Inspired by the thread: "JFK conspiracy.." Try debunk this one.

It is a long one, but I think it is quite easy to Google: MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD.

The story is quite long, but this I found very interesting. (As some of You know, I have been very critical to the US mass-media).

So what’s wrong in the article?

Nothing’s wrong, it’s all true, the CIA runs everything. The utilities companies are all run by the CIA, the internet is run by the CIA, all credit card companies, and certainly any news source, the sun and moon are on the CIA payroll, and the CIA has a copyright on the oxygen you breathe.

Dex, someone will be along shortly to have a ‘word’ with you. Don’t go anywhere, okay?

Henry B is an agent of the CIA trying to through me, an agent of another branch of the CIA, off track.

Well, Apos, let’s not talk about this on the board. We take it at our next scheduled meeting, OK?


The fundamental problem is that the article makes some extraordinary charges, which would need a great deal of evidence to be taken seriously. However, no evidence at all is offered.

In addition, the article includes some outright nonsense. Irving Kristol wasn’t a part of any elite. He was from a poor, Jewish immigrant family. Nor did he have anything to do with the CIA.

William Simon became very wealthy due to his business success, but he was not raised as part of any rich elite.

The author of the article that Henry B posted is named Steve Kangas. He was found dead in the bathroom in Richard Mellon Scaife’s building in 1999. It was ruled a suicide, but inquiring minds want to know, did Scaife assassinate Kangas? In case you don’t know who Scaife is, he is the billionaire Clinton-hater who funded the Arkansas Project and was a driving force behind Clinton’s impeachment.

Details here:

It’s inane replies like this that make me wonder if the Straight Dope is run by the CIA to suppress free thought by disguising prejudice as objectivity. And december, there is tons of evidence in the article, if you actually took the time to read it.

The one thing the article left out is how the CIA bought ABC outright after the Ron Rewald scandal here in Hawaii. Peter Jennings did some reporting that embarassed the CIA. Bill Casey tried to get the FCC to revoke ABC’s broadcast license. That didn’t work, so he had his company, Capital Cities, buy ABC. Right after than, Peter Jennings went on the air and said, “The CIA has denied any involvement with Ron Rewald, and I have no reason to doubt them.” Another inquiry squelched. Later, Disney bought Capital Cities/ABC.

Another interesting episode was when the entire Paris CIA station was deported from France for carrying out corporate espionage. One of their crimes was trying to bribe French officials to let more Disney movies into the country.

Info on ABC, CIA, and Rush Limbaugh:

CIA control of the media is real. Thanks for posting this, Henry B. And everybody else, do your homework before you automatically discount this sort of thing.

Be a human, not a freeper-bot.

If I may ask, are there any media sources in the world which aren’t CIA influenced?

If eg. the BBC or the Guardian here in the UK are relatively free from interference, how come they have never run a significant “exclusive” story which was somehow suppressed elsewhere? What might such a story comprise?
Created by Freeper unit #33579@24.2.03

Please explain how the CIA controls the SDMB. Also, the best argument pertains to ABC only, not the media as a whole. I don’t reject all conspiracy claims. I’ve made a few myself. I think some evidence is being dramatically overclaimed in this case. The sources are something less than rigorous fact checkers.

Your sources leave out key points, like any opposing views at all.
For example, the claims that the CIA penetrated some anti-war groups certainly only tells half the story. Those groups have been connected with brutal regimes for years.

Thank You yourself mystic2311.

From the beginning I just put this as a freeper-test.
(I only learned the meaning of that word yesterday.)
I yhought I play along for awhile and then ask:
“Do You believe that there is some “disinformation” in France, Russia, etc, from their respective govenment controlled bodies?”
“Do You believe that the astronomical sums spent by CIA are only concentrated on finding out what foreigners are doing, like 911 etc.? Or planning of murdering foreigners abroad?”

This might be a top secret, for some, but:
Every country has a scale from lobbying to buying media-people.
Every country is telling from “how nice they are - to dis-information”.

It is their fucking duty.
Did You think any country leaves the most important part untouched, the home-base?

Then comes Beagle and relieves this big secret!
But, it is not just the Cold War, it is everywhere - all the time.

What kind of world do You think we are living in? A free one?
Show me a free country on this globe - please?

May I just add that in Breshnew time the dollars was washed in Austria.
Sorry, no cites, but I hope you believe me.

And while we are on it, You can also begin to read the site:

It’s the nest of lies. :wink:

“Freepers, my ass,”
they do not exists - or a band name?

Have a happy day.

*The reply by thhis user has been deleted in accordance with clause 17© of article 1174. We wish to apologise for this inconvenience.

  • The CIA

Darn CIA spelling errors!

Seriously, though - you are right to a degree in your reply above. What you’re missing out on is the notion that perhaps every idea has limitations. Sure, there is “black propaganda” and attempts by various factions to manipulate information. However, the idea of a global conspiracy to hide all the cracks is more than a little hard to swallow.

Of course, Henry, governments the world over try their best to exert control over their own media. However, the point is that surely any given story would only be suppressed by those countries where its release would have disadvantageous consequences, and it would in fact be released in countries which might profit from such consequences?

Hence no matter how strong the CIA’s grip on US media, any significant story would still escape suppression by eg. the Guardian, Al-Jazeera etc.?

If the CIA controls the American media, why would they allow to run an article informing Americans that there are actually rules for the CIA, including the rule that says they aren’t allowed to assassinate people?

If the CIA controls the media, why would they allow to run this article informing Americans that they use anthrax in their biowarfare program?

