?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

"C" stands for consciousness

119: Who Benefits from 9-11?



Guest: Richard Grove of 8th Estate Public Media and Research

Links:

Codex Alimentarius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_alimentarius


Judi Dench-narrated video on Codex Alimentarius:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3273956447915041292&ei=dN3HSJesAYigrwLykJ3MAg&q=codex+alimentarius&hl=en

The main codex video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&hl=en

Official site of the opposition:

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp


If you click this link:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Partnership_for_a_Drug-Free_America

You'll find that DuPont, Heinz, Bayer (i.e. IG Farben), JP Morgan, etc. all
support the "Partnership for a Drug Free America."

8th Estate films:

http://exposureroom.com/search/?q=8thestate&t=0

Black Light in the Attic Podcast:

http://blacklightattic.podomatic.com/

Radio Orbit for Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bin Laden Construction Company Worked on the World Trade Center:

http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/04/bin-laden-construction-company-worked.html

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
blita
Sep. 11th, 2008 08:35 pm (UTC)
Bravo!
Awesome show today, KMO! It was very revealing and deep into conspiracy country, but without the inherent fear dogma that comes along with most conspiracy type material! Well done, both of you.

I was surprised to hear Paul Laffoley on Hagan's show as I only know Laffoley as an amazing artist and forgot that he once was an architect! I certainly didn't know his connection to the World Trade Center towers. . .

Also the mentioning of Hemp and how that factors into the whole "control" system was refreshing as oh so many people who even partake of cannabis in some way do not know the real reasoning behind it's prohibition! I myself only recently learned of it by finally reading Jack Herer's book, the Emperor Wears No Clothes. It is undeniable, at least to me, that what Grove mentioned are the most potent answers to the whole question of cannabis prohibition. I had always thought it was simply the racism behind Anslinger/Hearst's admonitions against the plant, but that answer never sufficiently satisfied me brain. I've realized more and more that the issue of Cannabis Prohibition rests at the forefront of this struggle we are engaged in against Manipulation and Ignorance, as hemp touches upon many if not all major areas of "control" such Food, Medicine, and Fuel. While it was mentioned in the show, I think it's a point worth repeating so as to intensify it's importance in people's minds. Take it for what you will, I think that hemp could be used as the key to unlocking the mysteries of public apathy and "elitist" control. . .

9/11 is just one of those subjects that I most usually avoid as it's hard to have a real conversation on the subject unless the people talking are not only educated on the day, but also critical and not given to outright beliefs of what went down. I think this episode did a very good job of that and I will suggest it whenever the issue of 9/11 comes up around me and I think the other person actually has an open mind about the subject.

Peace
Sancho Blacklight


ps
Thanks for the plug at the end, I almost blushed! ;-D

pss
We're giving this LiveJournal thing a look-see as we hear it recommended to us, so I figure what better way to "start it up" than to post on your show!?!?
kmo
Sep. 11th, 2008 09:15 pm (UTC)
Re: Bravo!
Thanks, Sancho.

I sent you that Neil Kramer material earlier today. I'm looking forward to hearing how you work it into your show.
coremarc
Sep. 13th, 2008 07:03 am (UTC)
Hmmm... fringe much?
I'd like to suggest that too many unfounded statements are allowed to pass on the podcast without a hint of questioning their validity (no passengers on the WTC planes? What about the lost family members?) kmo does an incredible job of carefully managing some wild ideas on his show but some statements in the 9-11 episode leap into "the fringe" without a hint of scrutiny.

I love that a c-realm podcast can feel like a continual balance of absolute openness AND skepticism. It is a mental vibe which I've frequently experienced while 'tuning in' to the c-realm (Skrrrrcchh---"This is your brain on an apex")

Sadly in this last episode, the broad brush maligning of THE MEDIA is very wearisome. Media is what you make of it. An old saying knew this and still sound like common sense today: "Believe none of what you read and half of what you see!!! It just means, "be skeptical of what others wish to inform you." That, of course, doesn't mean they are set on delivering malicious disinformation as was suggested in this podcast. Clearly, the media's position as watchdogs of government has at times been abused and even abandoned, but as a journalist, I found the conversation that seemed to regard the media as nothing but amoral corporate entities to be terribly insulting. It ignored every aspect associated with honorable journalistic practice and displayed a lack of knowledge of the separation of News departments from the Sales departments in media corporations. This separation is an absolute in ANY respectable news organization (excluding FOX NEWS).
kmo
Sep. 13th, 2008 01:15 pm (UTC)
Re: Hmmm... fringe much?
I'd like to suggest that too many unfounded statements are allowed to pass on the podcast without a hint of questioning their validity (no passengers on the WTC planes?

