2083 A European Declaration of Independence

August 2, 2011

2.19 a. The EUSSR/USASSR Media hegemony

Filed under: Uncategorized — sitamnesty @ 10:15

"[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban."

George Orwell, UK writer

Why the Western media does not always report everything that is going on in the world. How language is used to obscure the facts and mold opinion.

Living in Western Europe we are told that the news media (television, newspapers, radio) are free. It is certainly true that there are few government conspiracies to censor. Unlike in totalitarian countries, the media is not generally state run or controlled. However this is not the full story. Because the media is part of the global economy, there are certain properties that deny readers, viewers and listeners a balanced view of world events.

There are six reasons why a balanced view of world events is not generally received in the Western European media:

1. 99% of journalists support multiculturalism

This is covered already (see other chapter).

2. Media Ownership

Most newspapers, television and radio stations are owned by large and powerful multi-national companies.

In the USA, NBC and CBS (two television companies) are owned by international conglomerates such as General Electric and Westinghouse all supporting globalism and multiculturalism. Time-Warner and CNN merged in the late 1990s to form one of the largest news and media monopolies in the world, they too support globalism and multiculturalism.

Stories that highlight problems related to multiculturalism and globalism are completely ignored. Stories that help the interests of the media owners and propagate globalism and multiculturalism are given prominence.

One man, John Malone, owns 23% of the world’s cable stations. His Discovery Channel commissions programs after "market approval" and avoids "controversial subjects". The phrase "dumbing down" has entered the language as television concentrates on gossip and celebrity stories rather than serious issues.

The situation is similar in Western Europe. In the UK, News International (a company mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch) owns several newspapers (including The Times and The Sun), Sky Television (a major European satellite operator), Star Television (covering Asia) and publishers like Harper Collins.

In 1998, Rupert Murdoch owned 34% of the daily newspapers and 37% of the Sunday newspapers in the UK. Successive UK governments have allowed his empire to grow in return for his media’s support.

53% of UK newspaper and magazine distribution is controlled by just two companies, WH Smith and John Menzies.

Cross-media ownership and the fact that a small number of people own so many of our means of obtaining information is a threat as it institutionalises globalism and multiculturalism.

3. Advertising and ratings

"We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

David Boylan, Station Manager WTVT, Tampa,

When the media depends on advertising, the advertisers can exert pressure. A large media conglomerate may be able to absorb the loss of advertisers but a smaller, alternative newspaper or radio station may be pushed out of business. Advertisers frequently use their influence to stop stories detrimental to their interests.

In a 1992 survey in the UK, 150 newspaper editors stated that 90% of their advertisers had interfered with stories; 70% of the advertisers had tried to stop stories. 40% of the editors had succumbed to pressure from advertisers and made the changes requested.

In the UK in 1990, new laws meant that TV news had to make a profit. This has led to a decline in serious news items and more emphasis on "human interest" stories and celebrity "news". Advertisers want viewers; ratings become more important than giving information; the news companies abandon investigative journalism to "give the public what it wants".

Deregulation has meant that requirements to produce in-depth public affairs programming were removed. Programs that cover "controversial" subjects are screened at late hours or completely ignored.

As the number of commercial radio stations increases, the output becomes more bland and more predictable.

4. News Sources

"We have relationships with reporters that have helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories. Some responses to the media can be handled in a … phone call."

CIA Report

News is often given out by government sources.

Statements, statistics and new policies are introduced in controlled press conferences. Journalists who consistently question the official line too rigorously may be excluded from access. This is bad for a newspaper which relies on fast and fresh news.

In a conflict situation, a process called pooling is used to control what information is given out. A small number of journalists (sometimes only one) are taken by the military to observe and the news is then shared with other journalists. Journalists who attempt to obtain news independently can be excluded from future events.

90% of the world’s news comes from just three agencies: Associated Press (USA), Reuters (UK) and Agence France Presse (France), all supporting globalism and multiculturalism. Associated Press (AP) and Reuters make large profits selling financial and corporate information. The "free market" view of the world is thus very profitable. Alternate views can lose the companies money so are rarely aired.

