständlich wurde auch der Autor in die Netzwerke amerikanischer Eliteorganisationen aufgenommen, erhielt im Gegenzug für positive Berichterstattung in den USA sogar eine Ehrenbürgerurkunde.

    In diesem Buch erfahren Sie, in welchen Lobbyorganisationen welche Journalisten vertreten sind. Der Autor nennt Hunderte Namen und blickt auch hinter die Kulissen jener Organisationen, welche unsere Medien propagandistisch einseitig beeinflussen, etwa: Atlantik-Brücke, Trilaterale Kommission, German Marshall Fund, American Council on Germany, American Academy, Aspen Institute und Institut für Europäische Politik. Enthüllt werden zudem die geheimdienstlichen Hintergründe zu Lobbygruppen, die Propagandatechniken und die Formulare, mit denen man etwa bei der US-Botschaft Fördergelder für Projekte zur gezielten Beeinflussung der öffentlichen Meinung in Deutschland abrufen kann.

    Like

  15. summitflyer says

    Your system is creating an echo in replies as I am getting 12 -20 replies all at one time…………..

    Like

    • I this still happening? Can you be more specific, is it the same reply repeatedly or is a large volume of comments being delivered at once?

      Like

      • summitflyer says

        I do believe that it because the conversation is so hot that I am getting so many e-mails .
        No worries .
        It is just that I have never seen so many posts . Glad to see that Udo has so many supporters.

        Like

  16. Well one things stands out in bold and that is the fear that such a revelation is associated with.

    ‘Broad spectrum dominance’ of a central intelligent agency is a reversal of the wholeness of being expressing through all its parts.

    Fake intelligence is basically made up to serve a believed goal.
    The terrorism of fear generates the goal of a self-protection that sells true relationship to ‘save itself’.

    This goes deep into what we take to be our mind. The mind that thinks it is in control by controlling what it thinks.

    If I can observe this in myself at will, is it any surprise I can see it in our world?

    What is the fear that most deeply motivates or drives the human agenda?
    I do not ask this of our superficial thinking, but of a core self-honesty that cannot be ‘killed’ but only covered over with a thinking-complex.

    And is it insane or unreal to be moved by love?

    We are creatures of choice and beneath all masking, we are also the creator of choice.
    But the true creative is not framed into a choosing between, but feeling one call as the movement of it.

    When the ‘intelligence’ of a masking narrative no longer serves, be the willingness for what you no longer claim to have, and open to being moved from within.

    Like

  17. I am so tired of the simmering fury that lives inside me. This bubbling cauldron brim full of egregious truths, images and accounts accumulated over nearly 40 years of looking behind the headlines. I disagree that the usurpation of journalists and media organisations is in any way a recent phenomena. It certainly predates my emergent mind. And even the most lauded of anti-establishment hacks and film makers self-censored to some degree. True, the blatant in your face propaganda and thought control agenda has accelerated, but it was always there. I do not believe Chomsky, Oliver Stone, Pilger and their like could have done much more than they have, that is to guide us in a direction counter to the official narrative. And to insinuate they are gatekeepers, when our heads never stretch above the parapet, is really just a reflection of our own frustration that despite their work the only change remains for the worse.
    Yet I fear worse is to come. Our safe bitching in glorious anonymity has been all that we have had as solace to the angst that pervades us, the other 1%. But the the thumbscrew is tightening. We may be as little as months away from any dissent being entirely removed from the internet by AI algorithms. I have already been receiving warnings on several sites anyone here would call legitimate that have had their security certificates removed and the statement that the site may contain malicious code etc. How prepared are we for blackout?

    Liked by 2 people

  18. For any man or woman author/journalist already possessing (or willing to spend $1,309.09 for a used copy) the late Udo Ulfkotte’s censored book, “Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News”, there are ways to overcome the censors and get Mr. Ulfkotte’s important messages out to the (in particular, English-speaking) world.

    Take the most explosive, important and relevant parts of the original book’s manuscript and isolate them in a distillation process down to, say, 10,000-30,000 words, translate the distilled manuscript into English, then a) publish as a long-form stand-alone article, and/or b) as manuscript content in a new book, with or without optional commentaries by interested academics such as James Tracy, Mark Crispin Miller, Paul Craig Roberts, etc., (either self-published or with the help of a truth-loyal publisher) – dedicated to the memory of Mr. Udo Ulfkotte.

    Liked by 1 person

    • summitflyer says

      A foundation should be set up in remembrance of Udo and sponsored by all true journalists and truth seekers. Maybe some day there will be a Udo Ulfkotte award to the bravest journalist of the year .Wouldn’t that be something .Udo’s work would not have been in vain . That would throw a monkey wrench into orgs like the Guardian and their ilk .Just dreaming out loud maybe , but with good intentions.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Chris G says

      Thank you Alun for the link to the German edition, which I have managed to download (naughty me!) I think the suggestion of retranslating important sections and dressing these in some commentary for (presumably legitimate) publication on e.g. Off-G would be a good idea. I’m quite fluent in German and would be glad to help.
      Mods: do you see any legal pitfalls?

      Liked by 1 person

      • That depends on who holds the rights to the English language version and the original and whether they would want to take issue. If it’s Ulfkotte’s family they may be happy to see his work get some sort of airing in English. If it’s his publishers we can imagine they will see things differently – as indeed would whoever it is that seems to want the book buried.

        Like

    • Martin Read says

      Tried to get to that site and was told that I couldn’t via my Virgin provider because of a High Court order. Somebody moved a bit quickly.

      Like

      • Carrie says

        Me too! My Broadband provider is blocking access due to a High Court injunction.

        @ChrisG & @Alun Thomas – can you guys still get there? It might be a country or region thing.

        Like

        • Alun Thomas says

          I heard it is blocked in many western countries, as the site is well known for its disregard for copyright. Fortunately not the case where I am (NZ). If you’re technically inclined, a VPN or anonymising application may help, although a VPN that ‘exits’ in a western area won’t get you any further ahead.

          Like

    • One hopes. I also hold out hope for F. William Engdahl’s “Geheimakte NGOs.” Here’s a Dissident Voice article in which Engdahl discusses the role of NGOs in aiding and abetting the US regime change program:

      https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/07/the-us-empire-the-cia-and-the-ngos/

      I also recommend, highly, Stephen Gowans’s article about social networking in the service of the US regime change program:

      “Overthrow Inc.: Peter Ackerman’s quest to do what the CIA used to do, and make it seem progressive” by Stephen Gowans
      https://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/overthrow-inc-peter-ackerman%E2%80%99s-quest-to-do-what-the-cia-used-to-so-and-make-it-seem-progressive/

      Like

  19. Frank says

    Yes, it has also been interesting to note that in 2015 the Guardian published a review of Richard Sakwa’s book ‘Frontline Ukraine’ in which the author was critical of both NATO and the EU, in fomenting this crisis. The 2014 ‘coup’ which was carried out in February 2014 was, according to the independent geopolitical publication, Strator, ‘the most blatant in history.’ The appraisal which was carried out by Guardian journalist Jonathon Steele was generally favourably disposed to Sakwa’s record of events; however, Mr Steele now rarely publishes anything in the Guardian. Read into this what you like.

    As to Sakwa’s latest book,’’ Russia Against the Rest’’, – nothing, not a peep, it doesn’t exist, it never existed, it never will exist. It would appear to be the case that the Guardian is now fully integrated into the military/surveillance/media-propaganda apparatus. The liberal gatekeeper as to what is and what isn’t acceptable. Its function is pure to serve the interests of the powerful, in much the same way as the church did in the middle ages. The media doesn’t just serve the interests power it is also part of the same structure of dominance, albeit the liberal wing of the ruling coalition.

    During the British war against the Boers in South Africa, at the turn of the 19/20 century, the then Manchester Guardian took a brave and critical stand against the UK government. This lead to its offices in Manchester being attacked by jingoistic mobs, as was the home of the then editor C.P.Scott, whose family needed police protection. In those days ‘Facts were Sacred’, unlike the present where opposing views are increasingly ignored or suppressed.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Peter says

      Suggestion: to help the ‘Russia against the rest’ book get a bit of publicity, how about a book review on Off-G, by someone who’s read it?

      Like

      • We were thinking of the same thing. If anyone would like to submit a review of Russia Against the Rest – or indeed any other politically relevant and especially hard to obtain book – consider yourselves invited to do so!

        Like

  20. Hugh O'Neill says

    Having just watched the documentary film tribute to I.F. Stone, “All Governments Lie”, I was struck by the fact that no-one mentioned Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist (who outed General McChrystal, but whose Mercedes went mysteriously out of control, hit a tree and exploded, throwing the engine 200 yards clear of the wreck…). Here was a film about control and self-censorship, yet no-one even breathed the acronyms C.I.A. or FBI. Matt Taibbi referred to a silent coup, but none dared to mention the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. These doyens of Truth included the thoroughly dodgy Noam Chomsky. Finally, the Spartacus website suggests that the saintly I.F. Stone was in the pay of the CIA. Other terms unspoken were CIA Operation Mockingbird or Operation Northwoods. There was a clip of 9/11, but zero attempt to join up all the dots.
    RIP Udo Ulfkotte. CIA long ago developed a dart to induce all the signs of a heart attack, so one is naturally somewhat suspicious. Lies and assassinations are two sides of the same coin.

    Like

    • “thoroughly dodgy” Noam Chomsky? That’s harsh. I do welcome info – rather than just denunciations – so please say more, if you would like to. I am not sure that I support Chomsky on Libya and I am sure that I don’t support him on Syria, although he was solid, I think, on Russia-gate. (Id visit ZNet more often, but hate to. The site carries so much crap.) I have learned a lot from Chomsky. And his “Deterring Democracy” was my intro to politics. I had read other political stuff, earlier, but was too young and un-politicized to use it.

      Like

  21. Matt says

    Hello everyone – it’s been a while since I posted here.

    Regarding Ulfkotte: his claims are completely false. As we will see, his claims are not backed up by any evidence; we actually have substantial counter-evidence of his claims; and his motivations for lying are known.

    First problemo: he provides zero evidence to support any of his claims of the CIA paying him or other journalists, or feeding them information. This makes it impossible to debunk what he says… since there’s nothing to address.

    Further, this man is a noted lunatic. Note I don’t mean this as an insult, but as a factual statement. After living in the M.E. so long, he converted to Islam. A while later, he not only converted back to Christianity, but… became a supporter and speaker of PEGIDA!

    He began claiming, in 2003, (right after he left the MSM) that Obama ordered the burning of bibles, that African sportsmen would “slaughter whites” if allowed in to Germany, that Muslims were waging “fecal jihad” against Europe (!), etc. He suggested that Muslims could be deliberately contaminating European food products with their excrement. “Even the intelligence services have been warning us for years about fecal matter jihad,” he wrote.

    The other issue is that he stopped working in the German MSM in 2003. His book thus focuses on events that happened decades ago. In his book, one of his major pieces of evidence is that his reporting on Germany’s supplies of chemical agents to Saddam, to be used against Iran, was “suppressed” and “hushed up” by the MSM and the CIA. One problem: the Western press was FULL of reports about this for years!

    It was reported:

    In Zeit, January 1989, in an article titled “Auschwitz in the Wüstensand”:

    http://www.zeit.de/1989/05/giftgas-gewinnler-und-genscher-gate

    In Spiegel, from mid-1989 continuously and over the years (various links).

    The journalist Hans Leyendecker in 1991 in his book “Exporters of death”.

    As early as 1984 , the New York Times reported on a possible German participation in the production of chemical agents. This was years before the foreign policy break with Iraq.

    In September 1988, the Washington Post condemned the use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a “genocide”.

    And also in September 1988 , the New York Times accused the Federal Republic of Germany of having “thoughtlessly” enriched the deaths of Kurds and Iranians.

    So this debunks the primary claim of the book.

    This article, translated from German, does good job of exposing this fraud:

    https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2014/10/17/ulfkotte-verschwoerung_n_6001948.html&usg=ALkJrhhwX_bqxUKBYvVIi2n4oDry16WpYg

    Now, what were his motivations for writing this fake news book? He left the German daily newspaper, FAZ, on bad terms. Soon after this, he became known as a crazy lunatic who claimed all sorts of things (as mentioned above). In his book, he pays particular attention to FAZ and attacks it repeatedly. He obviously had a vendetta against the paper and expressed it by writing a fake book about how he and others were paid by the sooper-scary CIA.

    As with most conspiracy theories, critical thinking is the only thing required to debunk them. Regarding his book, having read parts of it, there is literally not a single major claim presented with evidence. I repeat: not one. The primary claim is that the Western media suppressed the fact that German-made products were used in the Iraq chemical attacks against Iran. Much of the book focusing on his heroic battle against the evil MSM trying to suppress his story.. And yet, as I mentioned above, there numerous examples of American and German MSM reporting on this very topic at the same time. As for the other claim: he presents zero evidence for anything he says. He could just as well be making all this up for self-promotion purposes and the readers of this blog would never know.

    I remember watching his RT video a while back. One of the most unconvincing and cringeworthy performances I have ever seen. You can tell he’s lying. Which is precisely why I don’t trust RT. And this whole “I can’t find an English copy of the book” story is irrelevant: there is nothing worth suppressing in the book in the first place.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The question isn’t whether he was right or wrong or mad or sane but why his book has been so oddly suppressed.

      Of course it’s important to debate his claims (though it’s hard to do so if one can’t read his book), and if what you say is true he does seem to be somewhat ‘unusual’. But it’s important not to conflate the truth or otherwise of a person’s claims with his right to express them and the right of others to read them.

      And look – anything – including large amounts of the belief systems you unquestioningly endorse – can be defined as conspiracy-theory. Russiagate is conspiracy-theory. The official 9/11 story is conspiracy-theory. Conspiracy theory is just a theory about conspiracy and only lazy people or people with an undeclared agenda use it as a blunt instrument assault to close down debate. So don’t try that here.

      Like

      • Matt says

        Hello Admin,

        I do not think his book is being surpressed. What happened is that the publisher is most likely having issues with having enough prints to send out. Most conspiracy theories have a simply explanation. There is literally nothing explosive in this book; nothing worth surpressing. As I will demonstrate below, this author should not be trusted:

        You may recall the German wings tragedy, when the plane crashed in France. Guess what the author of this book had to say?

        “First question: why is that instead of our German, French or Spanish media it was rather the US and British media outlets who first reported what was on the voice recorder? Why were German journalist forced to write what they learned from the NY Times? Why are the French investigators acting as though they haven’t completed their evaluation of the results. Why did the Americans already know what was on the recordings. Obviously they were seeking to mislead the people, but why?”

        Yup. He tried claiming this was a big coverup, without any evidence, falsely claimed the European media were being “forced to write”, and that the U.S. wanted to “mislead” people over this tragedy.

        More information:

        “He demanded that all Muslims be deported from Germany in order to create more Lebensraum for ethnic Germans. Ulfkotte claimed that Muslims were waging a “fecal Jihad” against Germans”because Turkish women were allegedly defecating in fields of strawberries that were exported to Germany. He warned Germans to stay away from the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, since black African “savages” were planning to rape and murder European visitors. Of course, President Obama is one those black African savages – or at least a ‘half-breed” – whom he hates. He lied that Obama was persecuting Christians in the United States, and had given orders to burn Bibles.”

        Source, with hyperlinks: http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2015/01/fake-journalist-udo-ulfkotte-makes-a-comeback-as-putin-propagandist.html

        In conclusion (and I mean no disrespect by this): this man was a noted lunatic, was possibly mentally ill, had a history of making wild claims without evidence, and has lied in this very book (as I noted in the above post). I would not trust this man, especially considering he gives no evidence of being “paid by the CIA”. He is clearly lying and much of the alternative media fell for it.

        Lastly, if this wasn’t enough information, Ulfkotte violently assaulted and injured a 15-year old boy who was protesting a neo-nazi speech he gave concerning the “dangers of immigration” for the German Volk. The teen later pressed charges and Ulfkotte responded thusly on his Facebook page:

        “I’m happy about the charges, because now I have the name and address of the 15-year old (…) a number of us are pleased about this”

        Like

        • Publishers don’t close down the publicity page for one of their books just because the print run is sold out. On the contrary if their first print run sold out in less than a year they would almost certainly be getting another one out asap and would be busy promoting the book as widely as possible to further increase interest.

          Whatever Ulfkotte may or may not have believed and whether or not he was a ‘lunatic’ as you presume to call him, there’s little doubt his book is being handled very oddly indeed. Deliberate suppression seems like the most obvious, if not the only, explanation at the moment.

          Like

        • Carrie says

          There is literally nothing explosive in this book; nothing worth surpressing (sic)

          How do you know that if you haven’t read it?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Matt has claimed in the past (not at this blog but at another) that his family background is Venezuelan so perhaps he knows of a Spanish-language translation somewhere in cyberspace.

            Although at the other blog, someone did try to communicate with him in Spanish and never got a reply.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Funny, is Matt not that Canadian student with a new IP for each post and a tendency to argue with himself using another avatar?

              As to his points they are all moot. Even if Ulfkotte went loopy, (perhaps as a result of the stress on his concience and chemical poisoning), you would yourself need to be clinically insane to believe there is no truth in his claims. To believe that the CIA does not use journalists as spys, couriers and propagandists you would have to be engaged in wilfull self deception or grossly stupid. Either that or be a student back after the holiday and resuming a sideline in disinformation.

              Like

              • Matt says

                Not quite. I was making posts from home and school, and other places, and each network had its own public I.P. address. I had this discussion with Admin a while back. The only thing I used to do was randomly type stuff in the email field, out of laziness, which I no longer do.

                “…you would yourself need to be clinically insane to believe there is no truth in his claims. To believe that the CIA does not use journalists as spys, couriers and propagandists you would have to be engaged in wilfull self deception or grossly stupid.”

                This is not what I am saying at all. First, I am saying that the author’s claims have been proven false. Secondly, I never said that “the CIA does not use journalists as spys, couriers and propagandists.” I said the exact opposite in my reply to someone else here. So don’t twist what I say and then feign outrage.

                “Either that or be a student back after the holiday and resuming a sideline in disinformation.”

                This ad hominem attack is perfectly why I made that point to someone else here about MSM journalists baselessly being called “CIA stooges”. See what I mean now? A few posts pointing out the history of dishonesty of the author has made another user here accuse me of being some propagandist, with zero evidence. How ironic, since it validates my points about conspiracy theorists being unable to have respectful discussion with someone opposing their viewpoints without calling the other names and accusing them of wild things.

                Admin, see what I mean? This is why I think it’s wrong to believe these people. They are angry, vindicative, and have a personal agenda. Whether that be Ulfkotte smearing his former employer, who he had a falling out with, or the above poster.

                Here, I’ll humour you, “candideschmyles”: I am a student who is paid 100 shekels for each post. How did you ever find me out? :] Gosh, I am surprised at your rational thinking!

                Like

                • All we ask from anyone posting here is a consistent (preferably real) email address and a user name of their choice. Provided you follow these guidelines you are free to post here. But it’s not an endorsement of your claims either for yourself or for your beliefs. You HAVE exhibited blatantly troll-like behaviour in the past. That shouldn’t be forgotten.

                  Liked by 1 person

              • Dear Candideschmyles,

                Yes he is a Canadian student of Venezuelan background whose Reddit hashtag is #DownWithAssad.

                🙂

                Like

    • Carrie says

      About the chemical weapons. I remember seeing news reports in the 1980s when I was a teenager which made it very clear Iraq were supposed to be the good guys and even when they gassed the Kurds there was only limited exposure of were they got the gas from and even suggestions Iran might have done it . There’s degrees of suppression isn’t there. We definitely were not being invited to blame Saddam let alone any western country even if there were a few page-10 reports in some papers that sort of said so a bit.

      As to the rest, it’s kind of easy to smear a man when he’s dead. I’d need to see a lot of evidence contemporaneous and not post mortem.

      Separate point but do you really think there’s no infiltration of the press by the intelligence agencies? They just wrapped up Operation Mockingbird in the 1970s and don’t bother any more? Because why? It’s too much trouble? They value freedom too much? They don’t like breaking the law? That’s a pretty stupid view isn’t it?

      Like

      • Matt says

        Hello Carrie,

        Regardless of how much attention the Western MSM gave to this issue, it is clear that the entirety of the Western MSM, including the American and German media, not only spoke about these attacks only, but published very strong denunciations of them, at around the same time Ulfkotte found out about the source of the chemical weapons. This contradicts what Ulfkotte claimed in his book, since one of his major points is that his “scoop” was squashed by the American and German governments.

        I’d like to point out that I’m not trying to smear him in any way. I only want to point out the issues with trusting what he says. And everything I wrote is true and confirmed. Ulfkotte did say these things himself. I made another post to Admin, with more information about Ulfkotte, with sources. Needless to say, I would not trust anything he says.

        Regarding your last question, I think the intelligence agencies have infiltrated the MSM. But my issue with all this is that this point is too frequently used by the alternative media. Random MSM journalists are called “CIA mouthpieces” and the MSM attacked, without evidence, for being some mouthpiece of the CIA. I doubt very much that the CIA has so much control over the media. I think this is a reasonable assumption to make. And things have surely gotten better since Operation Mockingbird. Back then, Hoover’s FBI and the CIA were out of control. There were very few regulatory restrictions placed on them and a toxic culture surrounded them. Since then, much has been done to reign them in. When was the last time real, verified evidence came out of the CIA bribing/recruiting an American journalist?

        Like

        • Carrie says

          Regardless of how much attention the Western MSM gave to this issue, it is clear that the entirety of the Western MSM, including the American and German media, not only spoke about these attacks only, but published very strong denunciations of them

          So even if it was just two lines on the back page after the footie scores and the horoscopes that’s still ‘very strong denunciations’? LOL! How come you can’t see you are much more illogical and much more belief-driven than any of the people you sneer at as being conspiracy people?

          I looked at the Google translate link you put up and there’s no info in there that corresponds to anything you’re claiming.

          Like

        • Carrie says

          I think the intelligence agencies have infiltrated the MSM. But my issue with all this is that this point is too frequently used by the alternative media.

          What in Sams hill are you talking about Matt?

          Random MSM journalists are called “CIA mouthpieces” and the MSM attacked, without evidence, for being some mouthpiece of the CIA.

          So you think the CIA has infiltrated the MSM but it’s just really mean of us to ever accuse an individual journalist of being CIA, even if he r she works for an outift that completely obviously publishes one-sided propaganda and twists or ignores facts to suit a US perspective? That’s not evidence of being infiltrated by the CIA?

          Hilarious.

          I doubt very much that the CIA has so much control over the media.

          Why? Even ex-CIA people such as Ray McGovern are saying the current intelligence agencies are out of control in pushing their agenda. If you’re trying to push an agenda on society and you have huge resources why are you not going to try to control the media? It’s the first thing I’d do, wouldn’t you? The media is the most important thing for selling your ideas to people and making sure other ieas don’t get sold.

          I think this is a reasonable assumption to make.

          You’ll have to explain your thinking there, it totally does not seem reasonable to me for the above reasons.

          And things have surely gotten better since Operation Mockingbird. Back then, Hoover’s FBI and the CIA were out of control.

          Are you stupid or do you think I am? The CIA has more of a free hand now than they did in the 1970s. Did you not hear about the legislation hat got rid of the ban on domestic propaganda? The CIA now have congressional and presidential backing for lying to the American people.

          But like that totally does not include manipulating the press! Cuz reasons.

          😀 ROFL

          When was the last time real, verified evidence came out of the CIA bribing/recruiting an American journalist?

          Define real verified evidence?

          A signed admission by the director of the CIA? “yes I dunnit I tried to manipulate journalists soz!” Because that’s not going to happen is it?

          Or hey how about a journalist having the balls to come out and say he was bought!?

          Oh – no. That’s not real verifiable evidence because when that happens you call him a nutjob after he’s dead and can’t defend himself.

