The Lying Media Always Lie. So Why Believe Them This Time?
If ever you’ve fallen victim to a conman’s trickery - as I have on several expensive occasions - one vital lesson you will have learned is the importance of never investing emotionally in the string of plausible lies you are told.
But while this is easy in theory it is very hard to observe in practice. Most of us are trustworthy, decent people who naturally assume good faith in others. This virtue - and it is a virtue, for who wants to live in a world where we treat everyone we meet as a potential deceiver? - makes us ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness, especially by their leader the Prince of Lies.
That’s why the Bible enjoins us “Put not your trust in princes” and ‘It is better to trust in the Lord than to put any confidence in man.” Even if you’re not a Christian, you will I hope agree that the principle is sound. If I had to recommend the Bible to atheists it would be as an instruction manual on how to survive in a corrupted world where liars rule the roost.
Anyone who has gone down the rabbit hole - Christian or not - ought to be aware by now that the people who run the world do so mainly by deception. This is, after all, the very definition of ‘waking up’: suddenly realising that everything you have been told about key historical events from the Moon landings to 9/11, about major players like William Shakespeare and Winston Churchill, even about the great ‘discoveries’ we have come to call ‘basic science’ is a tissue of lies.
The next step in this learning process is to work out how They do it. It’s actually pretty simple. They control all the major sources of information - the schools, the universities, the publishing industry, entertainment, etc - to ensure that you are fed on a constant diet of bullshit.
I used to be a part of one of these bullshit industries myself. The worst of them all, actually: the mainstream media. Because of the compartmentalisation that applies in all secret operations, I had no idea at the time that the true purpose of my industry was to frighten, mislead and brainwash the populace through misinformation and disinformation. But now that I’m a bit wiser and better informed, I see the process much more clearly.
Take ‘the news’. Most people imagine - and not just those outside the industry but those who work in it - that when a big story breaks on the front pages of all the newspapers it is a real event which has been selected for coverage because of its importance. In truth though, few people have any idea whether a story is real or not - and that includes the journalists covering it.
That’s because in its earliest stages, the story will have been taken ‘off the wires.’ That is, invariably, one of the big media agencies - Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France-Press - will have provided the raw details, which are then rewritten and lightly embellished by individual newspapers and TV news channels. In other words, most news reports are glorified press releases.
If you work as a reporter of the newspapers covering one of these stories, the incentive for verifying the facts is zero. The narrative has already been agreed on - and is being diligently relayed by all your rivals. Imagine trying to approach your editor as, say, a heartrending story is breaking about a bombing at the Boston marathon. What he wants is tales of heroism, personal tragedy and background information on the evil Muslim terrorists responsible. The last thing he needs to hear is some maverick pillock wasting his time with crazy speculation that the whole episode might have been faked.
This is why, even when thousands of well-motivated and sincere reporters all around the world cover the same story they always end up reaching the same conclusions. The lone maverick reporter prepared to jeopardise his career in pursuit of the unpalatable truth may be a staple of the movies - and there’s a reason for that, the movies, of course being another important part of the lie machine - but you rarely find him in real life. Journalists are career-safe pack animals. There is no mileage in being different. It just stops you getting published and ends up getting you sacked.
Just about the only reporters who break this rule are those who can afford - or who can’t afford, but value principles more highly than money - to work outside the mainstream media. A good example is Richard D Hall, the British investigator currently being vilified in some quarters for having dared question the official story about the Manchester Arena tragedy in 2017, when 22 innocents were supposedly murdered by an Islamist suicide bomber at an Ariana Grande concert.
Hall, as even his worst critics would have to admit, is not afraid to risk courting unpopularity. Among the subjects of his previous investigations are Madeleine McCann (probably the world’s most famous missing child) and Jo Cox (certainly this century’s most famous martyred British member of parliament, cruelly murdered in the streets - at least according to all the highly emotive newspaper reports which threatened to derail Brexit - by a deranged lone gunman). By daring to ask tricky questions about such examplars of tragic victimhood, Hall has earned himself the MSM soubriquets ‘disaster denier’ and ‘troll.’
In order for these charges to carry any weight, though, you would first need to demonstrate that all mainstream media accounts of terrorist incidents and other major news events were so accurate as to be beyond questioning. I doubt even regular consumers of the mainstream media would claim that this is the case. As for those who are Awake, they certainly wouldn’t - or at least oughtn’t - for reasons I’ve given above but which I’ll repeat here for the benefit of the slow at the back. To be Awake is, by definition, to realise that all ‘official’ sources, especially the mainstream media, lie to you relentlessly about almost everything.
I only inserted that ‘almost’ in order to cover myself, just in the unlikely event that someone, somewhere, can produce a convincing example of an occasion when the media actually told us the unvarnished truth about something. But such instances, if they exist, are rare as hen’s teeth. When I glance, disgustedly, at my wife’s copy of The Daily Telegraph, for example, I can parse every article and tell you exactly what its underlying purpose is, where it is withholding the truth, and where it is twisting the facts, in order to keep its readership misinformed. The people responsible may not always realise that they are scum. Scum, though, is most definitely what they produce on a daily basis. Just like all the other newspapers and TV channels, which are all the bloody same when it comes down to it, because they all owned by the same Predator Class.
Given that all this is so, I find myself somewhat surprised to be having to defend myself against the charge that I have been ‘misled’ by Hall. And that, in turn, when I had him on my podcast I was misleading my viewers. My viewers are more than capable of deciding for themselves what they think of Hall’s research. Personally I find it very persuasive. Though no one - except maybe those who planned the operation - could tell you exactly what happened in Manchester Arena that night, I’m pretty sure of one thing: it was nothing like the version of events we were presented with in the mainstream media.
When I wrote “except maybe those who planned the operation” I didn’t just do it to win snark points. (Though obviously, that was a massive bonus). I said it also to address one of the more fatuous objections I often see raised whenever the issue of false flag/staged terrorist incidents comes up. It goes along the lines of “I wasn’t convinced by every last detail of his argument.”
There’s invariably someone who makes this complaint after I’ve done another of my podcasts with Ole Dammegard, who specialises in revealing the truth behind such terror events as the assassination of JFK, the murder of Olaf Palme, and the 2011 massacre on Utøya island in Norway. “Rambling and speculative,” said one, after our latest, about the faked assassination of Donald Trump. https://open.substack.com/pub/delingpole/p/ole-dammegard-512? But he was completely missing the point.
The point is this: the people who plan and execute false flag/staged operations are masters of deception with unlimited resources and budgets at their disposal. One of the key areas on which they spend these unlimited budgets is the cover up operation. This can include: faked death certificates; the paying off and disappearance of ‘victims’ to new locations; rigged public inquiries; the abuse of legal process to intimidate investigators; disinformation and misinformation from the compliant press; TV specials reinforcing the official narrative; etc. Should we really be surprised that against so powerful, corrupt and mendacious an Establishment system, independent researchers find it difficult to establish, down to the finest detail, exactly how this or that operation was executed?
Much of the ire currently being directed against Hall derives from his inability to tell us exactly what happened to the 22 people allegedly killed in the Manchester Arena bombing, such as the youngest victim, eight-year old Saffie Rose Roussos. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, much play was made in the media of “little Saffie’s” death, with prominent photos of her ‘simply beautiful’ face, and tributes such as the one from her headteacher, who said “she was loved by everyone and her warmth and kindness will be remembered fondly.”
I don’t think anyone could have looked at those photos or read those comments at the time without feeling at once moved and angry. But then, the same could be said for all those stories we read after the October 7th attacks in Israel about how 40 babies had been beheaded by the savage killers from Hamas. The more accurate figure for beheaded babies, we learned later, was zero. By that stage, though, the facts were irrelevant: the pliant public had already been whipped into the appropriate state of vengeful frenzy, so, propaganda job done.
Whenever you call into question the reported deaths of children, some people get very upset because they think you are dishonouring the dead - and the pitifully young and innocent dead, at that. I’ve written about this in two earlier essays which you might enjoy - Will No One Think of the (Probably) Fake Children?
https://open.substack.com/pub/delingpole/p/will-no-one-think-of-the-probably? and Israel and Palestine: This Time It Really Isn’t Different
The people who plan these psyops know from long experience that the best way to get the public to buy into their propaganda lies is to bypass the rational part of the brain and appeal directly to the emotions.
Sometimes, often in fact, they do it with dead children, which tend to work a treat. (Remember little Aylan Kurdi, the dead boy washed up on the beach, whose image dominated newspapers for weeks?). Sometimes, they play on more subtle emotions, like, in the case of the first Trump assassination attempt, the notion that quite a few God-fearing Trump followers have that he is on a holy mission to save the world.
Even quite a few of his Awake followers fell for it. Diehard sceptics who normally don’t believe a word they see in the newspapers and who know TV news is a joke were suddenly brandishing the ‘facts’ they’d got from both - the shooter on the roof; the hero firefighter caught in the crossfire, the miraculously slight wound - as unimpeachable truths.
It apparently never occurred to these instant, passionate, it-was-definitely-an-assassination-attempt experts to ask basic questions like: how come this particular rally in the middle of nowhere was flooded with reporters, including one from the BBC, when normally the MSM wouldn’t have touched an obscure, regional non-event like this with a bargepole?
“OK so they lied to us about ‘Covid’, global warming, the Titanic, 9/11, the Beatles, vaccine safety, Ukraine, Evolution, the causes and treatment of cancer, October 6, January 7, 7/7, the Bolshevik revolution, the Moon landings, Winston Churchill, sun cream, JFK, viruses, Princess Di, seed oils, Charles Darwin, Spanish flu, cholesterol, the early history of Britain, AIDs, the translations of the Bible, the Crusades, the Federal Reserve, the Lusitania, Marie Curie, Hollywood, Mother Teresa, the Summer of Love, the Vietnam war, the Boston marathon and a few other things. But I’m still going to trust them on… [insert story here which accords with my prejudices]”
It doesn’t really work, does it?
I think given the media’s track record, the time has long since passed when we should give them the benefit of the doubt on any story they run. If they want us to believe their nonsense, then the burden of proof should lie with them, not with the investigators calling their bluff…