Who said that? Do you remember what segment that was in or the approximate time in the podcast at which someone said that? I'd be very surprised to learn that Richard Grove, Paul Laffoley, or Robert David Steele made that claim.

I found the conversation that seemed to regard the media as nothing but amoral corporate entities to be terribly insulting. It ignored every aspect associated with honorable journalistic practice..."

Large organizations generally do not act upon or exhibit the values of the people working within those structures. If someone criticizes US foreign policy for placing too much emphasis on military force and intimidation, does that mean that every American citizen should take that criticism as a personal rebuke and attack on their individual character? Someone looking to confuse the issue would say yes, but I suspect that you know better and can see the parallel here.

On the topic of the corporate media's coverage of 9-11, ask yourself, how many times you have seen footage of the planes striking the twin towers in the corporate media. How many times have you seen footage of the twin towers collapsing? Now, how many times have you seen footage of WTC building 7 collapsing in the corporate media?

In the history of modern architecture, 3 steel-framed buildings have collapsed (reportedly) due to fire. All three collapses took place in Manhattan on 11 September 2001. Given what an extraordinarily rare event such a collapse represents, why do most people informed by the corporate media (and who don't avail themselves of "fringe" sources of information like the C-Realm Podcast) even know that three buildings in the WTC complex collapsed that day?

...and displayed a lack of knowledge of the separation of News departments from the Sales departments in media corporations. This separation is an absolute in ANY respectable news organization (excluding FOX NEWS).

The fact that you work in the corporate media makes it hard for you not to take criticism of that system personally, but I imagine that, at some level, you realize that the people who decide what makes it onto the air or into print and in what context do not share your values or motivations.

In answer to your "Fringe much?" question: Yes, obviously.

The topic of almost every episode of the C-Realm Podcast concerns material that the corporate media excludes entirely from the worldview it presents to the public, and in those cases in which I do cover something that the corporate media is starting to work into the picture of the world they're propagating (e.g. Peak Oil), I come at it from a perspective that would not fly in the corporate media environment. I make explicit some of the tacit assumptions of the "mainstream" perspective. These are all activities that relegate me to the fringes (I usually use the word "margins" when I think about my relationship to the "mainstream" media), but except for the financial struggle, the fringe strikes me as the place to be.

In any event, thanks for the feedback. I hope next week's episode doesn't prove so irritating to you.

Stay well.
coremarc
Sep. 17th, 2008 04:57 am (UTC)
"mainstream" DFNS.
Thank you for your always thought provoking comments. Also, I appreciate the implications of placing your focus on the "margins" (a better term than 'fringe') You might note that I never wielded the 'conspiracy theory' bludgeon. I am open to the the discussion taking place on this topic, but coming from the journalistic perspective it is clear to me that this episode spent a lot of time in the realm of the interesting, but unsubstantiated.

You’re right that as an employee of a (medium-sized) media corporation (Lin Television), I’m too close to the topic of the “mainstream media” to debate it objectively. I can only tell you that at the Local level, where I work, the dedication is genuine. What we put on air is of a high quality and isn’t dictated to us by anyone. Yet, on an almost daily basis I get some some kind of heat, either on the phone or in the street, about the "mainstream media" and my culpability for its failures. I can only shake my head. So please understand my irritation when I come across what I see as the propagation of an unfairly polarizing meme. It is too black and white to depict the reality of the huge number of people working in journalism.

Food for thought:

1. JOURNALISM'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH
Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.

source: http://journalism.org/resources/principles

Some notes on this episode (#113):
At 13:05 into the podcast, Robert David Steele, says, "...and there's no evidence that there were actually people on the airplanes." I have to assume he is referring to the planes that crashed into the WTC towers. You do introduce this recording of Steele as his "opinion," so clearly you had no way asking for clarification on this point but it is never supported or rebuked.

At 39:35, Richard Grove refers to Dan Rather and CBS, as saying that "Prescott Bush was on the board at CBS until he died.. and you understand there’s like a level of control in the media." WHAT? That establishes NOTHING. The way it was added up in Grove’s comment was like saying that one plus one equals ten.

Thanks for your exemplary podcasts. The topics you cover are in great need of exposure.
be well,
core
jwm207
Sep. 17th, 2008 09:35 pm (UTC)
Re: "mainstream" DFNS.
I don't recall hearing KMO ever make the claim that he is a professional journalist. Certainly he is not paid to podcast, so we can't call him a professional, and as for the "truth," even practically defined, well, I have a sense that KMO is far enough along on the path to avoid setting himself up as the purveyor of so elusive a commodity.

I was encouraged by this episode to do some web research into 9-11 that I otherwise would not have done. The statement "...there's no evidence that there were actually people on the airplanes" is preposterous on its face, but then so is the idea that 9-11 was an inside job. If we find evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, however, than we can no longer consider the statement preposterous. It is rather a reminder of how limited some of our evidence really is.

As for the comment by Richard Groves, I agree with you that by itself it is inconclusive. Does that make it wrong, or does it assume a context with which we are unfamiliar? You might want to check out this interview with Richard Gage: http://www.ae911truth.org/omnitv_interview.htm

Note that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth appears to be a very balanced resource and the technical slideshow on their homepage is well done.

Toward the end of the interview, Gage makes the following comment: "Is there any receptivity in the mainstream media, right now, which 90 percent of it in the United States is owned by four corporations. Who sits on it, on the boards of those corporations? The same people who sit on the boards of the defense industry, the oil industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, all those industries profited enormously from 9-11 and a real investigation will inevitably end up there."

It looks like Gage and Grove share a common context. Here are a couple of links that develop that context:

http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870

A bit closer to home, here is the webpage for the Lin TV board of directors: http://www.lintv.com/about/board.html

The Chairman of the Board is also a venture partner in Rho Ventures, which lists the following laundry list of corporations in its portfolio: http://www.rho.com/venture_capital/vc_portfolio.html

How likely is it for Lin TV to run a program reporting harm to the public interest caused by one of these companies? Perhaps there wouldn't be a problem, but doesn't the obvious conflict of interest concern you?
kmo
Sep. 17th, 2008 11:03 pm (UTC)
Fabled Enemies
Here's a link to another video sent to me by a C-Realm listener. I've watched about a fifth of it so far:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407
jwm207
Sep. 18th, 2008 03:46 pm (UTC)
Re: Fabled Enemies
Good link. I watched three-quarters last night. Interesting how much of the footage is a rehash of Fox News coverage. Great journalism side-by-side with some of the most obvious psychological manipulation in U.S. mainstream media. Disinformation is such a tricky business!
coremarc
Sep. 18th, 2008 06:38 am (UTC)
Re: "mainstream" DFNS.
jwm207, Thanks for your comments.

You wrote, “I don't recall hearing KMO ever make the claim that he is a professional journalist. “

I did not accuse him of being one, as it very seriuosly constricts what one might report. I’m merely pointing to what distiguishes Journalism from heresay, rumor and conspiracy. Some of this podcast lacked credibility due to unsubstantiated statements. I accept, there's a need for information from the "margins." I feel that kmo IS an exceptionally good journalist, as is evidenced by his thoughtful questions and commendably gentle touch.

jour·nal·ism  (jûrn-lzm)n.
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/journalism

By pointing out the requirements inherent to Jounalism, I’m hoping to highlight the level of accuracy that information must achieve in order to be reported as NEWS (whose rep. is in serious trouble). Because of that requirement of verification, we may not report allegations, or heresay, or even first-hand accounts that cannot be confirmed.

Thank you for the links you provided. I’ll check them out. I would not like to be perceived as defending the status quo of corporate media, only that at a certain point, its derision becomes counter-productive.

I honestly don’t understand your implication regarding the links to Lin TV and the Chairman of the Board. Yes, there they are...

You said, “How likely is it for Lin TV to run a program reporting harm to the public interest caused by one of these companies? Perhaps there wouldn't be a problem, but doesn't the obvious conflict of interest concern you?”

I would state that there is no “conflict of interest” and no line seperating our newsroom from doing stories involving the board’s interests. They (the board) simply don’t have a say in it our day to day news operation. Believe it or not, and that’s the truth.
jwm207
Sep. 18th, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)
Re: "mainstream" DFNS.
I agree that KMO is excellent at what he does.

"Because of that requirement of verification, we may not report allegations, or hearsay, or even first-hand accounts that cannot be confirmed."

Unfortunately this is not at all true. For example, President George W. Bush's repeated statement that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to U.S. national security was an allegation supported by hearsay that had absolutely no basis in first-hand accounts that could be confirmed by an independent press. Yet these statements were broadcast to millions of U.S. citizens by all of the mass media outlets and became the foundation of public support for a military invasion of Iraq.

I hope you can appreciate the irony here. What happens when the true margin - in this case an elite right-wing cabal of corporate fascist terrorists - takes control of the White House and with it the entire Executive Branch and military force of the U.S. government? If the press does not actively resist, it becomes tacitly complicit, and suddenly those who have sufficient common sense and courage to call a spade a spade find themselves "marginalized" to the "radical fringe" because they refuse to go along with the new consensus reality.

"Some of this podcast lacked credibility due to unsubstantiated statements."

Perhaps. Or perhaps it lacks credibility merely because the statements do not conform to establishment orthodoxy? We accept uncited statements in the news all the time, without difficulty, if they conform to a previously established and substantiated context. Before I can follow you farther down this road, I need you to provide some counterfactuals. Are you saying, for example, that we do in fact have forensic evidence that people were on board the planes that crashed into the WTC complex? (I know Steele's comment is implausible, but strictly speaking is it a false?) Or that Prescott Bush did not in fact exert a level of control over CBS?

[Sidebar on Prescott Bush: see Carl Bernstein's article on the CIA and the Media (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html), this little ditty on the Bush Family (http://www.tfdinstitute.com/network/bush.htm), and this great summary (http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/subverting_the_media.htm) with solid grounding in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Bottom line: "Since the 1950's with the inception of 'Operation Mockingbird' the CIA's plan was to infiltrate all the major media organizations in an attempt to control public opinion and indoctrinate an entire Boomer generation into war and militarism...Former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite revealed the tip of the iceberg by admitting that he had 'sometimes' relayed as news stories directly handed to him by the CIA. His successor Dan Rather has long been rumored to carry on in this tradition. This all makes perfect sense when you consider Prescott Bush ran CBS, and his son, GHW Bush, ran the CIA."]

"I honestly don’t understand your implication regarding the links to Lin TV and the Chairman of the Board."

I was assuming you would first check out the link to the FAIR website discussing the problems of interlocking directorates. The problem we need to be aware of, and trying to avert, is the formation of cartels and monopolies. Here are two follow-up links that should make this more clear:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-11-24-interlock_x.htm
http://www.linfo.org/interlocking_directorship.html

All of this is by way of getting a handle on the general problem. It's not meant to criticize you or your local newsroom; I'm sure you are doing great work providing valuable information for your local community. Until we are able to get out of the system, we have to do our best within the system, and that can be a thankless job. Over the long term, I think there is no doubt we need to move in the direction outlined by FAIR: "With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised...structural reform is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting, and promote strong, non-profit alternative sources of information."
coremarc
Sep. 20th, 2008 07:47 am (UTC)
Re: "mainstream" DFNS.
jwm207,

Thank you for your response. To paraphrase from another podcast comment section: "I think we're describing the same mountain from different directions." I agree with you on many points, including this:
"Until we are able to get out of the system, we have to do our best within the system, and that can be a thankless job." Yes, well that is where I am at. I am familiar with the problems inherent in a corporatized media. I'm curious about how it may be transitioned to a better model.

You were right to point out that what I wrote wasn't entirely correct. I wrote:
"Because of that requirement of verification, we may not report allegations, or hearsay, or even first-hand accounts that cannot be confirmed."
Your replied:
"Unfortunately this is not at all true. For example, President George W. Bush's repeated statement that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to U.S. national security was an allegation supported by hearsay that had absolutely no basis in first-hand accounts that could be confirmed by an independent press."

I neglected to add that when a dick-weed like Bush says something as asinine as that, THEY know it's beyond the media's ability to independently verify and we can only "attribute" the statement to that person. When that person is the President, you might say there is a credibility imbalance. In that issue, the media failed. Period.

On to other matters.
Quoting your message: "Are you saying, for example, that we do in fact have forensic evidence that people were on board the planes that crashed into the WTC complex? I know Steele's comment is implausible, but strictly speaking is it a false?)

NO, I'm not... and this is not philosophy either.

Considering the violent plane crash and major building collapse, I would imagine "forensic" evidence to be a long shot. Yet, in my estimation, passengers' flight reservations, security video, and subsequent disappearance of those believed to be on the plane (along with the tracked hijackers) to be sufficient circumstantial evidence that passengers, crew , and hijackers were "on the planes."

be well, (and find the others)
core
jwm207
Sep. 23rd, 2008 12:23 am (UTC)
Re: "mainstream" DFNS.
All fair points.

I must say, however, that for me this is nothing BUT philosophy.

A discussion for another time...
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2017
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes