Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt
















Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything

Why Americans Will
Believe Almost Anything
By Tim O'Shea
The Doctor

Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay detailed the vivid,
mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By
altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped
into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and
power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to
enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space
captain in recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany,
Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters, all cultural
conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World
or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched,
infinite rawness.

Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We
are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known.
Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and
molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being
subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are
carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how
most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the
public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort
to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the
handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are
illustrated about how our current system of media control arose
historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given
popular opinion.

If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that

Conventional Wisdom.

In America, conventional wisdom that has mass acceptance is usually
contrived: somebody paid for it.


* Pharmaceuticals restore health * Vaccination brings immunity * The
cure for cancer is just around the corner * Menopause is a disease
condition * When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics *
When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol * Hospitals are safe and
clean. * America has the best health care in the world. * Americans
have the best health in the world. * Milk is a good source of calcium.
* You never outgrow your need for milk. * Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
* Aspirin prevents heart attacks. * Heart drugs improve the heart. *
Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment. * No
child can get into school without being vaccinated. * The FDA
thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market. * Back and
neck pain are the only reason for spinal adjustment. * Pregnancy is a
serious medical condition * Chemotherapy and radiation are effective
cures for cancer * When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection,
antibiotics should be given * immediately 'just in case' * Ear tubes
are for the good of the child. * Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis
after menopause. * Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al
medical specialists. * The purpose of the health care industry is
health. * HIV is the cause of AIDS. * AZT is the cure. * Without
vaccines, infectious diseases will return * Fluoride in the city water
protects your teeth * Flu shots prevent the flu. * Vaccines are
thoroughly tested before being placed on the Mandated Schedule. *
Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any
possible risks. * There is a power shortage in California. * There is
a meningitis epidemic in California. * The NASDAQ is a natural market
controlled only by supply and demand. * Chronic pain is a natural
consequence of aging. * Soy is your healthiest source of protein. *
Insulin shots cure diabetes. * After we take out your gall bladder you
can eat anything you want * Allergy medicine will cure allergies.

This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions and billions to
conjure up. Did you ever wonder why you never see the President
speaking publicly unless he is reading? Or why most people in this
country think generally the same about most of the above issues?


In Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some
compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in
America. They trace modern public influence back to the early part of
the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L.
Bernays, the Father of Spin. From his own amazing chronicle
Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his
famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself and applied them to the emerging
science of mass persuasion. The only difference was that instead of
using these principles to uncover hidden themes in the human
unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays used these same
ideas to mask agendas and to create illusions that deceive and
misrepresent, for marketing purposes.


Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a
significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During all
that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a
public perception about some idea or product. A few examples: As a
neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays'
first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American
public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen)

A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of
women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New
York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with. He
organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched
in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation. Such
publicity followed from that one event that from then on women have
felt secure about destroying their own lungs in public, the same way
that men have always done.

Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast. Not one to turn
down a challenge, he set up the advertising format along with the AMA
that lasted for nearly 50 years proving that cigarettes are beneficial
to health. Just look at ads in issues of Life or Time from the 40s and

During the next several decades Bernays and his colleagues evolved the
principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed through
messages repeated over and over hundreds of times. One the value of
media became apparent, other countries of the world tried to follow
our lead. But Bernays really was the gold standard. Josef Goebbels,
who was Hitler's minister of propaganda, studied the principles of
Edward Bernays when Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he
would use to convince the Germans that they had to purify their race.


Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that
would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light.
Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And
this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership."
Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the
masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people
unaware that they are being manipulated.

Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this: "the scientific
manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and
conflict in a democratic society." Trust Us p 42

These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral
service for humanity in general - democracy was too good for people;
they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of
rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays'
Propaganda: "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In
almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or
business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are
dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the
mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who
pull the wires that control the public mind."

A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not
take it from them, but to inform their discretion."

Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a few possessed
the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this
sacred task. And luckily, he saw himself as one of that few.


Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media
were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could
handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new
Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be
sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had
the money to make their images happen. A few examples:

Philip Morris Pfizer Union Carbide Allstate Monsanto Eli Lilly tobacco
industry Ciba Geigy lead industry Coors DuPont Chlorox Shell Oil
Standard Oil Procter & Gamble Boeing General Motors Dow Chemical
General Mills Goodyear


Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer that demand. Among them:

Burson-Marsteller Edelman Hill & Knowlton Kamer-Singer Ketchum
Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin BSMG Buder-Finn

Though world-famous within the PR industry, these are names we don't
know, and for good reason. The best PR goes unnoticed. For decades
they have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on
virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value,

pharmaceutical drugs vaccines medicine as a profession alternative
medicine fluoridation of city water chlorine household cleaning
products tobacco dioxin global warming leaded gasoline cancer research
and treatment pollution of the oceans forests and lumber images of
celebrities, including damage control crisis and disaster management
genetically modified foods aspartame food additives; processed foods
dental amalgams


Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create
credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party"
endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come out and say
that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers,
people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by
selling automobiles. If however some independent research institute
with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition
comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is really
a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the
original issue.

So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius,
he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and
Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries
whose products were being evaluated, these "independent" research
agencies would churn out "scientific" studies and press materials that
could create any image their handlers wanted. Such front groups are
given high-sounding names like:

Temperature Research Foundation International Food Information Council
Consumer Alert The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Air Hygiene
Foundation Industrial Health Federation International Food Information
Council Manhattan Institute Center for Produce Quality Tobacco
Institute Research Council Cato Institute American Council on Science
and Health Global Climate Coalition Alliance for Better Foods

Sound pretty legit don't they?


As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like
them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of
the global corporations who fund them, like those listed on page 2
above. This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press
releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station
and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports
read like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news
format. This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects
on their own, especially on topics aboutwhich they know very little.
Entire sections of the release or in the case of video news releases,
the whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the
byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voil�! Instant
news - copy and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.

Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the
idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p
22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the
Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22)
These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched
stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able
to tell the difference.


As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more
experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating
public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on
emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought,
motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are
some of the axioms of the new science of PR:

* technology is a religion unto itself * if people are incapable of
rational thought, real democracy is dangerous * important decisions
should be left to experts * when reframing issues, stay away from
substance; create images * never state a clearly demonstrable lie

Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an
example. A front group called the International Food Information
Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified
foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the
case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these
experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our
grocery shelves which are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants
to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods, so it avoids words

Frankenfoods Hitler biotech chemical DNA experiments manipulate money
safety scientists radiation roulette gene-splicing gene gun random

Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:

hybrids natural order beauty choice bounty cross-breeding diversity
earth farmer organic wholesome.

It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM
foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful
scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really matter. This
is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a
passing myth. (Trevanian)

Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council?
Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola,
Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods.
(Stauber p 20)


As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further
guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:

- dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling

- speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words

- when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time;

- get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street
people...anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand

- the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you

- when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable

- when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just

- when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues

Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find
- look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing;
these guys are good!


PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news
releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous
scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at.
(Stauber, p 201) This is a common occurrence. In this way the editors
of newspapers and TV news shows are often not even aware that an
individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have
"deniability," right?

Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the
picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to
gasoline gave cars more horsepower. When there was some concern about
safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake "testing" and
publish spurious research that 'proved' that inhalation of lead was
harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.

Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for
medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an executive
with General Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon have the
Sloan Kettering institute issuing reports stating that lead occurs
naturally in the body and that the body has a way of eliminating low
level exposure. Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene
Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane Kettering opposed all
anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized
scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline
became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our gasoline was leaded.

Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major
carcinogen, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But
during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of
lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways.
30 million tons.

That is PR, my friends.


In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new
term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science.
Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology,
industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not
surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the
industry-backed Manhattan Institute.

Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly
written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific
research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the
truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.

True scientific method goes like this:

1. form a hypothesis

2. make predictions for that hypothesis

3. test the predictions

4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings

Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in
science are themselves like "living organisms, that must be nourished,
supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and
flourish." (Stauber p 205) Great ideas that don't get this financial
support because the commercial angles are not immediately obvious -
these ideas wither and die.

Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that
real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science
pretends there were no flaws.


Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound
science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of
drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions.
It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions
are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the
industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to
science has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the
past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit.

Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of
university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of
knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another
commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)


It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate
PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect: Public Health and
The Environment

It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk
science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten
either the environment or our health. This makes sense when one
realizes that money changes hands only by selling the illusion of
health and the illusion of environmental protection. True public
health and real preservation of the earth's environment have very low
market value.

Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of
junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again
they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of


When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative
medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an
emotional punch:

outraged sound science junk science sensible scaremongering
responsible phobia hoax alarmist hysteria

The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an
environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using
the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.

Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the
environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested
product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see
constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified
foods. They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food
and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually
have lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173) The
grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost all
GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides
so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and
pesticides. (The Magic Bean)


Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist.
That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had
better get the current research paper published in the best scientific
journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like
JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are
peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get
published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical
centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys
with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it
past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study
have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical

But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off,
money. Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to
be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that
they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy
magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those
full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions,Jack. How long
will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that
prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the
safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors
aren't that stupid.

Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's a formal
requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between
an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In
practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical
journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2
Feb 99)

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96%
of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were
studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah,
right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts
getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they
often do.

Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply
pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed.
(Stauber, p 204)

Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987, the New England
Journal ran an article that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD
over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published
137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in
at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud
and misrepresentation, including:

* reporting data for experiments that were never done * reporting
measurements that were never made * reporting statistical analyses
that were never done


Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel Effect that
results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific
fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by other
researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.

Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion?
Check out the McDonald's ads which often appear in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the same
publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads proclaiming the
health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)

Very scientific, oh yes.


Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and
magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV
news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before.
Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if
you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some
of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility
of advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your
brain to mass media. That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV
news, no more Time magazine or Newsweek. You could actually do that.
Just think what you could do with the extra time alone.

Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in
the world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past
couple of years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major stories
that have dominated headlines and TV news have been "what is going on
in the world?" Do you actually think there's been nothing going on
besides the contrived tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the
re-filtered accounts of foreign violence and disaster, and all the
other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us every day? What
about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the
Oklahoma city bombing? Do we really need to know all that detail, day
after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we
wanted to? What is the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly.
The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and
uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected to
the same advertising. Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark
of mass media mastery - simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward
Bernays said, the people must be controlled without them knowing it.

Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time
they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily
smokescreen? Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming
back for more.

If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:
What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and
stopped reading newspapers altogether?

Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual or
academic loss from such a decision?

Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the
illiterate, amoral, phony, uncultivated, desperately brainless values
of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these
fake, programmed robots "normal"?

Do you need to have your life values constantly spoonfed to you?

Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to
keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out
yourself by doing a little independent reading?

Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and
reading the evening paper. What measurable gain is there for you?


There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by
year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice
the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and
billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools.
Three-fourths of California high school seniors can't read well enough
to pass their exit exams. ( SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01) If you think other
parts of the country are smarter, try this one: hand any high school
senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any
random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT
scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb
kids are getting year by year. (ADD: A Designer Disease) At least 10%
have documented "learning disabilities," which are reinforced and
rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone
failing a grade any more?

Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these
days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it
has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial
arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Radio? Consider the low mental
qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians hired as DJs
-- seems like they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they
just repeat at random. And at what point did popular music cease to
require the study of any musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not
to mention lyric? Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art
form, right? The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man.

Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound
like they were all written by the same guy? And this writer just
graduated from junior college? And yet has all the correct opinions on
social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized
corporate omniscience, to assure us that everything is going to be
fine... Yes, everything is fine.

All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much
easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of
conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody
explained it to them.


Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And
as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room.
So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your
friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are you just
going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place
and you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've
given anybody in that room access to your tea.

Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or
uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities
allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda,
anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media.
As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something
on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is,
like the tea, the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access
to it.

This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it
allowing our potential, our personality, our values to be shaped,
crafted, and limited according to the whims of the mass panderers?
There are many truly important decisions that are crucial to our
physical, mental, and spiritual well-being, decisions which require
information and research. If it's an issue where money is involved,
objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody
knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.

Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at
least one level below what "everybody knows." 1


Stauber & Rampton Trust Us, We're Experts Tarcher/Putnam 2001

Ewen, Stuart PR!: A Social History of Spin 1996 ISBN: 0-465-06168-0
Published by Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins

Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of
Public Relations Crown Publishers, Inc. 2001

King, R Medical journals rarely disclose researchers' ties Wall St.
Journal, 2 Feb 99.

Engler, R et al. Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical

New England Journal of Medicine v 317 p 1383 26 Nov 1987

Black, D PhD Health At the Crossroads Tapestry 1988.

Trevanian Shibumi 1983.

Crossen, C Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America 1996.

Robbins, J Reclaiming Our Health Kramer 1996.

Jefferson, T Writings New York Library of America, p 493; 1984.

O'Shea T The Magic Bean 2000 Alternative
Medicine magazine May 2001.


This Site Served by TheHostPros



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party