6 ms·

This was likely part of Operation Mockingbird [1]: A large scale effort by the CIA to use media outlets and literature for propaganda purposes. In a sick twist

This was likely part of Operation Mockingbird [1]: A large scale effort by the CIA to use media outlets and literature for propaganda purposes. In a sick twist of irony Operation Mockingbird funded and arranged for the Hollywood production of the book "Animal Farm". It is believed they siphoned funds meant for the Marshall Plan. Russians also struck back with propaganda efforts of their own. Operation INFEKTION [2] was a KGB operation to further the idea that AIDS was a man-made invention first produced in a U.S. laboratory. Likely this hasn't ended. The U.S. military will provide access to their facilities and equipment, provided they get a cut on the movie script. Propaganda efforts to further the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job still prosper in Middle-eastern countries. Current groups like "Anonymous" or the "Privacy-conscious" may very well be the target of propaganda attacks. Next time the media vilifies TOR as a network for criminals, it may pay to double-check the source. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION

Perceval 12y ago
> In a sick twist of irony Operation Mockingbird funded and arranged for the Hollywood production of the book "Animal Farm". How is this ironic? Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a critique of Stalinism.
- dmix 12y ago
  Maybe because Orwell was principally anti-authoritarian. His critique in Animal Farm was at Stalin (represented as the pig 'Napolean'), not Marx ('Old Major'). So it's ironic that his anti-authoritarian work was used as propaganda by a state. Propaganda tends to be the tool of Stalin-esque dictators.
  - Perceval 12y ago
    > Propaganda tends to be the tool of Stalin-esque dictators. Not even close to true. Anti-authoritarian revolutionaries utilize propaganda to further their causes just as much as authoritarians do to solidify their positions. For example, Thomas Paine wrote propaganda for liberalism against British colonialism. There's nothing remotely ironic about the CIA sponsoring an anti-Stalinist work.
    - dmix 12y ago
      Fair enough, maybe the author can explain why it's ironic.
    - blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
      >Not even close to true >There's nothing remotely ironic You seem to have made up your mind on this, but just in case you want to understand my view better: A book with heavy anti-propaganda themes is used for propaganda purposes. That's irony. It's sick if Orwell knew this and yet agreed to his anti-Communist political writings being disguised in a story and used to destabilize the farms on other states. Because that means that all propaganda is equal, but some propaganda is more equal than others. That's sheer egoism, hypocrisy and political pandering. A secret organization that uses propaganda and deception to destabilize other states, using black budgets siphoned off from "economic recovery plans" (which in reality was (motivated as) an anti-Communism plan), that's eerily close to a dangerous totalitarian state. Using popular news media and culture to further government propaganda is eerily close to the organized lying that Orwell so despised. "If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe—a Labour leader—suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war—the secret war... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first." --Thomas Braden Orwell regarded propaganda as a feature of all modern governments but especially prominent in totalitarian regimes. His book may have become a Squealer the Pig. Accusing the other party of cheating, then both tabling an ace of spades. You are free BTW to change the word "irony" to any word you like that makes that sentence more agreeable to you (fate/remarkable/without cause etc.). In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." He added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.
      - Perceval 12y ago
Cyther606 12y ago
Did you know three skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11? In fact, prior to the downfall of the third tower, Larry Silverstein instructed the NY Fire Department to quote "pull it" [i]. Subsequently, Silverstein Properties issued a statement claiming that when Larry Silverstein advised the NY Fire Department commander that “the smartest thing to do is pull it,” what he meant was that it would be wise to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the building [ii]. In your opinion, what accounts for the unbelievable discrepancy between this account by Larry Silverstein, and the NIST's official conclusion that WT7 collapsed due to office fires? What about the eye witness accounts by NY firefighters claiming to hear, feel and experience "explosions" in the lower lobby of the other towers? [iii] Oddly, very few people who are for 9/11 truth are saying 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, most of the people who are saying 9/11 is an inside job are either undereducated or have an agenda to discredit the wider 9/11 truth movement. Look, with all of these discrepancies, why is it that modern life as an American citizen demands a steadfast, unquestioning belief in the official story? Isn't it at least _conceivable_ that the official story isn't completely forthcoming with the facts? Isn't it important we get this one right seeing as the NSA's illegal suspicionless surveillance program is _predicated_ on the events of 9/11 being true? [i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk [ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Draft for Public Comment, August 2008, pages 301-302. See http://wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_comment.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_co... [iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A
- chris_wot 12y ago
  I can't stand 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  - goldenkey 12y ago
    It seems ridiculous to give credence that a US president would authorize a conspiracy that caused loss of Americans in a Fortune 500 filled Mecca in the center of an economic Mecca. Really doesn't make sense to self inflict that much pain even if for oil or excuses for war.

Perceval 12y ago

> In a sick twist of irony Operation Mockingbird funded and arranged for the Hollywood production of the book "Animal Farm". How is this ironic? Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a critique of Stalinism.

dmix 12y ago
Maybe because Orwell was principally anti-authoritarian. His critique in Animal Farm was at Stalin (represented as the pig 'Napolean'), not Marx ('Old Major'). So it's ironic that his anti-authoritarian work was used as propaganda by a state. Propaganda tends to be the tool of Stalin-esque dictators.
- Perceval 12y ago
  > Propaganda tends to be the tool of Stalin-esque dictators. Not even close to true. Anti-authoritarian revolutionaries utilize propaganda to further their causes just as much as authoritarians do to solidify their positions. For example, Thomas Paine wrote propaganda for liberalism against British colonialism. There's nothing remotely ironic about the CIA sponsoring an anti-Stalinist work.
  - dmix 12y ago
    Fair enough, maybe the author can explain why it's ironic.
  - blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
    >Not even close to true >There's nothing remotely ironic You seem to have made up your mind on this, but just in case you want to understand my view better: A book with heavy anti-propaganda themes is used for propaganda purposes. That's irony. It's sick if Orwell knew this and yet agreed to his anti-Communist political writings being disguised in a story and used to destabilize the farms on other states. Because that means that all propaganda is equal, but some propaganda is more equal than others. That's sheer egoism, hypocrisy and political pandering. A secret organization that uses propaganda and deception to destabilize other states, using black budgets siphoned off from "economic recovery plans" (which in reality was (motivated as) an anti-Communism plan), that's eerily close to a dangerous totalitarian state. Using popular news media and culture to further government propaganda is eerily close to the organized lying that Orwell so despised. "If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe—a Labour leader—suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war—the secret war... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first." --Thomas Braden Orwell regarded propaganda as a feature of all modern governments but especially prominent in totalitarian regimes. His book may have become a Squealer the Pig. Accusing the other party of cheating, then both tabling an ace of spades. You are free BTW to change the word "irony" to any word you like that makes that sentence more agreeable to you (fate/remarkable/without cause etc.). In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." He added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.
    - Perceval 12y ago

Cyther606 12y ago

Did you know three skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11? In fact, prior to the downfall of the third tower, Larry Silverstein instructed the NY Fire Department to quote "pull it" [i]. Subsequently, Silverstein Properties issued a statement claiming that when Larry Silverstein advised the NY Fire Department commander that “the smartest thing to do is pull it,” what he meant was that it would be wise to pull a contingent of firefighters out of the building [ii]. In your opinion, what accounts for the unbelievable discrepancy between this account by Larry Silverstein, and the NIST's official conclusion that WT7 collapsed due to office fires? What about the eye witness accounts by NY firefighters claiming to hear, feel and experience "explosions" in the lower lobby of the other towers? [iii] Oddly, very few people who are for 9/11 truth are saying 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, most of the people who are saying 9/11 is an inside job are either undereducated or have an agenda to discredit the wider 9/11 truth movement. Look, with all of these discrepancies, why is it that modern life as an American citizen demands a steadfast, unquestioning belief in the official story? Isn't it at least _conceivable_ that the official story isn't completely forthcoming with the facts? Isn't it important we get this one right seeing as the NSA's illegal suspicionless surveillance program is _predicated_ on the events of 9/11 being true? [i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk [ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Draft for Public Comment, August 2008, pages 301-302. See http://wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_comment.pdf http://wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1-9_vol1_for_public_co... [iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cViy34b1A

chris_wot 12y ago
I can't stand 9/11 conspiracy theories.
- goldenkey 12y ago
  It seems ridiculous to give credence that a US president would authorize a conspiracy that caused loss of Americans in a Fortune 500 filled Mecca in the center of an economic Mecca. Really doesn't make sense to self inflict that much pain even if for oil or excuses for war.