          So what sort of real verified evidence are you talking about?

          Like

          • Matt says

            “What in Sams hill are you talking about Matt?”

            “Hilarious.”

            “Are you stupid or do you think I am? ”

            “😀 ROFL”

            Before I address your statements, I just want to ask for you to not talk that way to me. I respected you and I expect the same.

            “So you think the CIA has infiltrated the MSM but it’s just really mean of us to ever accuse an individual journalist of being CIA”

            No, that is not what I am saying and you are twisting my words. I am saying that people accuse journalists of working for the CIA for no reason and without evidence. Better to debunk their claims that call xyz a “CIA stooge”.

            “If you’re trying to push an agenda on society and you have huge resources why are you not going to try to control the media? It’s the first thing I’d do, wouldn’t you? The media is the most important thing for selling your ideas to people and making sure other ieas don’t get sold.”

            I agree with you, but it doesn’t prove that the CIA has a huge amount of control over the media. I think people exagerate how much control the CIA has.

            “The CIA has more of a free hand now than they did in the 1970s. Did you not hear about the legislation hat got rid of the ban on domestic propaganda? The CIA now have congressional and presidential backing for lying to the American people.”

            Ah, yes. I have heard this statement countless times, no doubt spread from numerous websites and blogs. A closer inspection of the repeal makes clear why it happened. But before I address this, let’s use some simple logic: if the CIA was so evil and has so much control over the media, then why in God’s name would they have Congress issue this repeal in the first place? Surely a simple piece of legislation would be but a minor obstacle in the path of this powerful organisation? Now, regarding the legislation: the source of the misinformation surrounding this legislation is a Buzzfeed article that was picked supplemented by Politico, both of which made numerous errors and had to even issue corrections:

            http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/23/much-ado-about-state-department-propaganda/

            Here’s another debunking of the original Buzzfeed article:

            https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-2013-ndaa-thornberry-amendment-domestic-propaganda-disinformation.t592/

            A former Governor on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, responsible for America’s public information efforts, runs an excellent blog, where he explains everything in a highly detailed manner. Here are some of the best posts clearing up the legislation:

            https://mountainrunner.us/2012/05/smith-mundt-modernization-ac/

            https://mountainrunner.us/2012/02/history_of_smith-mundt/

            https://mountainrunner.us/2016/12/fact-check-bbg-can-now-broadcast-to-americans/

            “Define real verified evidence?”

            Let’s keep the bar low and define it as “anything that doesn’t involve the just the words of some people”. There needs to be corroboration, with documents, records, or something else.

            “Or hey how about a journalist having the balls to come out and say he was bought!?… you call him a nutjob after he’s dead and can’t defend himself.”

            You clearly haven’t read my posts. Everything I claim about him comes from his OWN mouth! Here are his OWN words:

            He began claiming that Obama ordered the burning of bibles, that black African “savages” were planning to rape and murder European visitors, and would “slaughter whites” if allowed in to Germany, that Muslims were waging “fecal jihad” against Europe. “Even the intelligence services have been warning us for years about fecal matter jihad… ”because Turkish women were allegedly defecating in fields of strawberries that were exported to Germany. He warned Germans to stay away from the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, since

            Following the German Wings crash in France, he wrote this:

            “First question: why is that instead of our German, French or Spanish media it was rather the US and British media outlets who first reported what was on the voice recorder? Why were German journalist forced to write what they learned from the NY Times? Why are the French investigators acting as though they haven’t completed their evaluation of the results. Why did the Americans already know what was on the recordings. Obviously they were seeking to mislead the people, but why?”

            After he was charged for violently assaulting a 15-year old boy who was protesting a neo-nazi speech he gave concerning the “dangers of immigration”, Ulfkotte responded thusly on his Facebook page:

            “I’m happy about the charges, because now I have the name and address of the 15-year old (…) a number of us are pleased about this”

            Like

            • Your practice is consistently deceptive. Again I have checked your links. NONE of them offer a ‘debunking’ of Carrie’s claim. Quite the reverse – they all acknowledge the impact of the amendment will be greater access to propaganda from the State Department, they merely offer perceived reasons why this will not matter.

              When asked by Carrie to define ‘real evidence’ you said

              Let’s keep the bar low and define it as “anything that doesn’t involve the just the words of some people”. There needs to be corroboration, with documents, records, or something else.

              This is a sensible response. However your own evidence consistently fails to meet this standard and indeed usually turns out to be “just the word of some people”. You also habitually cite sources that do not support your own claims.

              This is – again – the behaviour of a troll, and would be enough to get you banned from many sites. Cite fewer links in a single post and make sure they DO support your claims please.

              Like

              • Matt says

                “Quite the reverse – they all acknowledge the impact of the amendment will be greater access to propaganda from the State Department, they merely offer perceived reasons why this will not matter.”

                Then this is an issue with interpretation. I read those articles I linked, and they do not allow “propaganda” from the State Department. What they do allow, for example, is the ability for an American radio station to replay VOA broadcasts to Somali-Americans to rebut terrorist propaganda. I use this specific example because this event was actually prevented by the Smith Mundt act, in a Minneapolis radio station.

                “indeed usually turns out to be “just the word of some people”.”

                Again, I several links to posts that discuss Ulfkotte’s statements, with links to the German-language statements by Ulfkotte. You can not deny what he literally said himself, or that he published two books on how Islam will “takeover” Germany. This can all be easily verified.

                “This is – again – the behaviour of a troll, and would be enough to get you banned from many sites.”

                Uh, no. Making a mistake, just in one or two posts, is not trolling. Apparently, if I make a mistake, admit to it, apologize for it, and talk back at those insulting me, that somehow makes me a “troll.” You know that’s a false statement.

                Please re-read the FP article and the 3 blog posts by the former BBG member. They explain everything clearly, namely, that the legislation was far too restrictive. It would be as if it was illegal for RT to be broadcast in Russia! Pretty strange, right? Same with VOA in the U.S.

                Note: I accidentally forgot some numbers when I entered my email for a previous post. I have fixed this – so please don’t falsely call me a “troll.”

                Like

          • Matt ‘thinks’ that the intel community has infiltrated media. He ‘thinks’ that the sun rises in the east in other words. And he thinks that we should stop talking about it!!!

            Like

        • Instead of trawling through old papers (how many were even on the Internet in the 80s?!) how about looking at what the FBI and CIA are up to in 2018!?!?

          Like

    • George Cornell says

      There is no shortage of irony in your commentary. “Noted lunatic”? ” crazy lunatic”? And what does his conversion to Islam have to do with your claim he was crazy? Are you qualified to say? Does your self-professed ability to tell when people are lying extend to psychiatric diagnosis from the telly too?

      The Western news was not Full Of this story as you claim. What surely is the measure of press effectiveness is how many read and remembered this story. And what were the consequences for those who supported giving chemical weapons?

      Whistleblowers seem to come in many stripes and many of their circumstances do threaten their health. I would like to hear more.

      I am with admin here. Can you explain the difficulty in accessing the book and the blocking of access to it, even in German? You are protesting too much for my liking and intemperately so. You may be right about some of the things you say but do I detect a whiff of rattus odoriferous?

      Like

      • Matt says

        Hello George,

        I made another post to admin regarding the history of the author. His conversion is made even more strange when you read about his views about immigration. And it is important, due to the many claims he made. “Fecal Jihad”, for example. Normally, someone’s eccentric behaviour would not cause me to question their honesty. But when this behaviour is combined with wild statements, and complete lies, then it’s an important issue.

        “The Western news was not Full Of this story as you claim. What surely is the measure of press effectiveness is how many read and remembered this story.”

        This is not the same point the author made. What he said was plain and simple: that his story was squashed by the American/German governments using their agents in the Western media. I have given several counter-examples of this very scoop being published by the NYT, WaPo, Spiegiel, and Zeit, pretty much the most mainstream media outlets one can get in the U.S. and Germany. How many articles they published, etc. is irrelevant to the point he made. And generally, when a scoop is published, there are usually only a few articles about it. The only exception I can think of is when the scoop involves copious amounts of leaked documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, or Snowden’s NSA archives. In that case, one would expect a months/years-long stream of articles. But not in this case.

        “Can you explain the difficulty in accessing the book and the blocking of access to it, even in German?”

        I’m not aware of any shortages of the book in Germany. It became a bestsellter, so obviously there was no surpression. In the West, the English-language publisher is probably having issues with printing enough copies. I would assume it’s a financial decision, as the book was not promoted much in the West. Again, there are usually rational explanations for most “weird” things like this. Human psychology, however, can make us think otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Carrie says

          In the West, the English-language publisher is probably having issues with printing enough copies.

          Like the admin said publishers don’t delete a book from their website because they’ve run out of copies! And you have the gall to condescend to other people about being ‘rational’. Everything you say betrays fitting the facts to your preconceived and pretty irrational beliefs.

          Like

          • Matt says

            A simple broken link is not reason to believe that any information is being surpressed. There are an infinite number of broken links on the internet, as any user of the Internet would know. That this is one of them does not prove anything whatsoever.

            Like

            • Note there are no links to Ulfkotte on film displaying racist or insane words. All we have is the hearsay you allege. And, as has been noted, since when were you an expert in exposing liars on TV? Ulfkotte comes across as sincere in every way, I suggest it is you that has issues with their mental faculties.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Matt says

                I posted many, many links. However, some of my posts are stuck in moderation.

                Ulfkotte is well known in Germany for making these statements, it’s not something I’m making up.

                And, uh, he kind sorta wrote several books about how Islam is going to take over Germany, etc. That you don’t even know this much makes the following insult all the more rude:

                “I suggest it is you that has issues with their mental faculties.”

                This is the second ad hominem attack you’ve made against me. Admin, please help me out here. I’m just one person and have been respectful with everyone here.

                Like

                • Since you made the claim that you are able to determine someone is a liar based on their demeanour on TV it is not an ad hominem to question your sanity.
                  As for my other ad hominem, regarding your post holiday return to spamming here, that is not an ad hominem so much as me floating possible, even likely scenarios. I have some experience with especially Israelli student paid shills, there are rooms full of them, and have come to recognise their modus operandi. After all they recieve the same training and thus have discernable patterns that are as good as signatures. The more they post the clearer the signature.
                  Your signature is a good fit. Multiple IP addresses from vpn networks. Plethora of meaningless and useless links to distract, confuse and divert others from discussing and making more relevant investigations. Constant claims that cannot be substantiated including ad hominems on those not present to defend themselves. Polite provocation
                  Followed by fake indignation at the slightest returned provocation with a sustained effort to have moderators silence voices. Pattern of posting during set ” working” hours. Claims of expertise on every subject engaged in, ie were you even born in 1984? Long winded posts full of nothing that are put together on script sheets by the “employer”. And more.

                  I could be wrong, or your phrase ” I will humour you” could be a double bluff. Nobody here can know for certain, including me. Actually you know. But if you are only here to troll and divert subjects and the community from meaningful discussion you are hardly going to admit it, except perhaps, in jest.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Harry Stotle says

                  Matt, if it is your sincere belief that journalists are not being nobbled it still rather begs the question why the MSM has been exceedingly shite when it comes to explaining to readers why (post WW II) US wars of unprovoked aggression have led to endless carnage in the Middle East and beyond – ask Joe Bloggs, for example why we went into Afghanistan, Libya, Syria or the Ukraine and the chances are most would not have a clue.

                  In other words by accident or by design the public are ignorant, while those supposedly responsible for revealing certain truths about international aggression, or even orchestrated false flag operations in New York, have been sitting on their hands, in a kind of see no evil, hear no evil speak no evil, sort of way.

                  I always assumed this was was because the vast majority of western media is controlled by a few plutocrats, and journalists only got to become a member of the club by sacrificing any principles they held – but is it really such a stretch to imagine sinister security figures putting the squeeze on those brave enough to deviate from this self imposed form of blindness such as their abject failure to report some of the self evident truths about 9/11?

                  It goes without saying that not a single invasion has been justified post-1945, but if we take our cues from the media it is those in the west who are under threat, rather countries devastated by an ongoing campaign of illegal violence.

                  Like

    • Harry Stotle says

      The only thing harder to find than Udo Ulfkotte’s book is a Guardian review of it.

      I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated (i.e censored) followed by a yellow or red card for the cheeky commentator.
      The level of pretence on this forum has now reached epic proportions, and seems to cuts both ways, ie. commentators pretending that there are not several subjects which are virtually impossible to discuss in any depth (such as media censorship), and moderators pretending that ‘community standards’ is not simply a crude device to control conversational discourse, especially when a commentators point of view stray beyond narrow, Guardian approved borders.

      Books, such as ‘Bought Journalists’ (which expose the corruption at the heart of western media) are especially inconvenient for the risible ‘fake news’ agenda currently being rammed down the readerships throat – some of these people at the Guardian have either absolutely no insight, or no shame.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated

        If any of our readers who are still able to post on CiF felt like giving it a try it would be interesting to see what happened. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

        • Harry Stotle says

          This piece put me in mind of Daniele Gansers seminal book, ‘NATOs secret armies’ Of course Off-G picked up on it but I can’t find any commentary from the Guardian
          https://off-guardian.org/2015/07/17/natos-secret-armies-gladio-in-western-europe/

          Ulfkotte and Ganser in their ways are both telling a similar story – NATO, i.e an arm of the US military industrial complex are mass murderers and sufficiently intimidating to have most western journalists singing from the same hymn sheet.

          Since the Guardian follows the party line it is only possible to send coded or cryptic messages (BTL) should commentators wish to deviate from the approved narrative.
          For example, I was ‘pre-moderated’ for having doubts about the veracity of the so called ‘Parsons Green tube bomb’, especially the nature of the injuries inflicted on a young model who looked like she was suffering from toothache.
          https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.628812:1505494262/wo16-web-parsons-green.JPG?f=16×9&w=1024&$p$f$w=e135eda

          My guess is NATO’s secret army are still in full swing but there is no chance the Guardian will pick up on it – they’re too busy whipping up antipathy towards Iran.
          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/05/west-ignores-iranian-people-power-peril#comments

          Like

        • George Cornell says

          Been there, done that. What ordinarily happens if the submission is proper and cannot be censored on the basis of impropriety or foulmouthedness or any other good reason, but exposes a Guardian sacred cow in an embarrassing light, is that it is said to be off topic. Now this is really unaccountable, and truly subjective.

          The community in community standards is “them” and has close ties to the 1%, if I hazard a guess.

          Liked by 2 people

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s