Source: TCW
THIS is the second of three edited extracts from James Delingpole’s recent podcast interview with Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University. You can listen to their full conversation here.
Yesterday we published the first part of their compelling discussion on the role of media in bringing our supposedly free society into such unthinking conformity and compliance. In this section Miller goes further into the control of media, the political purpose behind the manipulative media narrative and finally, whether the Covid propaganda assault can sustain itself or is near breaking point.
JAMES DELINGPOLE: The war on truth has reached unprecedented levels of mendacity. I saw you speaking on an earlier podcast about hydroxychloroquine. Now, you and I know that hydroxychloroquine and indeed ivermectin are both very effective at treating Covid. If you have those drugs, you’re not going to die, basically, if you get it early enough. And they obviate the need for these so-called vaccines, which aren’t vaccines, which are experimental gene therapy, which we are being forced to get. Now, the reason I’m so glad to have you on the podcast is that you know and you well understand the nature of propaganda. And one of the things I wanted to ask you is: how come there is such unanimity across the mainstream media? I mean, in the past, you would have had rivalry between newspapers, you know, so if one newspaper was dissing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine another one would be saying, ‘Scoop! Top Scoop! Ivermectin is the answer or hydroxychloroquine is the answer’ . . .
But how is it that journalists, who are normally people who like sort of chucking stones at, you know, making a nuisance of themselves, we’re not housetrained, we became journalists because we couldn’t do a proper job, because we’re rebels, how come everyone, I mean, in the UK, apart from me, for example, believes that vaccines are great and Trump legitimately lost the election? How did this happen?
MARK MILLER: Well, there are many reasons for it. And I’ll try to identify the most significant ones.
The first we’ve already touched on, and that is that the media is now part of a huge cartel that is owned by the same few interests – leaving the BBC aside for the moment because it’s nominally public, and I guess that includes NPR (National Public Radio, or National Propaganda Radio as some call it) and the CBC in Canada – but otherwise, the media is, on the commercial side, completely dominated by just a few entities like AT&T, for example, owns pieces of all the major networks and so on. BlackRock, the hedge fund, they are very influential, Vanguard. So you have the same head at the top, you know, with maybe four or five brains crammed into it, and they’re the same brain. And then they have many, many, many tentacles. And so the same message tends to filter down to all the local stations and to all the major TV networks and to all the newspapers, right? Now, that’s corporate structure.
Then there’s the homogenising effect of advertising – that’s crucial. That’s been a problem since the late 19th century when the American press shifted from a circulation-based medium, which it had been since the revolution, into an advertising-based medium. They could no longer afford to keep up with the technology of printing newspapers and magazines simply on revenue fees alone. Advertising is a far more lavish source of funds and so now you had glossier, fatter publications, with more alluring illustrations and stuff like that. But these are all kind of organic processes. But what happened, almost immediately, is the most . . . the sources of the most revenue have a kind of . . . they exert control over content. And this began with the patent medicine industry, starting in the late 19th century. Newspapers and magazines made more money off of patent medicine advertising – this is snake oil, I mean, sometimes literal snake oil – either useless or toxic or addictive serums and powders and so on . . . You know, this is in the late 19th century.
That gave way to cigarettes – the same thing. It’s a fascinating history. But the fact is now big tech and big pharma spend obscene amounts of money on advertising . . . It is what Upton Sinclair called ‘the bribe indirect’. You know, it’s a bribe, basically. So if you take that money, you are not going to allow any content on the editorial side to cast a shadow on the advertising. So no TV network, no newspaper, no magazine is going to go against the grain. So these are the economist parts of the answer, ok?
They’re not enough. They account for a great deal of the nightmarish unanimity you’re talking about, but they don’t account for all of it. What really accounts for all of it is that on top of that kind of economic concentration and those financial interests, there’s also the fact that as the media cartel has become ever larger, more concentrated, its relationship with the state has tightened . . . It’s really second nature for intelligence agencies to form tight relationships with media, because the media system in any country is essential to the thinking and behaviour of the population. You can’t get anywhere trying to manipulate people if you don’t have the press in your hands. That’s why when real coups take place – and I say ‘real coup’, because this farce on January 6th, you know, the attempted coup in the Capitol was another gob-smackingly successful psychological operation, which even Noam Chomsky, may God forgive him, this is not the first time he’s betrayed a very suspicious inclination, called this ‘an attempted coup’. Noam Chomsky, I know he’s very old, but I know he’s also pretty sharp. And I’m sure he remembers 9/11, 1973 and Chile. That was a coup. Ok, that’s what a coup looks like, ok? It involves violence. It involves a violent seizure of the helms of government, and it involves taking over the media. That’s essential.
Did that happen on January 6th? What you had is a bunch of, you know, government agents and some naive, organically, you know, roused citizens, who had every reason to protest the failure of the Supreme Court to look into the election, had every reason to do that. They had every right to assemble. A bunch of them were ushered into the Capitol, ushered in by the police so they could put their feet up on a few desks, maybe break a window, yell – that’s an attempted coup? So the fact that all these talking heads, heads on bodies that earn handsome salaries, as corporate media employees, they all went to college, that they could stand there and say this is an attempted coup – and they all say it – tells us something else that I have to mention. We’ve talked about media concentration. We’ve talked about the effect of advertising. We’ve talked about the covert relationship with the CIA and MI6 and the FBI and the CDC, which is basically a drug company.
On top of that – and I know you’ll know what I’m talking about – there’s the complete corruption of the professional classes . . . and that includes academic scientists and doctors; that includes the medical profession, of course; that includes journalism, of course; and it probably includes, you know, most of the legal profession – because these are people who have all gone through a fairly rigorous training period that has entailed the gradual extinction of any idealistic impulse in those young workers-to-be, employees-to-be. This is something that’s studied in the book Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt . . . It came out maybe 2001 or something like that, 2004. It’s a study of exactly how young people with genuine ideals, like yours about journalism or mine and yours about studying literature – introducing its beauties to students, etc – they enter the system of training with these ideals intact, ideals that impelled them to undertake that training and then, without their knowing it, inexorably, that idealism is sort of pounded out of them. And this is especially disastrous for the scientists. Young people want to join the scientific professions to do pure science, you know, knowledge for its own sake and so on, or maybe to serve humankind. But they end up working, in one way or another, for the military industrial complex or for big pharma. Certainly journalism students start out, you know, with admirable intentions. They don’t think to themselves, ‘Gee, I want to get a job where I’m paid not to think for myself and not to investigate certain subjects.’ Right? But that’s what they end up doing. So I think that those were all the factors at play here. That’s why we have a system that is as univocal as the system under Goebbels, you know? And it’s more effective than that, because it has the cover of a free press.
DELINGPOLE: Yes, absolutely. Reading the newspapers, which I scarcely do these days, but occasionally I do it to sort of torment myself and to see what’s going on on the other side. And it’s as if the world is still trundling on normally and there’s nothing to worry about and, you know, ‘Here’s a story about this’. Well, I mean, I suppose, for example, the PsyOp which is the Afghanistan withdrawal coverage, suddenly, ‘Look, look proles, here’s an international story which you should pay attention to distract yourself from what’s going on in your own countries.’ I mean, I think I’d almost prefer right now living under the Taliban than under Biden or Johnson, because at least the Taliban are stopping the vaccine being administered in every province that they take over.
But . . . my frustration, and I’m sure yours is the same, is so few people are aware of the degree to which they are being manipulated. It’s a massive PsyOp. And I’m wondering, I wanted to ask you: how do we convey the truth to people? How do we bring people round?
MILLER: That’s the question that has driven me to teach propaganda – not how to do it, of course, but how to perceive it and how to resist it. That’s the mission of my propaganda course, which I’ve taught for over 20 years at NYU, and which they’ve now forbidden me to teach, at least for now. It’s based on the assumption – I would call it a fact – that we can always spot propaganda when we do not agree with it, but it’s extremely difficult to spot it when you do agree with it, because then you don’t think it’s propaganda, you think it’s just information that we need to know. So it’s a very tribalised process, you know? People on the Right, you ask them what’s propaganda, they’ll point to the New York Times and they will be correct about that. You ask somebody on the so-called Left for an example of propaganda and they’ll say Fox News and they’ll be correct. Both right. The challenge is to get people to try to be impartial in the face of an overwhelming propaganda drive, especially one that’s based on fear. Try to get people to take the necessary first step, which is to keep your head – don’t just believe what you get on Google when you do a search. Scroll way, way, way, way, way down and then you’ll start to find some alternative narratives . . .
So the class is exhilarating for me precisely because young people tend to be vastly more receptive to counter narratives, certainly than people in my generation who have hardened into ideologues, liberal ideologues whose Woke militancy has sealed their minds shut, right? And it all has to do with the PsyOp that was Donald Trump.
DELINGPOLE: Tell me about that?
MILLER: Well, see, on the Right, and I say this with no contempt, because for the most part, I can have a far more civil conversation with conservatives and libertarians and Christians than I can have with liberals or so-called progressives whose minds are like young oysters, you know, there is no opening them, it’s impossible. With that kind of resistance you can do nothing, unfortunately. You just say to them, you know, ‘God be with you’ and let them go their way and let them get vaccinated, you know? This is heartbreaking to me, because I’ve lost, as you may have as well, I’ve lost many close friends since this Covid thing began . . . a very isolating and disappointing thing.
DELINGPOLE: And that of course, is part of the process. They’re trying to achieve that. They want us . . . they want to separate us into different tribes.
MILLER: Hence the rise of identity politics, you know, which does not come from Lenin, you know, it does not come from Mao. The intelligence agencies have been diligently and very cleverly encouraging that shift on the Left since the late 60s . . .
The last year and a half has been a continuous propaganda spectacle whose purpose is simultaneously to devastate the independent economy – that is small business, to destroy it – so that, you know, the predators can swoop in and buy these properties for pennies on the dollar. And we’re talking about, you know, Amazon and Costco and Walmart and outfits like that. And also to drive more and more commerce on to the internet, along with most . . . what was formerly a human congregation now is online. So that makes people like Bill Gates and Bezos etc much richer . . . But we always have to look beyond that, you know, because money isn’t everything. Along with the devastation of the independent economy has been the deliberate atomisation of humankind and its division into warring sects or tribes. Divide et impera, right – divide and conquer. It’s as old as imperialism, really. It’s part of that playbook. It always was. It has been. And it is. And now it’s been carried to its exquisite culmination in a moment where we fear getting within six feet of each other because it might be deadly. And then that is further exacerbated by the division of whole populations into the virtuous ones who comply with the orders – however irrational and stunting those orders may be. They mask their children; they wear two masks; they mask when they’re driving alone in their cars. I mean, this is pure insanity. And they’re lining up, eagerly lining up, to get injected with this witches’ brew that has God knows what in it. And they are delighted to be able to get that injection. It’s like, ‘Honey, good news. I have a couple of seats on the next train to Auschwitz.’ It’s really . . . it’s like that.
So it’s making people clamour for extinction, right, while utterly demonising those who say, ‘Woah, you know, not this horse. Wait a minute, have you read this? Have you read that?’ You point that out to people, you show them videos of some of the most eminent, again, experts – dirty word – videos of Mike Yeadon . . . videos of Sucharit Bhakdi, videos of Dr Peter McCullough, videos of Robert Malone who invented the mRNA technology. You show them that, what do they do? They get pissed off. They’re furious at you. ‘Well, that’s misinformation.’ They think that’s misinformation.
And that what Dr Fauci says, you know, this manifest charlatan. This liar. Who has an atrocious history from the time when he participated in the HIV/Aids fraud, which was the beginning – this is important – that was the beginning of this notion that you could be a case of something with no symptoms. ‘You have HIV’ – you know, this shattered people’s lives. This was like a death sentence. You know, those of us old enough to remember, this was horrible and it had the effect of making people think that sexual union was like a dance with death, you know? So all of a sudden you had to be careful. You had to withdraw. Now, that only affected a subset or subsets of the population. That was, in a way, the dress rehearsal for this. And I’m going to credit somebody for educating me on this particular history, it’s Celia Farber who was like the best of the Aids journalists back in the late 80s and 90s and has paid dearly for it, because it’s never . . . you can never really get away with telling truths that threatens such huge profits.
The point is that the drug AZT, you know, from Burroughs Wellcome, is a chemotherapeutic drug that Dr Fauci helped to make available after the most minimal safety testing by the FDA, which previously had taken years to test the safety and efficacy of drugs. Now, all of a sudden, Dr Fauci, with gay activists at his back, on his side, he got them to clamour for these treatments. ‘We want them now. If you don’t make these drugs available, you’ll be murdering gay men. Silence equals death.’ You know all that. Yeah, it was weaponised by Dr Fauci for Burroughs Wellcome. And you have tens of thousands of gay men killed by AZT. I’m not exaggerating. It is a horror story. AZT, just fast forward, AZT flowers into the vaccines, these lethal vaccines, which have already demonstrably killed over 12,000 people in America, at the very least, over 20,000 Europeans at the very least. The numbers are surely far greater than that, because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System – VAERS – that represents up to one percent of the actual number of such cases. So you can, as they say, do the math.
And then recall in 1976 with the swine flu fraud, they rolled out a swine flu vaccine and back then 60 Minutes reported this, and that vaccine started killing people. And I think the number was 46, it might have been 78, something like that. When the deaths reached that number, they aborted the whole programme, ok? That’s in 1976. It’s just a few decades ago. That level of fatality was enough to make the authorities say, ‘Wait, forget it, this is hurting people.’ Now we have thousands dying or . . . you know, coming down with . . . become breakthrough cases from this vaccine. It is, beyond grotesque and it leaves people like you and me sort of fulminating out here in the wilderness. But you know, I don’t despair, I never despair. I wouldn’t be talking to you if I didn’t think we can turn it around. And I think we can turn it around by persisting in what we do and telling people the truth and addressing those minds that are not closed. And in particular, young people who, as I say, are usually the most receptive just to the idea of looking beyond the official narrative. When I praise their receptiveness, I don’t praise it because, ‘Oh boy, now I can indoctrinate them into my views,’ you know? No, that’s not it. That’s what a lot of my colleagues do, because they’re all terribly woke and everything. No, the point is that you always ask yourself: is this true?
Is it true about climate change, for example, that’s ramping up again very, very loudly. That’s not got anything to do with saving the planet, you know? You want to save the planet? You want to save the planet – you talk about air pollution. You talk about water pollution. You talk about the runoff of agricultural fertilisers. You talk about radiation in the oceans. There are a lot of serious problems that we can see with our own eyes and it is not CO2. That is not the problem. That is a diversion. That is an opportunity for further financialisation of the planet. And trust me, it’s about climate lockdowns. This is all about locking down. It has nothing to do with health. It has nothing to do with the environment. It is about taking over the world economy, digitalising all currency and creating a kind of bio-fascist state, where if you question any official narrative, you are a domestic terrorist. It has come to this. People can sign up at MarkCrispinMiller.com . . . Something I sent out just two days ago was a screenshot of an NBC News report on the latest bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security listing potential terror threats as of now. The first terror threat is people in opposition to Covid measures, ok? That’s a terror threat. People who think the last election was stolen, that is a terror threat. And they add to it ‘and that Trump may be reinstated’. You know, they want to jam these two issues together so that if you’re questioning the results of the last election, you are a Trump supporter, right? The third potential terror threat is the 9/11 anniversary and religious holidays. So if you’re a 9/11 Truther, in other words, you’re being tacitly connected to a kind of religious fanaticism, which I don’t think any longer means Islamic fundamentalists, I think it means American Christians.
If you read this list of threats carefully, what you see is: ‘conspiracy theorists’ of any kind are a potential terror threat, inextricable from the white nationalist movement. Trump, whom we haven’t yet talked about, served the purpose of enabling the complete demonisation of everybody who is dissatisfied with the Democratic Party establishment and agenda. This naturally includes Christians, non-woke Christians, and it includes a lot of conservatives and libertarians, of course, but it also includes a number of people on the genuine Left. I mean, I know some who actually voted for Trump the second time, you know, out of horror at the thought of Biden/Harris taking over. At any rate, you know, that was one of the purposes Trump served, but that’s just a little glimpse into the full picture of his function in this whole vast PsyOp, which, you know, to put it very succinctly, has been to make it impossible to discuss any issue on which he has taken a position.
You can’t discuss hydroxychloroquine. I tried to talk to some of my educated, liberal/progressive friends or former friends saying, ‘Look, you know, hydroxychloroquine works. You know, there are dozens of studies proving this. I can point you to hospitals all over the country where they’ve used it early to treat Covid-19. It works.’ And they’ll say, ‘No, it kills people. It kills people. Trump’s a liar.’ See – because Trump touted it. What does that have to do with anything? . . . You know, people who reflexively disbelieve everything he says are . . . he is the, he is the pole star of their entire universe . . . This is the kind of thing we’d study in my propaganda course. After Trump touted HCQ – they always use that word – Trump ‘touts’ drug and in the background you know, there’s Tony Fauci doing this . . . rolling his eyes. So all the people who are trained to think that the other side is absolutely right you have Fauci. ‘Wow, HCQ, can you imagine?’ They don’t know anything about it, they see Fauci do this. That’s it. All right? All of a sudden there are news stories about this couple, somewhere in the southwest, you may remember this, they ingested . . .
DELINGPOLE: Fish tank-cleaning stuff.
MILLER: . . . that had chloroquine in it, ok? This is all over the New York Times and they say, ‘Oh, Trump – listen to Trump and he killed this guy and the wife’s just recovering . . . Well, you know, follow up story, which got no coverage except locally, that woman, the wife, was arrested for murdering her husband. She poisoned him. That’s what the cops said, or the DA. She poisoned this guy, took a little of it herself, ‘We watched Trump, you know, we watched Trump and we took this.’ Ok? You know, words fail me . . .
‘I could go on with many more examples, but the fact is, you can’t believe these stories. And I think it’s . . . I fear, James, that in a week or two or maybe tomorrow – I don’t know when this is going to go up – but at some point very soon, there’s going to be some big, horrible thing that’s going to happen, right, that’s going to justify like the mother of all crackdowns. Earlier in the summer, I was speculating that they might actually fake an alien invasion, because suddenly, you know, aliens was a thing, right? And I’m thinking, ‘Ok, here comes Independence Day, the movie, because they have all kinds of spacecraft that can be very scary looking.’ And I thought that was a possibility. They dropped that very quickly. Now they’re turning up the Covid panic. They’re amplifying that siren again, they’re cranking it again. And they’re also saying the planet’s too hot, the planet’s too hot. I think that there’s too much conversation like this going on, ok? I think there are more and more signs that they’re coming to the breaking point. And this is a very important historical point I want to make about this. These vaccines are killing unprecedented numbers of people and it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that.
On PBS public television, which is always abjectly deferential to Dr Fauci and the rest of them, the interviewer, recently . . . said, you know, politely, ‘Dr Fauci, there’s this very high number of so-called breakthrough cases, even though people are fully vaccinated, they’re coming down with Covid and being hospitalised. What’s your response to this?’ And Fauci engaged in his usual mendacious and incomprehensible doublespeak. I think he said, ‘I don’t like that phrase breakthrough cases’, or whatever he said, it doesn’t matter. The point is that when it gets to the point that even a sock puppet like this guy on public TV puts that kind of question to Dr Fauci, it means that it is no longer possible to pretend that something really horrible is not happening . . .
So we return to this metaphor that we were discussing earlier on today: at a certain point, the pounding on the doors of the theatre you’re locked in becomes overwhelming. That noise just drowns out whatever they’re saying on screen. Whatever lies they’re telling are drowned out. Maybe people break a hole in the wall of that theatre and some sunlight comes streaming in and the image on the screen is not as clear any more. But the point is, you can’t keep it going. You can’t keep it going. And I don’t think they can keep this vaccination programme going. I don’t think so. And you look at places like France, you look at places like Guyana. I mean, nobody knows this, but the government completely backed off there because of too much protest, too many workers quitting. They will not get the shot, you know?
In the final part of the conversation tomorrow, Professor Miller looks at the history of the eugenics movement, rebranded today as population control (and saving Mother Earth), as a driver of the current crackdown, the chilling events in Australia and New Zealand, his own radical change of outlook brought about by this descent into fascism and finally his misgivings about Trump as the figure to challenge it.
No comments:
Post a Comment