In television, news is supplied by four main agencies: Reuters and the BBC (from the UK) and World Television Network (WTN) and CNN (from the USA), all supporting globalism and multiculturalism. Reuters supplies over 400 broadcasters in 85 countries and reaches an audience of 500 million people. WTN supplies news to 3,000 million people.

All the above agencies support multiculturalism and globalism. News critical of multiculti and globalism is rarely allowed to be distributed.

As the internet is a good source of alternative news, it is expected that the EUSSR/USASSR hegemony is likely to make a push to limit alternative coverage in the coming decades.

5. Negative Responses

Western European multiculturalist regimes actively put their policies across by using their loyal subjects the MSM, briefings, interviews and publications.

It is impossible to effectively criticize the multiculturalist MSM hegemony as they make out 98% of the news companies and control 95% of the news distribution in Western Europe. Alternative news distribution on the internet (5% and increasing) is under attack as well and it is likely that new EUSSR “hate laws” will make it illegal to criticise multiculturalism and Islam in the future.

6. Demonisation and Use of Language

"There are certain facts and stories from Korea that editors and publishers have printed which were pure fabrications… Many of us who sent the stories knew they were false, but we had to write them because they were official releases from responsible military headquarters and were released for publication even though the people responsible knew they were untrue."

Robert C Miller, United Press correspondent during the Korean War.

Nationalists/conservatives are always portrayed in a de-humanising manner.

Dissident views are undermined by demonising the people or organisations that have these views.

Smear campaign describing right wing dissidents as “Fascist Geert”, etc. is common on a pan-European, national and local level. The views of patriots/nationalists are always undermined by depicting them as freaks (negative highlights from their past will be used, or will be created).

Certain phrases are used to hide or distort dissident views. Dissident views are described as extreme and those who hold these views as extremists. Others are labelled as racists, fascists, Nazis, conspiracy theorists, militants or other disparaging names. Their views are meant to be ignored and are rarely argued against coherently.

When persecution is undertaken and intensified in the future by the Western European multiculturalist regimes, the opponents are demonised and the action justified by using a phrase such as: War on Fascism

Forces resisting the illegal Western European multiculturalist regimes are described as terrorists or right wing extremists. The phase indigenous resistance, resistance fighter is never as this would indicate a general resistance to the multiculturalist regimes.

2.19 b. The Western European multiculturalist regimes subsidise multiculturalist newspapers

People should be aware of the methods used by the Western European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes covertly subsidises its propaganda channels; the MSM (mainstream media). The so called “free press” in Western Europe is a myth and has never existed, despite our regimes unwavering efforts to tell us that this is the case. In many (if not all) Western European countries, only newspapers who support multiculturalism receives subsidy by the national regime and this has often been the case since the ideology of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism was implemented in the 50s, 60s or 70s (depending on country). For Norway and Sweden it has existed since the 70s.

The following overview documents how the multiculturalist regime in Norway subsidises multiculturalist propaganda newspapers (MSM) under an arrangement which can only resemble that of the former USSR. And yet, the Western European regimes dare calling themselves democratic. All newspaper opposing or critical of multiculturalism has by default lost any opportunity to receive the same subsidies resulting in a scenario where they struggle to provide efficient distribution for their products and thus for the marketing of their world view. The end result of this policy is that all media companies feel inclined to adapt to and adopt a multiculturalist view (a majority adapted to and adopted the “state view” during the 70s and 80s). These state subsidy arrangements is one of several reasons why there are now extremely few newspapers in Western Europe who are critical of multiculturalism. In many countries, such as Norway and Sweden, there isn’t a single newspaper representing the cultural conservatives…! The following guide illustrates how the Norwegian cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regime undemocratically subsidises the MSM to ensure that they remain loyal and forward the globalist/cultural Marxist/multiculturalist world view of the Norwegian Labour Party. I have not been able to create similar overviews for all Western European countries but I know similar practices exist in several countries.

The following overview illustrates how the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Norway fund their propaganda channels:

Newspapers in support of cultural Marxism/multiculti

Daily Distribution

(2009)

Direct Subsidy

(2009 – Euro)

Indirect Subsidy*

(1999 – Euro)

VG

262 374

26 875 000

Aftenposten

243 188

15 750 000

Dagbladet

105 255

15 125 000

Dagsavisen

31 400

4 800 000

1 750 000

Bergens Tidende

83 086

5 250 000

Adresseavisen

75 835

4 625 000

Bergensavisen

29 300

4 200 000

1 750 000

Vårt Land

27 000

4 500 000

1 500 000

Stavanger Aftenblad

65 298

3 625 000

Smaller publications in support of multiculti and other left wing extremist publications receiving direct or indirect financial support from the cultural Marxist/multicultural regime of Norway

Nationen

16 000

3 125 000

Klassekampen

11 400

2 625 000

(Marxist extremist views)

Rogalands Avis

12 500

1 500 000

Dagen

10 700

1 250 000

Newspapers in opposition to the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist world view

Norge IDAG

Lost subsidy in 2008

Conservative Christian newspaper

Document.no

Not applied as they will never be approved

* – indirect subsidy means that the newspapers do not have to pay sales tax on their products.

Source: Numbers for direct/indirect subsidies are from 1999, daily publishing numbers are from 2009 but are not far from 1999 numbers http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressest%C3%B8tte

This above financial compensation, referred to as “press subsidy” (pressestøtte) is only given to certain companies after approval by the Norwegian Department of Culture, or more specifically: the Norwegian Media Authority (Medietilsynet) which council consists of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist members.

It is well known among Norwegian right wing political “dissidents” that the specific committee in this department has a very hostile view on all entities in opposition to multiculturalism. The only right wing newspaper, Norge IDAG (Christian) lost their subsidy in 2008, because the cultural Marxist committee in the Department of Culture decided that it was “best this way”.

I have not had the capacity to research all Western European countries when it comes to public subsidy of newspapers/news agencies in support of multiculturalism but I assume that equivalent systems have been set up by the other Western European regimes. Protecting their press/propaganda hegemony is one of their primary goals and is a concealed form of dictatorship rule which is unknown to 90% of patriotic Europeans.

The MA 100 alliance will do everything in their power to prevent the truth from coming out.

2.20 Pro Muslim media strategies

The following article from the Norwegian News corporation, VG, dated November 20th is a typical example of so called “free journalism” in Western Europe. The article shows two vandalised Muslim graves, allegedly perpetrated by Jews.

Jewish settlers vandalised mosque in Hebron – 20.11.08

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=534113

What’s typical with these articles is that they are quite carefully chosen by an unknown journalist in VG and are often just taken from larger news databases, in this case NTB. The journalist hasn’t signed this article so it is impossible for us to track which individual was responsible for this action but he obviously got the approval of VG management.

This propaganda warfare has been ongoing for decades in Western Europe.

Now, when we check the Islamist database over Jihadi attacks that day located here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2008.htm

it shows that 28 individuals were killed in 5 different Jihadi attacks that day.

Let’s summarise the attacks:

Date

Country

Area

Killed

Injured

Comment

2008.11.20

Pakistan

Swat

1

0

A local man is murdered by the Taliban for helping a Chinese engineer escape abduction.

2008.11.20

Pakistan

Bajaur

9

6

A suicide bomber enters a rival mosque and takes out nine innocents.

2008.11.20

Afghanistan

Khost

8

13

A Fedayeen suicide bomber detonates outside an office building, sending eight Afghans to Allah.

2008.11.20

Iraq

Kut

5

0

Sunni extremists invade a home and kill five residents, including children.

2008.11.20

Iraq

Mosul

5

0

Two women are among five people murdered by terrorists while sitting in their vehicle.

Those were only the Muslim atrocities documented by that website alone. You can most likely add that a 100-200 native Europeans were either murdered, raped, beaten or robbed by Muslims living in Europe that day but these kind of attacks are not politically correct to report.

The fact that Western Journalists again and again systematically ignores serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews only adds to the stockpile of proof that all Western journalists support the EU’s Eurabia project, their enemy (based on coverage) is the Israeli and also often the Russian government.

Western European journalists, editors and publishers are guilty of facilitating Muslim crime (Jihad) by underreporting it.

These few examples of pro-Muslim propaganda illustrates that the Western European population are spoon fed with inaccuracies every single day. There are thousands of similar cases on a yearly basis. Obviously, not all articles about Islam are positive, but there is a disproportional balance that indirectly or directly protects Islam. Jihadi attacks are systematically covered up, ignored or toned down by Western journalists. There are more than 50 Jihadi terrorist attacks per month (on civilian targets, mostly non-Muslims). Yet, we only hear about one or two of these, usually accompanied with a similar dose of anti Israel/Russian propaganda to create an illusion that non-Muslims are just as “bad” as all the Muslim nuts combined.

Jihadi attacks per month

50 Jihadi attacks on non Muslims (Usually on native Europeans and in Thailand, Philippines, China, Dagestan, Chechnya, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Algeria). Several examples are classical Jihadi beheadings (not in Europe). Not to mention the outreach of contemporary slavery of Christians, Hindus in Muslim countries. There are thousands of examples of non-Muslim slaves in Muslim countries (who are slaves because they refuse to embrace Islam) and Western journalists are systematically ignoring it. Furthermore, there are several hundred thousand Christians and Animists in Sudan who have been systematically killed in the greatest modern Jihad in the 21st century, with funding of Saudi Arabia and even the US. Why do the journalists refuse to document these atrocities?

The answer is simple. Telling the truth would undermine multiculturalism (the Islamisation of Europe).

Western journalists and the UN are ignoring the biggest Jihadi genocide of modern times and usually only focus on the Congo conflict instead (the Ummah isn’t involved here so it’s a “politically correct” issue).

Ministerial orders not to use specific words – Muslim, crime, terrorist etc.

There are several guides in “political correctness” that have to be followed by media companies and parliamentarians in some Western European countries.

An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.

They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.

Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an "explicit link" between Muslims and terror.

Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it "splits the community".

Islamophobia is also out as it is received as "a slur that singles out Muslims".

The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.

The guidance was branded "daft" last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: "Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back."

The Home Office said: "This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else."

Source:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2759618/Ministers-told-Dont-call-Islamic-extremists-Islamic-extremists.html

2.21 Questions and polls your government and news agencies have disallowed

Ask yourself, why haven’t the following polls and questions been raised and presented to Europeans?

  1. Do you support mass Muslim immigration?

  2. Do you support the Islamisation of Europe?

  3. Do you trust your government’s statistics provided and their intentions in regards to mass Muslim immigration?

  4. Do you support the implementation of the EU’s Eurabia project?

  5. Do you want Europe to merge with the Islamic world?

  6. Do you see the Islamisation as a threat to European cultures and to the future stability of Europe?

  7. Do you support the building of mosques in Europe as long as it is illegal to build Churches in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries?

  8. Would you support expelling Muslims if it was proven that they preached hate or intolerance towards non-Muslims?

  9. Would you support revoking citizenship of Muslims if it was proved that they acted hateful towards and conspiring against non-Muslims?

  10. Would you support your government and military if they attempted to stop the current Islamic demographic warfare (through mass Muslim immigration and average birth rates of 3-4) being waged on Europe by the Global Islamic Ummah?

  11. Would you support the deportation of Muslims from Europe if it was proved that they were involved in Islamic demographic warfare (through mass Muslim immigration and average birth rates of 3-4) against Europe?

  12. Would you support the creation of armed resistance groups if it was proven that your government and other elected officials conspired against the people by implementing an ideology (multiculturalism) whose purpose is the eradication of European culture, traditions, European identity, Christendom (cultural genocide) and by allowing Islamic demographic warfare (indirect genocide of Europeans)?

  13. Would you support pre-emptive strikes initiated by these armed resistance groups against your government if it was proven that they (and the majority of parliament) conspired against the people by implementing an ideology whose purpose is the eradication of European culture (cultural genocide) and by allowing Islamic demographic warfare (indirect genocide of Europeans)?

Everyone knows how the majority would respond if these questions or polls were presented.

An overwhelming NO, to question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and an overwhelming YES to 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

This is the reason why NO news agency or government institutions have presented these questions or polls. It is beyond doubt that the Western European governments have systematically acted against the wishes of the majority of Europeans for decades (by systematically acting deceitful). And they plan to continue to do so until ethnic Europeans are no longer the majority.

2.22 Dealing with journalists – authorising your own character assassination by the multiculturalist PC press.

When being confronted, approach all journalists with extreme prejudice. Several overviews confirm that Western European journalists are not representative of the opinion of the people but instead represent a cultural Marxist, humanist and globalist world view. A Norwegian poll conducted in 2009 showed that 98% of Norwegian journalism students supported political parties in support of multiculturalism[1] (whereas only 50% of the native population show support), 70%+ support socialist parties (whereas only 50% of the native population show support). As cultural conservatives and anti-multiculturalists we are by default perceived as enemies and we should be aware of this prior to any encounter. European news agencies are not objective in any way, they are not free. Instead, journalists should be considered as multiculturalist political warriors and overwhelmingly left wing political activists with a clear and defined political agenda working systematically to contribute to safeguard the political doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness in general. As a cultural conservative, agreeing to interviews unconditionally would be the same as authorising your own “character assassination”. They will cross cut any given interview and label you as a racist, fascist or Nazi. If there are no links to racists, fascists or Nazis they will create these links. F example, they will review all your facebook contacts and actively look for anyone or anything (even small insignificant factors) in order to link you to anything or anyone racist, fascist or nazi. If you are perceived as a political threat they will even go as far as trying to label you as a paedophile or an insane person. When they have decided to kill your character (or rather the credibility of your name) they will most likely succeed. They have done this with tens of thousands of European political dissidents already (cultural conservatives) and they will continue with this efficient method. That is their purpose. Do not forget it and do not allow them to succeed. These are some of the reasons why journalists are so dangerous.

As we all know, Western Europe today lacks the balance of cultural conservative news agencies. A majority of countries do not have any objective agencies but are rather completely monopolised by multiculturalist agencies or rather political entities. Unless you are a master at this game you should never give direct interviews and you should never agree to give interviews unconditionally. In order to protect yourself you should create clear and concise conditions before giving comments to the press. These conditions must be signed on behalf of the news agency (not just the specific journalist) and must apply to all future use of the specific given comments or interview.

An example on the conditions given to a news agency:

The journalist of xxx company can present five question he/she feels are relevant (these questions will most likely attempt to undermine you or your cause or will provoke you to give sensitive comments which can later be quoted out of context). The individual giving the interview will present the digital cover images and five questions (which will indirectly/directly defend his cause or actions). All answers are forwarded in writing (after the questions have been forwarded to the interview object and approved by both parties).

The answers (given by the individual interviewed) to each of the ten questions must be published without alteration. If you allow the news agency to provide the images they will usually select unflattering samples with the goal of acknowledging few or no good aspects of the interview object.

If the journalist does not agree to these terms there will be no interview. These conditions must be signed by the journalist on behalf of the news agency and must be included in the bottom of the interview (comments given in this interview are not allowed to be quoted out of context or given entity will be sued).

This agreement in writing should be confirmed by the individual’s lawyer or any neutral third party.

I see tens of examples of cultural conservatives who annually “trust the good judgment of the journalist and ends up being severely ridiculed and damaged as he/she is being perceived as a bigot. There are too many people out there who indirectly authorise their own “character assassination”.

Learn who your enemies are and learn to play the game!

Source:

1. http://www.document.no/2009/05/intet_nytt_blant_norske_journa.html

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: