I pass you the message n° 17 of Labourse published on the forum of the Silence of the wolves given that the n° 16 had had its small success. Of course Labourse is a fine analyst, you will find his comments on their site (I assure you the photo is mine ;)
(1019 messages)
#1087861Posted on: 31-01-2010 08:17:35
Bonjour à tous
NEW MESSAGE N° 17
This message, in the continuity of the previous one, will be devoted to media deception.
NEW MESSAGE N° 17
This message, in the continuity of the previous one, will be devoted to media deception.
Quote from: plow (au 20-01-2010 05:31:24)
Bonjour à tous
NEW MESSAGE N° 16
(...)
Externally, the media citadel seems impregnable.
Armored. Locked.
But archery shots can hit targets behind the ramparts.
(...)
Because there are words that have more weight than mine, look in what terms
our only French Nobel laureate in economics, Maurice Allais, invited you to ask yourself last December:
Against undisputed taboos, by Maurice Allais
Tribune by Maurice Allais, published in the weekly Marianne n°659 from December 5 to 11, 2009.
«(...) This repeated attitude raises a problem concerning the major media in France: some experts are authorized and others are prohibited.
(...)
…these experts are wrong in their explanations. Some are doubly mistaken by ignoring their ignorance, but others, who know it and yet conceal it, thus deceive the French.
(...)
Those who hold this decision-making power leave us the choice between listening to the ignorant or the deceivers ».
(...)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(...)
We therefore find in Vincent Peillon's speech the same denunciations as in Maurice Allais.
Are we dealing with very ugly conspirators, marginalized people, extremists, revolutionaries
or just to people worried about the turn things have taken?
(...)
It is necessary to support the shootings which target the media citadel.
We must hurt collaborating journalists and support those who speak out against omerta.
(...)
Free yourself !
And alert your loved ones
And challenge your elected officials
plow
Bonjour à tous
NEW MESSAGE N° 16
(...)
Externally, the media citadel seems impregnable.
Armored. Locked.
But archery shots can hit targets behind the ramparts.
(...)
Because there are words that have more weight than mine, look in what terms
our only French Nobel laureate in economics, Maurice Allais, invited you to ask yourself last December:
Against undisputed taboos, by Maurice Allais
Tribune by Maurice Allais, published in the weekly Marianne n°659 from December 5 to 11, 2009.
«(...) This repeated attitude raises a problem concerning the major media in France: some experts are authorized and others are prohibited.
(...)
…these experts are wrong in their explanations. Some are doubly mistaken by ignoring their ignorance, but others, who know it and yet conceal it, thus deceive the French.
(...)
Those who hold this decision-making power leave us the choice between listening to the ignorant or the deceivers ».
(...)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(...)
We therefore find in Vincent Peillon's speech the same denunciations as in Maurice Allais.
Are we dealing with very ugly conspirators, marginalized people, extremists, revolutionaries
or just to people worried about the turn things have taken?
(...)
It is necessary to support the shootings which target the media citadel.
We must hurt collaborating journalists and support those who speak out against omerta.
(...)
Free yourself !
And alert your loved ones
And challenge your elected officials
plow
Which elected officials will still have enough courage to raise real questions?
We expect a real challenge to the media oligarchy which locks up information and distills pro-globalist propaganda.
We expect to be put in the dock on IPCC Media (GroupementIinterests Eeconomic Cconvergent).
We are waiting for all those vile economic experts to be called into question who worked to extol the merits of financial engineering, to legitimize the financialization of the economy, even though the collapse of the system was imminent.
We now know that we are dealing with either notorious incompetents or cynical liars.
Consequently, that they be banned from the media seems to me the most natural of sanctions, whether for one or other of these reasons.
How come it's nothing?
DOES THIS SOUND NORMAL TO YOU? DOES THIS SOUND HEALTHY?
This crisis did not fall from the sky.
It matured over many years, in full view of anyone interested in economics and finance.
