Our media are firmly in the hands of high finance, large corporations and the military industrial complex and are thus far away from their actual mission.
In Germany as still occupied and not sovereign country all mass media are under control of the Council of Foreign Relations. One could also say the press office of the Pentagon/NATO and the CIA.
At the very latest since the report reporting on the incidents in Chemnitz in September, it has become clear that the media are not working for the people, but actively against them, and that they cannot be trusted.
In Spain the picture is similar, if not even worse. When the CEO of the world's largest PR agency Edelmann, which annually publishes the renowned "Trust Barometer", says the following so openly, everyone should realize how bad the situation is.
"Spain is like the zero point for disinformation. It is very urgent that you Spaniards fight against it. And that doesn't work with the traditional media."
You have to understand and understand the extent to which manipulation by the mass media has now taken hold. And it is not only the media, but also a whole orchestra of PR agencies, NGOs think tanks. Not to forget the indoctrination within the entire educational system. The apparatus and the means are enormous.
Fake news, disinformation, hate speech, "enemy" propaganda are always relative. Mostly they are simply used to expand censorship.
Below are some excerpts from Jens Wernicke's book "Is the media lying?" about the (German) media landscape. To the end links to further information and resources about media & manipulation.
"We are living in an age of mass stupefaction, especially mass media stupefaction." Peter Scholl-Latour, Journalist.
"The media are the most powerful institution on earth. They have the power to blame innocent people guiloty and to speak guilty people innocent - and that is power because they control the minds of the masses." Malcom X
A classic example of the falsifications and distortions in the media is also provided by news coverage of the so-called "war on terror". There has never been this war, but only wars over raw materials, transit channels for oil and gas and geopolitical positions of power. And wars against governments that did not want to submit to the US hegemonic claim. However, our news channels only personalize instead of pointing out this connection. They idealize the "West", because this is "us", to say the "good people", and thus help propagandistically to prepare the population for impending wars: Serbian Prime Minister Milosevic, Libyan President Gaddafi, Syrian Assad and others like them have been or are demonised for months in our news programmes by all means, including counterfeit ones, until a war can be presented as an inevitable liberation of the people they govern, as a struggle for more human rights and democracy.
Of course, with such a news coverage it does not become clear that in reality it was and is about military supremacy in the Mediterranean, Libyan gold and oil, Syrian transit routes for oil and gas from the Arab monarchies and the protection of the "petro dollars" - and not about the liberation of villains at all.
The divergence between reported and actual reality is becoming pretty obvious. But clean and objective information would be a prerequisite for a realistic opinion-forming process. This, in turn, is the basis of a democratic society's ability to function and to its existence. If, on the other hand, news offers in the mass media become a pro-government and system-compliant means of propaganda, then we have a broad equalisation - and are taking the first step towards fascist society. And that's already threatening. The "news"we receive today is largely the same - no matter which station broadcasts it. They have continuous list page. The "West" gathers the good around it. Russians and Chinese are the bad guys. It does not give a damn about the Third World. It does not actually take place in the news unless it has raw materials, could infect valuable Europeans and Americans with Ebola, or, for a change, becomes the scene of a small genocide, but often not even then.
The concentration and monopolisation of the media continues to progress, and no one is stopping them..... Paragraph 27 of the North Rhine-Westphalian constitution, however, requires: "Enterprises that have special significance because of their monopoly status should be transferred to public ownership".
This problem should be on the agenda of all active democrats, and I believe that media monopolies should be converted urgently into a public service funding body. However, not according to the model of ARD and ZDF, where the big parties determine, but really in the hands of citizens.
This is mainly about three pillars of the system. Firstly, the PR sector, thus the most important propaganda sector of the economy. What do the PR people say? And secondly, what do the so-called intellectuals in public space, the great thinkers, people who write newspaper commentaries and publish impressive books on the nature of democracy and alike, say? And thirdly, one has to take a look at the university's operations, especially the political sciences, which have been dealing with communication and information as a sub-discipline for seventy or eighty years. The leaders in these three areas all say, and I quote correspondingly, that the mass of the population consists of "unsuspecting and annoying outsiders". We must keep them out of the public arena, because they are too stupid and only cause us difficulties if they take part. Their task is to watch and not to participate in political proceedings. They may go to the polls from time to time and cast their vote for one of us wise people. But then they can go home and do something else, watch football or something like that. In any case, the "unsuspecting and annoying outsiders" should be content with the role of spectators and not participate in anything.
In addition, the perspectives are obviously reconciled in background circles, elitist associations, think tanks, exclusive conferences and other places of confidential encounters. This often turns journalists into "politicians-accomplices" who no longer ask the questions of the audience. Instead they show consideration and feel jointly responsible for the success of a certain policy. Such a "conspiracy of responsibility", as I put it, has recently been seen on topics such as Ukraine and Russia, Greece and the debt crisis, as well as the so-called "refugee crisis". Journalists in unison with the government together against Putin, Syriza, Pegida, often without seriously reflecting the perspectives and interests of these challengers of our establishment and without discussing the validity of their arguments.
The media - in harmony with the majority of intellectuals - have more and more exposed the already meagre remainder of their normative self-ideals and have finally put themselves in the service of the economic elites. Thus, they became propagandistic weapons of mass destruction for the systematic destruction of welfare state achievements and at the same time the idea of community, solidarity and social justice.
Such a systematic destruction of the welfare state would not have been possible without a systematic poisoning of language and thought. Servile intellectuals, journalists and professors compete with politicians to serve the totalitarian ideology of the "market" and to provide it with an alleged basis for justification by conquering the space of thought. For this purpose, they were able to make use of the media almost without any restrictions, thereby anchoring in their minds an Orwellian neo-liberal redefinition of originally positive terms such as "freedom", "reform", "bureaucracy reduction"," flexibility" and "globalisation". The necessary neoliberal indoctrination vocabulary has been carefully developed and is continuously evaluated and refined by think tanks and foundations such as the Bertelsmann Foundation, which is supposed to be a non-profit organization.
Media are an indispensable tool in the production of community. Since they create our image of political reality, the establishment of a more humane society depends to a large extent on the extent to which we succeed in creating a framework of conditions for the media through which ALL social groups have the opportunity to participate in the public discussion space on an equal footing.
In today's social order, the media are so deeply involved in power relations that they serve as instruments for asserting the interests of the economic elites. For this reason, their mode of operation is largely determined by factors that lie outside the public discussion space and are virtually invisible to the public. So, if we want to create a genuine democracy, we must radically reform the entire media system - especially in terms of its economic structure and its symbiotic interlinking with the economic and political centres of power - in order to achieve comprehensive democratic control of the media. Since the centres of power naturally oppose the development of a genuine democracy, this cannot be achieved without radical democratic reforms of society as a whole.
"How does the paper know what it knows?" The answer to this question may surprise some newspaper readers: Most of the time they get their knowledge from news agencies. The news agencies, which work almost anonymously, are the key to occurrences in the world. Who are the news agencies then, how do they work and who finances these companies? All of this should be known in order to get a picture of whether one will really be informed properly about the events in East and West.
So who are the agencies that can always be found at the "source of the news"? There are now only three global agencies left:
- The American Associated Press (AP) with over 4,000 employees worldwide. AP is owned by US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news is used by around 12,000 media and reaches more than half of the world's population every day.
- The quasi-governmental French agency Agence France-Press (AFP), headquartered in Paris, also employs around 4,000 people. The AFP sends over 3,000 reports and about 2,500 photos to the media around the world every day.
- The British Reuters in London, which is privately organised and employs just over 3,000 people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson - one of the 25 richest people in the world - and merged to form Thomson-Reuters, headquartered in New York.
There are also several smaller national news agencies. The largest agency in the German-speaking countries is the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa), which as a semi-global agency has around 1,000 journalistic staff in around one hundred countries. The dpa is owned by German media publishers and broadcasters and has had its main editorial staff in the Axel Springer House in Berlin since 2010.
Ultimately, this dependence on the global agencies creates an astonishing similarity in international reporting: from Vienna to Washington, our media often report on the same topics and even uses the same formulations in many cases - a phenomenon that would otherwise be associated with "guided media" in authoritarian states.
In 2009, the head of the then news agency AP, Tom Curley, made public that the Pentagon, for example, had more than 27,000 specialists working on the media and circulating targeted manipulations with a budget of almost five billion dollars per year.
In addition to the global news agencies, there is another source that is often used to report on geopolitical conflicts: It is the big and well-known media in England and the USA (New York Times, BBC, CNN etc.).
In fact, many PR agencies have in the meantime become overpowering and as an important actor, they help to steer the fate of the world from the background. Specifically, four gigantic PR networks dominate the entire world of advertising, public relations, media and consulting. Basically, anyone can hire them for any purpose: to overthrow a president, to keep the bloody repression of a rebellion out of the media, to finally start a long intended and planned war by making it "palatable" to the population in the most manipulative way, and so on.
I am thinking, for example, of Thomas Meyer's study "The Untriables", in which he explains how journalists of the big media companies are now even claiming to be involved in politics, for example in the form of campaign journalism. And media scientist Uwe Krüger shows in his works the problematic proximity of "alpha journalists" to the social functional elites and the associated tendency to adopt their positions and perspectives.
In view of this ubiquitous campaign journalism, I believe it is essential to establish a journalistic culture or, if you like, to revive it, in which the media and journalists do not see themselves as actors sitting at the political table and co-governing themselves, but who see it as their core task to convey, critically comment on and classify democratic debates and transport the different views to the public.
Germany is not only upgrading in its external appearance - there is also an internal development towards the militarisation of civilian life, of thought, trade and education, for example - an ideological mobilization aimed at increasing the willingness of the Germans for war.
The increase in the number of asylum seekers and immigrants is only a natural consequence of the multiplication of the wars in which Germany and the German government are becoming ever more strongly involved. In this respect, the fight against more asylum seekers is to be interpreted as a "criticism" of the right of this war policy. This is because one is not prepared to bear the consequences of own actions.
But to return to your question: Pegida is by no means a bunch of fascists, but the consequences of war-rushing politics, supported by large parts of the "middle" of society, into which "right-wing radicalism" has long since migrated. In this sense, Pegida is above all the symptom of a much bigger problem. And this problem lies, above all, in the destruction of democracy by those who have actually been elected to preserve it, on the one hand, and by those who claim to inform the public about the actions of the elected people, on the other.
On November 10,1938, when the synagogues were still burning, Adolf Hitler explained the significance of the rule of information - especially in preparing for and attuning to warlike actions - as follows in front of the German press: "In order to do this, it was necessary not only to propagate violence as such, but also to shed light on certain foreign policy processes for the German people in such a way that conviction was gradually and automatically triggered in the brain of the broad mass of the people: If this cannot be stopped in the right way, it must be stopped by force, but it cannot continue like this." There is little to add.
Today, public service broadcasting is farther than ever before from fulfilling the legal mandate to meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of society: Content is privatized and boulevardized, structures are subjected to a crusted party system and quota terror governs. The coverage can almost be seen as state propaganda and is almost under the spell of government. The credo of decent journalism, to be uncomfortable for the powerful, has been more than completely suppressed by premature obedience. Education, information, counselling and high-quality cultural contributions are regularly missed out because the entertainment part is drastically overrun. The lion's share of the fees is now used for entertainment, football and borderline talk or game shows. High-quality documentation is banned into the after-hours. Scrap, sob stuff, kitsch series and Aldi-versus-Lidl advertising programmes dominate prime time. The quota decides on the program scheme, the quota governs at the expense of quality. The more than sixty radio stations, twenty television channels and countless online offerings of the public broadcasters no longer guarantee a basic service in the sense of the legislature, but represent an oversupply of false and undersupply with relevant content.
In comparison to foreign public institutions, we have by far the most expensive offer in the world in Germany and reach the fewest viewers in relation to expenditure. The apparatus is financed by a socially unfair levy, which is even levied on low-income earners regardless of their income situation, in order to finance income millionaires and borderline content.
It is important that the public service media belong to us all. The audience finances the programs, salaries and fees, the infrastructure, the exorbitant pension provisions of directors and produces income millionaires continiously. The way in which political parties, associations and churches have so far been able to exercise control and democratic ties in the competent bodies does not work. Here an impenetrable felt of circles of friends, interests and claims to power has arisen.
The vicious circle of declining circulation and advertising revenues has led to an immense concentration in the German publishing industry in recent years. Most of the established companies have been in business for decades, and the five most important of them control almost half of all newspapers in the country. In the case of magazines, the number of providers is even smaller; in the case of private television, two broadcaster chains dominate the market by around 80 percent. All in all, public opinion is dominated by oligopolies, in some regions even by the monopoly of a single company.
Today we have neo-liberal consensus on all strategic issues of economic, social and foreign policy.
Sociologist Michael Hartmann thinks I'll cut it short: The less pluralist the elites are, the more totalitarian the country becomes. There must be some truth there, and that is why the current development is dangerous.
The basic pillars of the agenda setting will only be determined by a very small number of so-called alpha journalists. Their articles can then be found in all the newspapers of a publishing group. In Thuringia, for example, since the autumn of 2016, we have only one newspaper editorial office serving almost the entire state. Only in the very south there is still a little competition. National politics is directly dependent on the Funke Group. This not only limits journalistic diversity, it also eliminates it and makes it more susceptible to interference and manipulation. It is also a job reduction programme, which further increases the economic pressure on journalists.
In two-thirds of the German administrative districts, only one single media company determines what and how local life is reported.
There will be no democracy without deprivatisation, without democratisation of the mass media. And when they see, for example, how the reactionary Rupert Murdoch with his global media empire made the war drum beating for all the wars that the two US presidents Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Barack Obama have led, then the democratization of corporate media in the face of millions of dead and mutilated people is a question of survival or death.
In my experience, journalists working in practice have little tendency to comment on their problems and to reflect on them and their causes. Instead, they often swallow anxiously and despairingly, behave like easy-care followers and convenient wrappers. The Ossietzky publisher Eckart Spoo has warned that we mustn't think of the bourgeois journalists in the Nazi Empire as fundamentally different from today's journalists.
The zones of pain addressed by all these critics remain taboo: the consequences of respecting the interests of media owners and advertisers, the lack of time and money for research and recourse to PR agencies, the existence of discrete factories of disinformation (Peter Scholl-Latour), the discipline of temporary contracts, the connection between career and self-censorship, the better fees for contributions that please the powerful, missing critical news coverage because of too close contacts with politicians, the mainstream as a partisan for the elite to which one belongs, the gap between public and published opinion, editorial guidelines and pressure to adapt as a reason for the tendency towards equalization, opinion homogeneity by excluding all-too-clear opponents. In that the self-appointed leading media largely omit these questions in their self-reflection, they voluntarily prove the main accusation against them: Lying by omitting.
Far too rarely is the question asked: Who benefits from it? Whoever is the first to conquer the sovereignty of interpretation is the winner. The sovereignty of interpretation has become more important than military air sovereignty.
Simplest journalistic principles are repeatedly ignored in this country - for example, that there must be at least two independent sources for an assertion. At the moment, Russian hackers seem to be responsible for almost all evils, without the ambition to at least look for real evidence. Or the principle that in the event of a conflict, both sides must be heard. The rules of our "Enemy Image Journalism" say a good deal more that the opposite side does not deserve to be heard under any circumstances, since it only distributes propaganda a priori.
Freedom of expression for journalists is far too often an illusion; only the employers of journalists are really free to let their opinions be spread. This is regulated in the so-called "trend protection clause" in labour law.
Yeah, and? Does that mean the media are lying?
Let me put it this way: the media industry lives in symbiosis with the rulers, it serves as a mouthpiece of its power. In this respect, their actual function has always been different from what the transport to the public. And that is to protect and support the respective existing power relations on the basis of economic, political and social exclusive rights of minorities. Did the media reflect this and say it frankly? No? Well, then they lie, even if it is different from what people from the left or the right generally thinks: not in the context of an "individual journalistic case" and only rarely in the context of obvious untruths. Nevertheless, consistently and structural in the way that they draw a deeply inhumane society as only possible. Defining war as peace and poverty as a self-inflicted sin. Interpretations of this kind, which attempt to conceal the actual circumstances, structures and economic principles of our society beyond recognition, are clear "lies" for me, because they are - especially in these times - a direct attack on the opportunities and quality of all our lives, the environment and our ability to solidarity. They are inhumanity which, in order to make it impossible to answer really critical questions, is drawn as last resort of wisdom, the only conceivable social order and world.
MEDIA & MANIPULATION
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element of democratic society. Those who manipulate this invisible mechanism of society form an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country."
Edward Louis Bernays, "Propaganda" 1928
Council on Foreign Relations / NATO Propaganda Matrix (USA, Deutschland, Schweiz)
Global media control – Link collection
The President and the Press – John F. Kennedy 1961
Der Anfang vom Ende der deutschen Medien
How spanish mass media outlets manipulate information
Edelmann TRUST BAROMETER Spanien
1984 Now - EU Thought Police Say “HATE” Must be REGULATED Out of Media
The Euromediterranean Process II: A Course on Selfregulation and Manipulation of Public Opinion
Manufacturing consent - Noam Chomsky
The Century of the Self (Edward Bernays und Sigmund & Anna Freud)
We Control Both Left & Right
„Wie werden politische Debatten gesteuert?" - Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld
„Warum schweigen die Lämmer?“ - Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld
Power and counter-power in the digital society - Manuel Castells
Truth and politics – Hannah Arendt
In Zeiten des universellen Betrugs wird das Erzählen der Wahrheit zu einem revolutionären Akt. „1984“ – George Orwell
Wikipedia, die McMedien und die Enttarnung von „Feliks“
The „Grassroots myth“: „Liberal CIA“ networks of „New Left“ Foundations, media and activists groups – much more than just George Soros
Change.org: Die Financiers und der eigentliche Zweck hinter der Online-Petitionsplattform
Me, Myself and Media – Willkommen im Kapital-Faschismus
False Flag & psychologische Kriegsführung
Wer organisierte Hamburger G20-Krawalle und warum?
Überwachung und Biometrie: Die Werkzeug zur Steuerung der Massen
Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?
World Economic Forum - Scientists Want to Turn Consciousness On and Off Like a Light Switch
Mind control over world population
Posthumanist brain engineering
The Big Lie: “Russian Propaganda.” The Bigger Lie: “The Truth is What We Say it is.”
Das Pentagon: Die Propaganda-Fabrik
NATO Coordinates Information War on Russia
Anti-Defamation League, Facebook, Google & Youtube Appoint Themselves As Official Internet Censor
Google Leak: How and Why Google Represses Truth by Censorship – under Pressure from Governments, EU, and Corporation Advertizers. (Video)
How Israel’s bogus definition of anti-Semitism shuts down free speech
Gefahr für die Meinungsfreiheit: Die Facebook-Zensoren des Atlantic Councils
Now That Facebook, YouTube And Apple Have Come For Alex Jones, Now They Will Start Coming After The Rest Of Us
Matrix of evil – Alex Jones
Aggressive Verschwörungstheoretiker Geschäftsmodell - Leben zerstören
If someone is seriously interested in building up an alternative serious online medium, we could provide the basic platform of PORTAL ALEMANIA and modify and adapt it in appropriate places. Of course, this would not be possible without costs. That must be clear. Nevertheless an opportunity to acquire a quite potent platform relatively cheaply.
If you are interested, please send an email to:
and with a copy to:
Subject: PORTAL ALEMANIA WEB
In order to recognize serious intention, we ask to attach to this email a kind of business plan of 1-2 pages, which proves the seriousness of the project and on the basis of which one can then talk about details if necessary.
Please only emails on this topic that meet these requirements. All others will be sorted out and will not reach us. We ask for your understanding.
Download publication "Digitization & The New World Order
(PDF, 80 pages, loads of useful information and links, available in German, English and Spanish)
LINK (DriveOnWeb, German provider - registration required)
Presentation of all topics of digitisation and proposal for the structure and tasks of an eGovernment Digital Agency.
Information on the current situation in Europe and the world as well as on the New World Order including historical links.
More detailed material for study purposes can be downloaded below:
DIGITALIZATION (500MB) (Dropbox / DriveOnWeb, German provider - registration required)
CYBER (110MB) (Dropbox / DriveOnWeb)
MEDIA & COMUNICATION (250MB) (Dropbox / DriveOnWeb)
THE NEW WORLD ORDER (800MB) (Dropbox / DriveOnWeb)
Please support our work & independent medium with a donation - thank you very much!
Account holder: SMP PA
Reason for payment: Donation Portal Alemania