Friday, February 27, 2015

Dissecting the Media - The Words They Use, The Minds They Sway

Je Suis well informed, critically thinking individual

I was reading an article from a British newspaper, The Independent, which inspired me to dissect it in order to show how the mainstream media is used to push specific agendas, to deny any alternative storylines, and to maintain a specific worldview, which is considered acceptable and to demonize any alternative explanations or worldviews. In other words, it's a very important tool used to keep the public inside a mental box, which is essential in shaping, manipulating and controlling public opinion and the society.

I concentrate on mind-control as one of the major aspects of how mainstream media is used to control the population. This The Independent article is a great example of mind control, where various specific phrases, sentences and words are inserted in order to steer the reader into believing some specific ideas, yet it's done quite cleverly because the reader is guided but not specifically told exactly what to think. This is why the tactics of mainstream media require a deep analysis because they're very carefully crafted and not easily noticeable to the unaware mind.

So what do I mean by all of this? Let's look at the article itself and I will break it down piece-by-piece and show you exactly what I'm talking about. By the way, after going through this article, feel free to do your own research and look at other mass media sources and see whether you will find the same points that I will mention in this article.

Let's start.

I was reading an article from The Independent newspaper written by John Lichfield published on January 17, 2015. The article's title is "Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of Western intelligence". The article discusses a French politician's Jean-Marie Le Pen's claim that the Paris attacks might have been the work of Western intelligence agencies. I suggest for you to read the article before reading my analysis of it, so that it can be understood better.

So, let's start with the analysis and go through the article.

Let's look at the second paragraph of the article here.


(1) Why would John Lichfield write "In an interview with a virulently anti-Western Russian newspaper"? Simple. This is a tactic used in an attempt to discredit the information that will be presented following that sentence. In other words, if it's mentioned that the newspaper where the quote is taken from has an "anti-something" agenda, then that newspaper is to be perceived less credible. This is how mainstream media says, "Don't believe anything that is written there", without actually saying it.

This is only the first example, and you can already see how clever their tactics are. Pay attention to this because this is one of the most common tactics used to try to discredit a source. Right before the name of the source, there will be a short statement that's usually quite subjective and accusatory, but tries to look objective. The purpose of this tactic is to leave a specific opinionated imprint in your mind, a sort of a bad first impression before you actually get exposed to the source; and thus you will already be biased when getting exposed to the source for the very first time. This is exactly what is wanted and that is for the readers to be biased in the direction that the mainstream media wants them to be biased towards. Mind control? Of course and we're only getting started.

As another example, what if I was to use this same tactic on mainstream news sources? For example,  how would you perceive this if you read the following: "from the British government funded BBC" or from "anti-Russian newspaper The Independent"?

Do you see how your perception of the source automatically changes once you read that compared to if I was just to write "from BBC" or "from The Independent"?

But why does it change and what changes? It changes because in the first example, the implication is that BBC is biased because it's funded by the government and is thus a propaganda tool for the British government. The implication in the second example, is that The Independent is biased against Russia and thus anything that it writes about Russia or perhaps even other countries cannot be trusted.


"Mouth of Flower" by Octavio Ocampo

Thus what's important is not what's directly written but the meaning that is implied behind the words and symbols. This is what's really doing the work on our minds and shaping our belief systems.

Do you see now how serious this is? So much has been said about mainstream media before, yet I've never come upon anyone that did a thorough analysis of their mind-control tactics.

Moving on to the next point.


(2) This is another clever tactic, which first begs me to ask. Is the age of a politician always written next to his/her name? And what is the relevance of that if it is? The reason why it was used in this article is quite simple. The intention here was to show that if this man is 86 years old, then he must be senile, out of his mind and simply just doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is yet another example of the real meaning hidden behind the actual words -- which our mind interprets -- and actually this is a great example of how just a number placed near a word can have so much implied meaning.

As an example, let's do a quick test and see how you react to the following phrases.

"Albert Jones, 13, said that the 2008 financial crises was planned and caused by the banks".
"Jerry Madison, 90, said that he saw two UFO space crafts land near his house".

Now, let's write that again without the age and see how you interpret it now.

"Albert Jones said that the attack 2008 financial crises was planned and caused by the banks"
"Jerry Madison said that he saw two UFO space crafts land near his house"

Do you notice the difference of how you react to the first set of sentences compared to the second set?

Let's analyze what our minds actually interpreted when we were reading these sentences.

What's written: "Albert Jones, 13, said that the 2008 financial crises was planned and caused by the banks".

What's interpreted: "He's too young to have an accurate opinion about a financial crises. Why should he be trusted? He's just a teenager."

What's written: "Jerry Madison, 90, said that he saw two UFO space crafts land near his house".

What's interpreted: "He's an old man. Who's to say that he not just delusional?"

See, the point here is for you to start filtering what the person said through another component called age. Lots of us have a certain perception of what certain people are like at certain age groups. Thus when someone's age is placed right next to their name, it forces our minds to add this to our interpretation of the message. In essence, the importance is the message, not the age of the messenger; thus if the age is placed here -- and I'm sure that it was placed here intentionally -- then you can see how it already affects our perception of the message. It distracts our minds from paying attention to the actual message and ads a layer, a filter to prevent us from getting the message. Now, imagine hundreds and thousand of such filters that are programmed in our minds and you'll start getting a clearer picture of our current human condition and how these filters are used to control our minds and our perception of reality.


So this is the answer to a question that some of you may have when you talk to a mainstream minded person about alternative topics and you notice that they have these negative automated responses to what you're saying, as if they're programmed. Now you see that they actually are. They're programmed to react this way.

Going back to the article we're analyzing, to be more sure, I looked at other The Independent articles written by John Lichfield where other politicians or personalities were named and nowhere did I find their age written next to their names. This tells me even more that this was done intentionally by The Independent to once again imply that not only is the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda not to be trusted but also that Mr. Le Pen shouldn't be trusted either. For reference, see Appendix D following this article with a list of these other articles by John Lichfield.

Moving on to the next point.


(3) This is more of a classic one that can be found all over mainstream news. "Conspiracy theory" has become a word with a negative connotation that is used to label any alternative viewpoints that either contradict or give an alternative perspective/description of an event. Any time that this word is used by the mainstream media sources, it is used to discredit the source of the information. And doing that is a logical fallacy, the name of which I will go over later, because the tactic here is to attack the messenger, not the message in order to avoid the message from either being heard or to be interpreted through a filter that has been placed on the viewer/reader after the messenger has been given that label.

But what is then implied when using that label? Let's do the same test as with the previous points and see how your interpretation changes. I've created a scenario where a guest is invited to some U.S. mainstream political talkshow. Let's look at their dialogue.

Talkshow guest: "You know there are many aspects to the official story of 9/11 that don't add up or that just don't make any sense."

Talkshow host (response #1): "Oh those are nothing but conspiracy theories. It's ridiculous that there are still people out there that walk around with these crazy theories. The investigation was concluded years ago and everything is already known."

Talkshow host (response #2): "Can you elaborate on some of these aspects? What doesn't add up and what doesn't make sense about the official story?"

Do you see the difference between response #1 and #2? If you're familiar with the U.S. mainstream talk shows or more specifically with political talk shows, which response would you most likely to have gotten from the show's host? If your answer is response #1, then you're correct. Why would that be the response? Because the strategy is to quickly shut anyone down that attempts to provide any alternative storylines or actual real disclosing information. That response may seem like a simple accusation but it's actually well crafted to do the following and to have the following subliminal affect on the minds of the viewers/reader. Let me break the response down so you'll see what I'm talking about.

"Oh those are nothing but conspiracy theories." - they're made up stories that hold no ground and should be disregarded and not paid attention to.

"It's ridiculous that there are still people out there that walk around with these crazy theories." - those that talk about such theories are mentally unstable and should not be considered seriously.

"The investigation was concluded years ago and everything is already known." - there is nothing else to talk about. The story is already well know and the case is closed.

So the strategy is usually to ridicule the person presenting the ideas, which are outside the accepted stream of information.


Ridicule is a common tactic used because it's easily executable and unfortunately a large population of viewers/readers falls for this tactic every time. Ridicule holds no ground logically because its aim is to attack the messenger, not the message and thus has no relationship to the argument itself. However, it can easily mislead the viewer/reader to go along with the one doing the ridiculing because what's triggered in this tactic are emotions, not logical analysis.

The purpose of this tactic is to trigger an emotional state from the viewer/reader in order to get them to side with the one doing the ridiculing while in that emotional state. So, for example, when the talkshow host in the example above is able to successfully trigger the feeling of security from the viewer because the guest would trigger the feeling of fear with their alternative viewpoints, then the tactic to attack the guest would go well because the viewers will side with the host doing the attack because he made them feel good about themselves once again. He returned them to feeling secure about their accepted viewpoint, which at first triggered fear the moment the guest challenged it.

Think this sounds far fetched? What I've just explained can be observed on a daily basis. People are constantly controlled by their emotions, yet most don't realize this because they're unaware of this occurring. They're unaware of this because they're used to it. I'm sure that many of you can look back into your childhood years and remember how many times your parents used emotional arguments to persuade you to do something. Do you see now? That never goes away. We're conditioned from childhood to obey emotional arguments, to conform and not question. This is why we're so easily manipulated when we grow up.

So there is a specific purpose in the tactic of ridiculing and that is to make sure that the viewer/reader is in the state of mind where his/her emotions drive the decision making process. When your decisions are driven only by emotions, that is a dangerous formula that leads to irrational and even dangerous life choices. And once again, when we're in this unbalanced emotional state of mind, we're much more susceptible to manipulation

Anyone familiar with basic psychology probably knows that when a human being is in the state of fear, hunger, anger, loneliness, or tiredness, their decision making is mainly driven by their emotions. Is it not surprising to you that commercials are usually designed to trigger one of these psychological states in an attempt for your decisions to be influenced by emotions so that you can purchase their product? And of course, the same thing applies to politics and media. They know that if they can trigger your emotional states, they got you in their trap and then they can tell you anything they want and you'll just believe them.

Credits: Mainstream Media by uki--uki
Thus, if the viewer/reader is tricked into emotionally siding with the one attacking, their critical thinking abilities are not functional at the moment and they will believe just about anything that is said. This is how people's emotional strings are played and this is also done on purpose because emotions are used to control us. Those that do this, know this quite well. This is why it is an at advantage to constantly keep us in imbalanced emotional states.

One of the greatest recent examples of this tactic is 9/11 and how the U.S. Government used emotional tactics to stir and control the population whose logical, critical thinking has been strategically shut off by one single event that programmed a psychological trauma in the minds of millions. As a result, the U.S. government has been blindly allowed to commit various atrocities while supported by a mind-controlled public with a fear induced trauma.

Remember, knowledge is power and any information, especially the information that may inspire people to start questioning what is really going on is dangerous to the system that the mainstream media is in charge of maintaining. The last thing that is needed are critically thinking individuals that question what they're being told.

Going back to our test, to refresh our memory, once again here is the question and the two separate responses.

Talkshow guest: "You know there are many aspects to the official story of 9/11 that don't add up or that just don't make any sense."

Talkshow host (response #1): "Oh those are nothing but conspiracy theories. It's ridiculous that there are still people out there that walk around with these crazy theories. The investigation was concluded years ago and everything is already known."

Talkshow host (response #2): "Can you elaborate on some of these aspects? What doesn't add up and what doesn't make sense about the official story?"

If the talkshow host would have responded with response #2 -- which would have been the more logical response -- then that would have started a conversation that could have led to some very uncomfortable information getting disclosed. In turn, this might have affected the viewers to question the official story themselves or to look at something from a completely different perspective. This is why it's so important for mainstream media outlets to keep the same format in their shows and to stick to the same tactics during news stories or interviews. They don't want the audience to engage in critical thinking.

So, just in that one paragraph, we already see three different points where the writer intentionally attempts to discredit the newspaper and the person quoted by the newspaper. So much has been covered already, yet there is more.

Moving on...


(4) On a further campaign to discredit Mr. Le Pen, the statement is being used in an attempt to single him out and isolate him as the only person that is saying this in France. It would be nice for there to be a link here with some evidence of "outrage amongst French politicians". Now, it's my opinion that probably there would be some backlash because such a statement does not go along with the accepted storyline; however, if a reporter makes a claim and doesn't back it up with evidence, then that remains the reporter's opinion. Otherwise, how can it be trusted that the reporter did not make this up?

On another note, do you notice that so far in this article there has been absolutely no mention of what has actually been said by Mr. Le Pen? It is my opinion that this has also been done intentionally and I will show you why once I get to the actual statement later on.


(5) Well, now even his daughter doesn't agree with him and has been trying to distance herself from her own father. Once again, a tactic of isolationism. However, is that statement true, to begin with? Here I would also like to see some evidence of this happening. Is there a link provided in this article to a source that proves that Mr. Le Pen's daughter indeed has tried to isolate herself and the party from her father's statement? I did a search myself and I couldn't find one article that mentioned this. Thus at this point it looks to me like an unverified claim made by John Lichfield, which was written in order to further facilitate the isolated perception of Mr. Le Pen.


(6) Finally, the name of the newspaper is given! However, since the previous paragraphs were used to completely discredit the validity of this newspaper, by this point the reader should already have a biased view of a newspaper which they probably have never ever heard of before and have never read any articles from. However, based on this tactic, this should be enough to place a stamp in the mainstream reader's mind that this is a newspaper that prints lies and should be stayed away from. Yes, this is yet another form of mind control. In Appendix B, following this article, I will show you more examples of how Western mainstream media words and shapes their articles in order to embed certain messages in the minds of the readers.


(7) Another jab at the newspaper. There is no link nor evidence provided to back up that claim. Regardless of whether this is true or not, evidence needs to be provided to back up such a claim. However, the point here is to add another layer to discredit the newspaper. Remember, strategy here is to make sure that the reader does not see any validity in the source; and if a statement such as "already blamed the United States for the terrorist mayhem in France..." is used, the implication here is that Komsomolskaya Pravda went on to quickly blame the U.S. without any evidence but just because it's anti-American. So then the logical conclusion here that this The Independent article wants the readers to come up with themselves is that a newspaper such as Komsomolskaya Pravda is not to be trusted because they make up stories and they are also biased against the United States.

Moving on...


(8) Finally! Halfway down the article what has been actually said by Mr. Le Pen is revealed. And when you read this quote, you'll see why the article wasn't started with this quote but instead it was placed half-way down the article. This is because the quote in itself is not as bad as all the attacks that it received in the article above. In fact, this quote places some serious questions and challenges someone to look deeper into what actually happened. But at this point, a reader would be less likely to pay attention to the actuality of this quote because he/she would already be under the effect of all the discrediting tactics used above.

For example, if this article started out with this quote, it would have set a completely different effect right from the beginning and might have startled the reader. Just imagine if the very first paragraph of this article was Mr. Le Pens quote.

The quote in itself raises some serious questions.

"The shooting at the Charlie Hebdo resembles a secret service operation but we have no proof of that..." In what way does it resemble a secret service operation? Do we have any evidence or previous examples of similar operations carried out before?

"...I don't think it was organized by the French authorities but they permitted this crime to be committed..." If you don't know by now, Mr. Le Pen is claiming that the Charlie Hebdo attack was a false flag attack.

A false flag attack is an attack that is carried out by the country itself (or military/intelligence factions of the country) to make it look like someone else attacked them it in order to stir public opinion, affect policy changes, and/or to start a war.

There have been numerous incidents of documented false flag attacks over the past century. The 9/11 attacks in New York City stand out as one of the most infamous false flag attacks in our recent history. And I'm not just claiming this without any evidence. Based on my research, there is more evidence showing that the official story was a complete whitewash and there is more factual and scientific support to claim that 9/11 was a carefully coordinated attack from within. Following this article (See Appendix C), there is a section that goes deeper into 9/11 and also some articles that give a short summary of various documented false flag attacks that have been committed in this and last century.

Also, following this article (See Appendix G), provided is a link to some other evidence that we have so far with the oddities of the Charlie Habdo attack and the possibility of it being a false flag attack.

Moving on...


(9) The statement here is used once again to discredit Mr. Le Pen and compare him to a conspiracy theorist in an attempt to further isolate him and his views. Now, let's focus on the way this statement is written. First, in quotations we see written "miraculous fact", basically mocking those that really do look at this as a really strange and unexplainable by physics oddity. Then notice the long dashes used before "beloved" and after "theorists" to add emphasis to the phrase "beloved by conspiracy theorists". This is actually saying that only those that are called "conspiracy theorist" actually believe in any of this because otherwise it's completely not true and there is nothing unusual to this. However, the passport of one of the "hijackers" that was recovered after 9/11 is indeed a miraculous fact because based on what we know, those building basically evaporated because of ultra high temperature explosions and collapsed on one another at free-fall speed. The twin towers were literally turned into dust after what appeared to have been a thermo-nuclear controlled demolition. So, how could a perfectly intact paper passport have survived a blown up airplane and blown-up buildings? See Appendix C following this article with more information on 9/11.

By the way, the actual interview given to Mr. Le Pen by Darya Aslamova from the Komsomolskaya Pravda covered a wide range of topics and there were some interesting questions. See Appendix A following this article where more questions and answers were posted for Mr. Le Pen.

So the question focused on in The Independent article by John Lichfield was just one of the numerous questions asked. However, before continuing further, let's look at the actual article from Komsomolskaya Pravda and read what Mr. Le Pen actually said and I will provide the full and exact translation below.


Reporter: Yet, regarding "Charlie Hebdo", there are too many holes [to the story].

Mr. Le Pen: I agree. These forgotten passports of brothers Kouachi remind me of the miraculously intact passport of a terrorist that fell out of a burned airplane on September 11, 2001 [that crashed into the World Trade Center]. New York was burning but the passport remained untouched. We're now being told that the terrorists were idiots and this is why they left their documents in the car. The "Charlie Habdo" shooting has signs of a secret service [intelligence agency] operation but we don't have the evidence for it. I don't think that the organizers of this crime were in the French government but they allowed this crime to happen. For now this is а speculation.
Now, as you can probably already see, if you read the actual translation of what Mr. Le Pen said, you'll get a perspective of not some insane human being but of a well-spoken, clearly opinionated individual who made a statement where he himself claims that that is just a speculation, yet it looks to him like the work of an intelligence agency. But how do you think he would know that? Well, let me throw my speculations. He was a former member of the French army, he fought in two wars, and he's been a very influential French politician for almost half a century. I'm pretty sure that he would know something like that especially knowing that such things as Operation Gladio were happening right under his nose during his time. By the way, for those of you familiar with Operation Gladio, you probably are already quite skeptical with the official story of the Paris terrorist attacks. For those of you not familiar with Operation Gladio, please see Appendix H following this article.

I know that Mr. Le Pen has been a very controversial politician in France throughout his career. That, however, doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about, nor is it an excuse to dismiss any of his statements because then I would myself be committing the same logical fallacy that is used over and over in this article.

You have to realize the importance of such a speculation and which is why it was heavily demonized in this article. Mr. Le Pen saying that his speculation is that the terrorist act was a work of the intelligence agency is the same thing as if someone like George H.W. Bush was to say that 9/11 has the signs of the working of an intelligence agency. Mr. Le Pen is not just some chump. He was the founder and a leader of one of the most powerful political parties in France for 40 years.

Moving on to the last paragraph in the article...


(10) Much can be said about this sentence. First, what is the purpose to use the phrase in quotation marks "French 'pope of conspiracy theories'"? I first assumed that this phrase has been used by someone before and this is what Thierry Meyssan is mockingly referred to; however, after searching for "french pope of conspiracy theories" on the internet, the only mention of this phrase came up in this The Independent article by John Lichfield, which we're analyzing here.


Which means that John Lichfield made this phrase up. Now, why would he do that? Simple. The phrase was used to discredit Thierry Meyssan in an attempt to label anything that he says as bogus, once again, using the same technique of discrediting the source to take the focus off of what he actually said but to instead attack his personality. If one is labeled as the French leader of the church of conspiracy theories, just think about the various meanings that are embedded in that label.

Let's do another test to see how this works psychologically on the reader. If instead it was written, "...investigative journalist and best-selling author, Thierry Meyssan insisted...", do you see how of a different perception this created? We can even do a side-by-side test and see how your mind perceives the difference and your opinion about the person.

Original: "The French 'pope of conspiracy theories', Thierry Meyssan..."

Changed:  "...investigative journalist and best-selling author, Thierry Meyssan..."

Do you see how this works and how easy it is to discredit just about anyone without even giving a reader the opportunity to read what the person being discredited actually said?

Now, of course, if the introduction I wrote was written instead, then Thierry Meyssan could have been considered more credible and believable. But since this was not the intention of the writer, he used the same technique used on Mr. Le Pen to discredit the writer. By the way, I'll go over this technique, which is a logical fallacy, in more details further down in this article.

I want to go a bit deeper into the meaning of the label that John Lichfield placed on Thierry Mayssan. A church is a closed religious institution which follows a certain set of beliefs and has members that subscribe to those beliefs and are identified as members of this church and religion. To equate conspiracy theorists with religious members is basically to, place someone that has already been labeled and placed into a box into yet another box. In other words, it's to place any independently thinking individual who questions official narratives and looks into alternative possibilities, histories, storylines or explanations into first a "conspiracy theorist" box and then once that person has been placed into that box, he's been turned into a member of a religious institution and placed into another box. And thus because it is a religion at this point, it's not based on any facts but on beliefs. And this is very important here because if what a person ascribes to is based only on beliefs of that person, then it might as well be all made up. Thus what this is all coming down to and what John Lichfield is implying with that meaningful phrase is that those that are labeled as "conspiracy theorists" believe in made up things and none of what they believe is true.

To give you another example of John Lichfield's concentration on the "conspiracy theorists", his article is quite short. In fact it's only roughly 542 words long, but the word "conspiracy" is mentioned in the article a total of 6 times, including the first time under Mr. Le Pen's picture in the beginning of the article.

Thierry Meyssan

Going back to Thierry Meyssan. Who is he? He is a journalist and a writer of one of the first best selling books on alternative viewpoints to the official story to the events of 9/11. His book 9/11: The Big Lie placed some serious questions to the official story, specifically the discrepancies of the official story of what happened to the World Trade Center and to the Pentagon building. I personally didn't read his book; however, after reading the synopsis, I see that he wrote in 2003 what is now considered pretty much the alternative and more logical storyline to what actually happened on 9/11. I also see that he was heavily attacked by the U.S. Government and by the mainstream media, which tells me that he was definitely on the right track.

Moving on...


(11) This is the first time I've ever heard of this website and the fact that the writer doesn't provide a source or a link to this website, makes it more difficult to find out where the actual source is from. After searching for this website on the internet, I found the following website:


This is a political news website with the name McLatchy, except that it has the word "DC" written after it. However, it looks like a typical U.S. political news website without any articles that have any alternative storylines to any world events. In other words, there isn't anything on the website that I saw that could even be remotely considered as a "conspiracy theory". Thinking that perhaps there is another website that John Lichfield was referring to in his article, I searched with the following keywords "mclatchy charlie hebdo", and I came upon a blog post [there may be a graphic image on that website] that criticized this The Independent article for calling the McLatchy website a "conspiracy website". The blog post mentions the article that John Lichfield was referring to which can be read here. So, after all, it appears that this actually was the website the writer was referring to and I have no idea why he would it give it a "conspiracy" label. Perhaps, it's because of this segment in the article.


"Other evidence suggests they [terrorists] could be linked to a top French al Qaida operative, David Drugeon, who’s been the target at least twice of U.S. airstrikes in Syria over the last four months.

Witnesses inside the magazine’s offices told the French newspaper L’Humanité that both attackers spoke perfect French and claimed to be members of al Qaida.

Drugeon, who many experts believe was a French intelligence asset before defecting to al Qaida, is alleged to have masterminded a 2012 “lone wolf” attack on French soldiers and Jewish targets in the southern French city of Toulouse. That attack killed seven people before the perpetrator, a French citizen named Mohammed Merah, who French intelligence believes had been trained by Drugeon, was killed by a police sniper after a long, violent standoff with security forces."
After reading the article he was mentioning, the interesting part is that there is no mention in this article about these alleged terrorists Korachi Brothers working for French intelligence. There is a mention here that the terrorist may have been working for someone that is now an Al Qaida operative but used to work for French intelligence, but it doesn't directly make the connection between them and French intelligence -- which is what this writer says is claimed in McClatchy's article.

So, to me this raises even more questions. Out of the many websites that do actually have lots of alternative narratives to mainstream news, why was this website picked? Could it be because other websites might actually be asking real tough questions that may actually make the reader question the official narrative of what happened at Charlie Hebdo? One aspect that is evident is that the writer did not appear to do a proper research on the website and labeled it an "American conspiracy" site and I couldn't find any one claim of conspiracy on the website. Or perhaps he did this on purpose, which is why he didn't provide with a link assuming that the average reader of The Independent just reads and believes what is written and will not actually attempt to research and verify what the reporter wrote. After all, who would do that?


Doesn't this make you wonder how much made up information is written in newspapers and broadcast on the TV news that is believed by the readers and viewers to be true just because none of them ever tried to verify any of this information, to begin with?


As mentioned before, a common technique is used in this The Independent article, which is actually a logical fallacy, that is often used by politicians during debates. It's called "ad hominem". Using this tactic, the opponent's character or personality is attacked, instead of their message, in order to undermine the statements and to make them not believable. This is often done by politicians in instances where what their opponent is saying is actually true, is a good idea, or may have a positive effect on the audience and the attacker doesn't want the audience to pay attention to that. So the attacker quickly uses this emotionally appealing tactic in order to get the public to side with him hoping to get them into an emotional trap. If you remember, we already covered this example earlier in this article with the talkshow host and guest experiment.

Thus, if the writer of this article uses the same logical fallacy tactic, he doesn't want the reader in any shape or form to question the official narrative of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, to quickly disregard that as "conspiracy theories", and to just blindly believe anything that the government and the mainstream media are saying.


In Appendix F following this article, I have included a link to list of logical fallacies. It's a useful list to quickly spot logical fallacies that we're surrounded by. They have been used for many years as a form of mind-manipulation because they're designed to lead one's opinion, perspective, view into the desired outcome by the person using the fallacies. Since most people are unaware of them, they're much more easily manipulated.


In summary, this article and similar types of articles are called "hit pieces", which is an article that pretends to be objective in appearance, yet its sole purpose is to attack the person that the article is written about in an attempt to sway public opinion. Here's a definition from Urban Dictionary, which perfectly sums up the purpose of this article


They're designed to fully discredit the topic of their article in any way possible.

My analysis of The Independent article by John Lichfield is a combination of my research and opinions based on what I observed and analyzed in this The Independent article. And I would really like to see journalists from mainstream media do the same thing. I challenge them to investigate, not regurgitate. I challenge them to call their article an editorial if it's filled with opinions instead of passing opinionated articles for news stories. I challenge them to question and properly research anything that is passed down to them from government or any official sources, instead of playing a role of being their spokespeople. I challenge those that do not consciously play the role of misleading and deceiving people to wake up and realize that they're in an industry that rewards conformists, instead of independent, critical thinking minds. In other words, it is an industry that now stands exactly opposite of what it used to stand for. After all, what is journalism and investigative journalism suppose to be all about?

On another note, I suggest to pay attention to those that get attacked the most by mainstream media sources. This means that their message is usually the one to be aware of. As mentioned before, the "ad hominem" tactic is used quite often. Also other logical fallacies are used as well and the list in Appendix F can assist you in spotting them. Now that you're aware of it, pay attention to how often you'll see it and also how often you'll see other logical fallacies used to mislead you.

You are a well-informed, critically thinking individual. You wouldn't be reading this article if you weren't. And thanks to people like you more human beings are becoming more informed and more aware on this planet. In the midst of great change that we're partaking in, we're all playing an important role.


Here are some other question and answers from Komsomolskaya Pravda's interview with Mr. Le Pen. The interview was carried out by Daria Aslamova. The translation from Russian to English was done by me. Full link to the interview in Russian can be found here.


Captions read: "Jan Marie Le-Pen to 'KP' [Komsomolskaya Pravda]: We need a unified Europe from Paris to Vladivostok. Or we will become a colony of the USA."


Mr. Le Pen, you were the first one to say "I'm not Charlie". Why?

Mr. Le Pen: I'm not Charlie Hebdo. That anarchist newspaper was a direct enemy of our political party "National Front" and several years ago its journalists were gathering signatures for a petition requesting to shut our party down. All of these politicians that went to the demonstration are not Charlie, but are "Sharlo" [a name used in France to label clowns, comedians]. They can organize a show with a powerful media representation and a slogan "I'm Charlie", temporarily mobilizing a nation but they're incapable to defend the nation from a rush of immigrants from the South. I would like to be Charles Martel. Martel is a phenomenal French warrior that in 732 AD stopped the Arabic invasion in Poitiers.


Yet partially France is responsible for this [when referring to a question where the heavy influx of immigration into France and very lax laws against it are discussed]. People are escaping from war and chaos. Yet it was France that turned Libya into ruins!

Mr. Le Pen: That was a real insanity -- to get into a war with Libya. French airplanes were bombing Khadafi's tanks while Khadafi was getting ready to capture Benghazi -- the main stronghold of Salafis [Islamic Fundamentals]. Today Libya is under complete anarchy. Weapons from there are spreading all over northern Africa and French leaders such as Sarkozy, are directly responsible for that.


What do think about the crisis in Ukraine that divided Europe and Russia?

Mr. Le Pen:
It was NATO that instigated the Ukrainian crises, trying to get closer to the Russian border. The position of our party is the following: conflict between the Russians and the Ukrainians is a family conflict. Russia was born in Kiev. And Europeans and Americans should not meddle in this family drama. Russians and Ukrainians will resolve this by themselves. But there is no doubt that USA continues to consider Russia as Soviet Union and is trying to agitate your government [referring to the reported who is Russian] with Georgia and Ukraine.  


You are a member of the commission in the European Parliament regarding the situation with the shooting down of the Malaysian Boeing [referring to shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17 airplane in Ukraine]. What do you think about that criminal act?

Mr. Le Pen: I'm surprised by the fact that all of the investigation is being done in complete secrecy. I'm not an expert but it's evident that in order to execute such a terrorist attack you need military professionals of the highest level with very accurate weapons that the militia members didn't have. And the most obvious question. Why was a passenger airplane flying in a military zone? Who allowed that to happen?






I could have pasted hundreds of these images before getting to this point. If you were to read or watch any Western mainstream media news starting from when the war started between Ukrainian army and Eastern Ukrainian militias, you started seeing headlines and articles that constantly would start with or would include the phrase "Pro-Russia(n) Separatists" when referring to the militias in Eastern Ukraine that reside in regions of Ukraine that declared their independence from Ukraine and formed their own self-proclaimed republics. It's very important to realize that these phrases were used with intention over and over again to build a specific image in the minds of readers. But before going too deep in this introduction, let's go over point-by-point.

(1) What would be the importance to place an alleged affiliation of a group before mentioning the group every time? In other words, this would be the same thing as mentioning a certain position of a person (or a claim about the person) before naming that person. For example, let me make up quotes so that you'll see what I'm talking about: (a) "anti-free speech, King Abdullah, of Saudi Arabia said..."; (b) "the apartheid regime of Israel, declared..."; (c) "war crimes accused Pres. Obama, mentioned today."

You now probably have a better understanding of what I'm talking about. By the way, I made up those types of quotes on purpose because I knew they would be effective examples because you would never see anything like this ever mentioned in the mainstream press. Now, do you see how, all of the sudden, you already have an option of a person before you even get to read his name. Isn't that interesting? And doesn't that already remind you of the logical fallacy that we already covered in this article? Exactly. This is a type of "ad hominem" being used here called "Poisoning the well" where information is presented about the target with the intention to discredit anything that the person says.


It's being used by little drops over and over again to make sure that the reader has an embedded image of who they want the readers to think of. After all, just imagine, if you were to read the quotes I made up above over and over again, day after day, you would already be thinking that this is true. You wouldn't have to even do anything. It would already be embedded into your mind via conditioning by repeating these phrases over and over again.

What I'm unwrapping here is how mass media works with mind control. They use these tactics to make sure that their readers form the world view that they want them to have.

Credits: "media." by musicandphotography

So the phrase "Pro Russia(n)" keeps on being repeated over and over again. Why do they want to have "Pro Russia(n)" embedded into the minds of readers and viewers with an association to these militias? Simple. There are two reasons here: (1) it's to show that these groups are supporting Russia and (2) are also being supported by Russia. They're implying even further that, in fact, these groups might as well be Russia. So their intention is for the reader to think that the war is between Russia and Ukraine where Russia is the aggressor trying to conquer some land from Ukraine and Ukraine is defending its sovereignty. This is what is being implied over and over again with these phrases. But this goes on even further. Let's go to the next point.

(2) "Separatists". Do you notice that the Western mass media keeps on using this word over and over again and always placing it right after the word "Pro-Russian"? Now, who are these separatists and haven't we seen this word used before? If you've been paying attention to mass media for at least a decade or more, you'll be quite familiar with the word "separatist". Why? Let's look at some BBC News headlines from the past decade that use the word separatist. I used BBC because they have a good archive of their news stories but this trend can be found in various mainstream news outlets.








If you didn't get the point by looking at the pictures, the word separatist has been a politically correct version of the word "terrorist". Now I've never heard this being explicitly stated by any news agency; however, this has been the implication and the standard for over a decade that I've been paying attention to this.

So the implication is the following and this is the following message that the Western mainstream media is attempting to embed into the minds of its readers: "These are terrorists who are fighting against the Ukrainian army and thus they deserve to get killed. They're supported and funded by Russia; thus, Russia is funding terrorism and it deserves the sanctions against it and all the negative attacks because Russia is evil." Keep in mind that this is not explicitly stated. This is how mind control works. This is happening subliminally. And instead this idea is in the process of being embedded into the minds of readers and viewers of the Western mainstream media.

So is it then not surprising that Pres. Obama in his UN speech named Ebola, Russia, and ISIS Terrorists as the top threats in the world? See. Everything was done with intention and on purpose.

Moving on...


(3) This is a very clever subliminal tactic used by the press. Another alternative would be the following:


In using this tactic your mind may fully interpret the claim as a fact simply because of the way the headline is written. Of course, the journalistic rules are used here correctly and it does state that this is a claim; however, the point here is to once again make sure that the reader interprets this the way it's implied but not the way it's written. And the implication here is that in both cases a claim is instead a fact. That is the goal here. They want a claim to be considered a fact in the minds of the readers. For example, let's do another quick test to highlight this tactic with the following two paragraphs that I created.

George Soros, based on the directives from the U.S. government, has been funding U.S. non-governmental organizations in Russia in order to instigate a revolution and topple the government headed by Vladimir Putin, says a member of the Russian congress.

'American soldiers' have been shooting innocent bystanders some of whom were women and children.

As you can see, both of these examples are claims. In the first example it's a claim by a member of the Russian congress. In the second example, there are quotes around "American soldiers", which indicates that this is a claim; however, the way it's written attempts to trick the mind into believing into this claim.

This is why it's made into a headline instead of being mentioned in the article itself. For example, the initial headlines that we're analyzing in this appendix could have been rewritten to the following.

Now read them, compare and pay attention to how you interpret the original versus the rewritten version.

Original: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Evidence Being Destroyed By Pro-Russia Separatists, Says Ukraine

Rewritten: The Ukrainian Government Claims that E. Ukrainian Separatist Militia is Destroying Evidence of Malaysia Airlines MH17

Original: 'Russian forces' attack Ukraine troops in separatist east

Rewritten: The Ukrainian military is claiming that Russian forces are attacking their troops in the East

Do you see the difference between the original version and the rewritten one? Both versions state the same thing; however, the interpretation is different because of the way it's written. Why do they work that way? Well, the original versions first makes a statement and only tells you that it's a claim at the end after your mind has already read the sentence. The single quotations surrounding the phrase "Russian forces" can be easily not noticed and misinterpreted for a factual statement within this whole sentence. The fact that single, not double quotes were used shows this even more. I know this for a fact because when I first found this Yahoo! News article, I didn't see the single quotes and I read that headline as a factual statement. If I didn't see the quotes, then I'm sure that someone else will not see them either.

Do you see this very clever and centralized tactic being used by the mass media. Why do I say that it's centralized? It's because exactly the same phrases, style of writing and subliminally implied tactics are being used used over and over again by various Western mainstream media outlets. Also to those reading this blog, it should be no surprise that mass media is centralized and controlled by only a handfull of companies that are themselves controlled by a few people.

Once again, I would like to stress that my intention is not to take sides in any geopolitical issue. Even though I have my personal opinions, the purpose of this article is to show the methods that the mainstream media uses for mind-control and public manipulation. It is through their subliminal uses and implied meanings that the mainstream media is able to sway public opinion into their desired direction. An aware public is one that is less likely to be manipulated by such techniques.


For some, all that needs to be done is to watch the summary of the official story from an outside perspective. Here's a great video by a journalist and researcher James Corbett.

There is a massive load of information about 9/11 on the internet. And regardless of whether some of that information is true or not, one thing becomes clear and that is that the official story of 9/11 just doesn't make any sense.

And some more information:

WikiSpooks: 9-11

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

Over 2200 Architects & Engineers Crush The ‘Official’ 9/11 Commission Report



Below is a list of articles by John Lichfield about a politician or a personality where there is no mention of their age. I used these articles as evidence to show that mentioning Mr. Le Pen's age in his article was intended in order to persuade the reader to disregard Mr. Le Pen's claim.


The First Question to Ask After Any Terror Attack: Was It a False Flag?

42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks



This is still a very fresh and ongoing investigation. Here are some sources that place this whole event into question from an outside perspective.

Charlie Hebdo ‘Suicided’ Cop: Autopsy Cover-up, Mother Reveals All

Paris Terror: Exposed

5 Facts Suggest Paris Attacks An Inside Job

Paris False Flag: List of links for info




For anyone interested in learning about Operation Gladio, this set of interviews with Sibel Edmonds by James Corbett are essential to understanding this vast topic. Sibel Edmonds is a whisleblower who exposed a load of information about this operation and also wrote two books regarding this topic.


  1. What a well researched and put together article. Most people believe that they have free will and decide for themselves what they think about many matters in life, but the above goes to show just how manipulated the public truly is. John Swinton on the 'Free Press' was 'spot on' all the way back in the 1880's. Yes, it has been happening for a long time.

    Paul T

  2. Excellent article! Thank you so much for putting the effort to write such a comprehensive and well documented article on the biases of media. It deserves wide dissemination.

  3. Yes, well written. Is there any way you can add the feature to ''follow this blog'' so I may receive your new posts in my blogroll? It would be convenient for me so I do not miss them. Another feature is to ''follow this blog via email''....which I would receive directly into my email, if you will? Thank you. I must go back to reading about the 432 hz which I do definitely feel each and every time, and I need to order some CD's somewhere to play this music in my home. Any advise?