See for example this article, which goes back almost 4 years:
The M3 index is no longer published by the US Federal Reserve
March 26th, 2006
(GlobalEurope2020-Newropeans-magazine.org, 24 Mar 06) – As announced on February 15 by Leap/E2020, the American Federal Reserve indeed stopped publishing M23 yesterday March 2006, 3 (see the Federal Reserve Press Release), the most reliable indicator of the quantity of US Dollars in circulation in the world. The world no longer has any reliable information on the real value of the Dollar.
The US Federal Reserve has also suppressed at the same time the publication of a whole series of secondary indicators (such as the amount of EuroDollars, reverse repos, term deposits of large amounts) which would make it possible to reconstruct M3 from other aggregates. It is important to note that the US Federal Reserve continues to calculate M3 and the other indicators. It keeps collecting this data; but now it no longer shares this information with American citizens and the rest of the world.
(...)
The United States now wants the world to take their word for the value of their currency. In a world where trust in them is at its lowest since 1945, they thus make the Dollar the central player in the global systemic crisis that is beginning.
______________________________
On April 10, 2009, I gave you the words (see page 1) of a professor and columnist, Bernard Maris, during an interview which dates back 2 years today, almost to the day.
Financial crisis: Interview with Bernard Maris
« the fall of banking fears to lead to the rather strong fall of other values, industrial or whatever they are (...)
we have a phenomenon of total opacity which is typical of current finance (...)
we are NOT in a system of transparency, we are NOT in a system of self-regulation, we are NOT in a system of efficiency, we are NOT in a system that goes to balance, we are in a system of opacity
the banks have created a financial industry, financial engineering, which is extremely profitable for them, with new, very complicated products, which capture a lot of real value from elsewhere, which bring a lot of value out of the real sphere, which pump … there is a parasitic side … (…) we have a financial sphere which is normally responsible for running… to put oil in the cogs, to make the economy run, but which alone captures a large part of the value produced…of the value of work, the truth must be said, people's work (…) there it is a sphere which does not actually produce value…on the contrary, it pumps it up. And from the moment it hypertrophies, (…) if its functioning captures too much value from the real economy, the real economy can stop; This is what is happening right now.»
There is no longer anyone today to dare to challenge the obviousness of the statement.
Apart from a few diehard neo-cons.
Yet, at the time, he was considered iconoclastic, while our brilliant IPCC Media pundits spread the propaganda of their single-mindedness.
Which elected officials will decide to bang their fists on the table to demand the restoration of the plurality of opinions in the media and respect by journalists for the ethics required by their profession?
What use are elected officials to us if they no longer represent us and if they do not uphold the democratic principles of equity and justice?
The independence of the media seems to be a delicate subject to deal with in France.
In July 2008, an amendment was passed:
http://david-assouline.over-blog.net/article-21622...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3 30/07/2008 19:58 p.m.
The Assouline amendment on media independence
The editorialist Bertrand Le Gendre underlines the progress represented by “The Assouline amendment on the independence of the media”. Le Monde, July 26, 2008
The Constitution now guarantees “the independence of the media”. This addition to the Basic Law went virtually unnoticed in the hubbub of constitutional revision. Unfairly, because it is one of the “bonuses” of the text that parliamentarians approved on July 21.
Specialists differ on the scope of this addition. But its symbolic meaning is obvious. In 2008, under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, there were 539 parliamentarians who deemed it necessary to engrave in stone the Constitution an obvious fact: the press is independent in a democracy. 539 elected to which must be added all those who, on the left, did not vote for the draft revision but are delighted in petto that this measure is included. Socialist senators in particular.
It was on the initiative of one of them, David Assouline (Paris), that an amendment was adopted specifying, in article 34 of the Constitution, that “the law establishes the rules concerning (…) freedom, pluralism and independence of the media”. It was Friday, June 20, in first reading, after dinner, in a sparse hemicycle. The vote took place by a show of hands, after the explicit acquiescence of the UMP rapporteur for the project, Jean-Jacques Hyest (Seine-et-Marne).