If the CIA controls the media, why would they allow to run this unflattering story?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Ooooh, I know–Maybe is controlled by the enemies of the CIA, that would explain all the bad stories…



Yes. Absolutely.
The stories are different, even significiant stories, and they are released but not often enough in English:

  • like 24 nuke-attache cases missing in Russia. (I am not an expert in this field of nukes, but Lebedev was to be charged if he didn’t have been killed in a helicopter accident.)

  • two guys took themselves into a nuke-submarine in England in December. Spent half an hour there and put on the alarm. That all that these peace-activists could do.
    That I felt like a “hush-hush”. If only the terrorists would have known… 40 kg of plastics, gives a panic-wave, in any city, where nobody wants anything in their ports anymore.
    Not just in a city like Portshmouth.

The nukes had been unharmed in the subs, but, The Most Honourable Reverend Blair would have had much to explain.
Yes, The Scotshman and some other “never-heard of papers” wrote about it. I got the news from a Finnish paper.

Now, here comes the problem, for any national 3-letter-guys (FSB, CIA etc.):
The InterNet
If You know, let’s say 4 languages and is cross-reading actively the news, I would say You get a picture.
I am able to read in 6 linguas, but I think it is a little bit rare.

But 90% of the people, from any country, are not on these boards, surfing in news, understand a jig what is sent from Bagdad, translated to e.g. Russian (maybe falsified, or let’s say “streamlined” etc.).

Within a decade You do not only have some crazy Finn here writing to You, there will be the guys from African countries, Asia much more represented, and all Muslim countries that are left.

But still, after that the main news goes as usual, for the 90%:
One lemming writes a story and the other lemmings copies and streamlines it.

I am still curious: Why do not the ABC, BBC and others, just make the same questions to the different countries representatives?
Just like take the foreign minister of Iraq and the equal from USA and give them ready written questions?

You say they would not agree to give their propaganda? Crap.
If the questions are written beforehand, and given the parties a chance to formulate some questions themselves, put the shit through the satellite etc. one in Bagdad or Paris, one in Washington.
You think one of the sides would refuse a prime-time hour. OK. Tell both, that if the other is absent, we give You the whole one hour of prime-time.
You think they would still refuse?
The media has incredible power, but it does not use it.

And do you think people would watch that program? All over the world!
And so on.

But these fucking lemmings with resources does nothing else than change the headline of the story that Reuters cables out.

Naturally if there is news like: “North-Korea has made an alliance with Saddam: We will attack South, if USA attacks Iraq. Syria and Iran is wagering, knowing they are the next!”, could and would not be hush-hushed anywhere.

But when the braking news are: “The president has a penis and he admits it”-style, the whole Europe is laughing.
Or did You see the writings on the walls in former Yugoslavia: “Monica, why did You not use Your teeth?”

It is true, now nobody is laughing, not even to the “braking news”. We are all f^=>()% worried!

The world is at a brink of deep depression, and some guy wants a war, on arguments that he could use against a dozen of countries.
And the news: “How stupid, ungrateful are not the French, Germans, the devil and his grandmother…”

Btw. Did anyone actually read the story? Not just the extracts it put in the OP?


  1. Why not? It does not harm CIA in any way.
  2. The press is not in any country except some dozen, controlled to the extent You suggest. Do not think that even 5% of the reporters are “insiders” in let’s say USA, Sweden, Finland, Germany.
  3. Study propaganda and You see that even in a controlled situation You give out leaks.
    If You had 10.000 people working for You, legally in every respect, do You think that it would not sound inhuman to not make mistakes.
    To punish these, is showing that You are a “righteous” body.
    “See, we bombed the Chineese, see now we punish, see, we really didn’t do it on purpose”.

Oh no! Henry B is from Russia! I have been duped by the
International Stalinist Conspiracy!
Thunk! What was that? Wow a sack full of cash just landed on my
roof, and there’s a signed letter of thanks from Stalin himself!

Duckduckgoose, those CNN stories are what are known as “limited hang-outs,” in which minor peccadilloes of the CIA are revealed to make people think there is actually some democratic oversight. A good example is the murder of Frank Olson. The story that was circulated for many years is that the CIA gave him LSD and he jumped out of a window. Now the truth has come out, he was assassinated and thrown out of the window. Olson was in charge of the secret biowarfare program in the Korean war. Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved in the coverup of his murder.

And how about John Deutch? He took home a computer with classified info on it and proceeded to surf porn sites on the internet, thus making the info accessible to anyone with a modem. Since he is probably an Israeli double agent, why isn’t he sharing a cell with Jonathan Pollard? The stories come out, but there is no follow-through, no action taken, and the stories just die.

And people who come after the CIA have their careers ruined. Torricelli pursued justice for his constituent Jennifer Marbury, whose husband was murdered by a CIA contract agent in Guatemala. He gets accused of corruption and bribery (which by the way every politician is guilty of) and his career is over.

Now you understand how it all works.

Personally, I love these ideas.

Nixon, the ultimate public paranoiac, never realizes that it is the CIA out to get him all along.

Scaife, the man behind the man behind the man, is so nefarious that he has his self-declared nemesis executed on Scaife’s own property – you know, just to show that he is above the law.

Bill Bradlee is a CIA stooge. How do we know? Because he denied being a “slanted liberal thinker.” Sure, stooge or “slanted liberal”; that’s the world dichotomy.

Peace Corps? CIA. Catholic Church? Double CIA. Skull and Bones? Disney? Major League Baseball? The Ivy League? Check. Check. Check. Check.

Of course, the only “evidence” I see in the piece are that (1) Capital Cities bought ABC; (2) many awards for American Catholics in fact go to Catholic Americans; and (3) Bill Bradlee doesn’t like being called a liberal.