Only the Minister of Justice, Rachida Dati, took the floor to oppose it, claiming that the principles set out by this amendment were “already guaranteed at the constitutional level”. A half-truth that convinced neither the senators nor the deputies, who in turn endorsed the amendment at second reading.
The case law of the Constitutional Council has guaranteed media pluralism since the 1980s. On this point Rachida Dati is right. What is new is to have given constitutional force to their “independence”. Independence from what? Compared to whom? To the powers of money? To political power? The Assouline Amendment opens countless opportunities for free speech advocates.
Well well.
But then why, 18 months later, these denunciations from Maurice Allais and Vincent Peillon?
And why did François Bayrou express himself in these terms a few days ago:
25th January 2010
Independence of the media: "We need a new law of separation of powers, because the media is a power in its own right", for François Bayrou
François Bayrou answered questions from the daily "Liberation", Monday January 25:
Liberation: Do you, like Vincent Peillon, believe that the media are servile?
François Bayrou: I would not use this term for all the media. But today, the French nourish a feeling of mistrust on the subject of the independence of the media. For the private media, it is the structure of their capital that is often in question. These media are, for some of the most important, held by groups or people whose proximity, not to say intimacy, with power is known to everyone. The pressures are not exerted every day, but in critical period, particularly electoral, forms of direct or indirect influence weigh with all their weight. It is not always a question of censorship but of a prudence which borders on self-censorship.
Liberation: Is it the power that acts or the friends of the power that anticipate its desires?
François Bayrou: For a long time, Nicolas Sarkozy has forged friendships, cultivated intimacies, rendered services which have created a complicity that everyone knows and which is often assumed in broad daylight.
Libé: How to free the media from the possible influence of the executive power?
FB: It is crucial to establish a new law of separation of powers. The media must be considered as a power in its own right and protected in their independence. The independence of the press is as vital to democracy as the independence of the judiciary.
(...)
Interview by Christophe Forcari.
(Source: http://www.mouvementdemocrate.fr/medias/bayrou-lib...)
The media "coup" of Vincent Peillon has, in any case, the merit of awakening the debate.
I have been notified of these 2 items:
> France Televisions: the Titanic
There is so much activity in the corridors of television news that panic and politics rhyme with this Titanic which is beginning to leak everywhere.
And the mass hysteria that gripped some great captains of the audiovisual industry about the bad blow that Vincent Peillon dealt them is symptomatic of a deeper evil, which overflows from what he wanted to reveal.
(...)
> The issue of media independence finally placed at the heart of the public debate
Saturday January 30 2010
1. The scandal of the general lowering of the media during the presidential campaign
2. Unsuccessful attempts to launch a debate on media independence
3. The "Peillon coup"
___________________________
And while we claim
Media independence
the diversity of opinions
freedom of speech
files that are progressing discreetly are quite different:
LOPPSI 2: shhhhh, you will wake up public opinion...
Friday January 29th, 2010 by Archetype
(Source: Agoravox)
I was very worried about the new security drift represented by the LOPPSI 2 law (guidance and programming law for the performance of internal security) last June, when articles and reactions were heard following of the tabling of the bill. But since then, silence, probably due to reports and vague announcements. And what did I discover yesterday by digging around a bit? The examination in parliamentary committee will take place this Wednesday, January 27, and the debate will begin on February 7. In the media, radio silence.
(...)
Totalitarian drift, security drift,
My conclusion will be the same as in my previous message:
We must break this little game that is taking place at our expense.
It is necessary to support the shootings which target the media citadel.
We must hurt collaborating journalists and support those who speak out against omerta.
The media has blithely deceived you and still shamelessly deceives you about the financial crisis, about the causes of global warming, about H1N1.
They don't inform you, they spread the propaganda of the decision makers.
They condition you.
Free yourself !
And alert your loved ones
And challenge your elected officials
plow
edited on: 31-01-2010 08:19:19AT is to Labourse what God is to life: an interpretable benchmark
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments