Time Magazine - CIA psyops flagship analysis

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

A senate investigation in the 1970s and many ex-CIA whistleblowers have revealed that the CIA uses the mainstream media to govern Americans.

Spooks have for decades edited Time Magazine using even the ads to reinforce the articles and function as synthesized psyops.

To see how it is done - go scrutinize the July 28, 2008 CIA-Time Magazine (US version) and count how many subliminal or overt military recruiting messages there are that support that cover story about Afghanistan being "The Right War."


(Very convenient to have multiple wars so when one gets stale you can rotate your products on the shelf, just like War Presidents since McCain is promoted in the same issue as BOTH 'loyal to Bush' and an 'independent maverick.'.)

If you don't know any of this stuff, you have not even begun to examine post-WWII psyops culture and CIA media. None of this is new.

HUGE numbers of Americans consider Time Magazine to be their official informed view on the world. And many of them just scan the pages and land on movie reviews or just glance at the pictures. Very heuristic. Very prone to subliminal psyops.

All the same psyops tactics used since WWII are deployed to synthesize-
recruiting propaganda combined with scandal counterpropaganda.

The psyops anchor promoting obedience to male authority figures and militarism is:
Gender as physical embodiment of 'virtue' - Man=Good/Woman=Bad.

The Good Adam and Wicked Eve archetype is especially useful for the 50% of military recruits who come out of the former slave states in the south. Lots of Bible lore and non-progressive role models to tap in that region.

I have Life magazines from the 1960s that do all the exact same stuff, promoting Good Adam Male Warrior heroes and denigrating females as the anti-heroes. This psyops strategy came into full poisonous bloom during the first Vietnam War and now we are getting huge doses of it for Vietnam II: Death in the Sand.

I dug into this stuff in a thread about how a movie of a musical called 'Mamma Mia' was being used for both masking Mumia and military recruiting in this thread-
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=19496

Now look at that Time cover again showing us "The Right War."
See how gender images in the top banner strip support the primary war message.

The primary image is promoting post-9/11 Male Warrior Culture.
"The Right War" is positively framed with an overwhelmingly red-white-and-blue color scheme with a man and a flag on top of what looks very much like the debris of the destroyed World Trade Center which evokes 9/11 as the justification for war complete with a reminder of Bush on the pile making threats through his bullhorn.

Note the allied male authority figures on one side with a moral message, "won't cut...loose" HERO device.
Note the lone female entertainement figure on the opposite side with an immoral message, "insufferable charms." ANTI-HERO device.

The movie of a musical called 'Mamma Mia' is about a woman who doesn't know which of three men is the father of her child. Classic negative framing of women, a narrative device used for social engineering with Hero/Anti-Hero role-models.

This 'Mamma Mia' movie's title is also being virally marketed as a homonym decoy, a form of subliminal psyops called "keyword hijacking," for a secondary purpose of displacement, inoculation, and interference theory counterpropaganda against a recent book and a court ruling on framed-up Black Panther activist, Mumia Abdul-Jamal.
"Free Mumia" has been a social activist slogan for many years.

This case is worrisome to the US government because urban riots in the 1960s led to an all-out paramilitary suppression of anti-war and anti-government organizations based on national security justifications and ultimately led to the FBI's assassination of Martin Luther King.

Ever since, it has been a national security goal to prevent the organization of angry poor African Americans around a single personality or cause.

And Time Magazine is working that angle, too, with three whole pages devoted to that homonym decoy movie which negatively frames women in order to promote two psyops projects at the same time, supporting Male Warrior Culture and trying to hide the corruption of the US judicial system exemplified by the Mumia case just before a potentially violent presidential convention protest season.

'Mamma Mia' is but a psyops dot in a vast psyops pointillist landscape, a tiny drop in a culture-wide haze of psyops mist loaded with social poisons.

Repeat:
Gender 'virtue' is the anchor of militarism for everyone and the Good Adam vs. Wicked Eve archetype is especially useful for the 50% of military recruits who come out of the former slave states in the south.

CIA-Time Magazine:

Note the synthesis of the two articles on female sexuality, one on page 46 about father-daughter "purity balls" and the one on page 57 about that sex-crazed hussie in 'Mamma Mia.' After recovering from the creepy "purity ball" article photo showing dads and daughters dressed up for what looks like the Incest Prom, we readers find buried at the very end of the text that...one of the fathers has had 9 children by 7 women.
That's a more accurate representation of which is the 'Problem Gender' than the media image of females as The Scarlet Woman Who Man Must Purify.

Note the negative framing of female entertainers, female politicians, and male whistleblowers through juxtaposition of symbols on page 18's "Pop Chart" scale from "shockingly predictable" to "shocking."
Hint:
Positively framed role-models all have their mouths closed looking serious
and
negatively framed role-models all have their mouths open looking comical.

The exact same 'mouth-based' subliminal framing is used in the ExxonMobil ad on the two-page inside front cover spread.

War psyops and insurance advertisement synthesize perfectly in the back cover life insurance ad where the young dad with baby in his arms looks like he's in Blackwater (why is the baby wearing clothes that look blood-spattered?) and a superimposed wispy haze of groovy youthful paisley really looks like camoflage clothing. Gosh, the ad's text curves around a faint Death's Head skull down at the father's beltline! This is classic exploitation of parafoveal priming which is the effect on the subconscious of images just outside the center of vision which pass into the brain unfiltered by critical thought. This is the equivalent of movie product placement where the hero holds a Starbucks coffee in his hand while he talks.

This insurance ad also mirrors an iconic photo of a US soldier named Joseph Dwyer who just committed suicide on June 28, 2008. Dwyer was a medic who was photographed by the Army Times with an Iraqi child in his arms and the photo was mass-marketed as a propaganda device. This same photo subject has been used as US propaganda in every war since WWII. Now that this temporary hero has become another war victim, the life insurance ad replaces it while subliminally exploiting it for risk-based commerce and reminding the audience of the guardian ethos of the Sacred Male Warrior.

If this insurance ad doesn't tell you how basic subliminal media technology really is, you need to catch up on the wide-spread mainstream meida psyops that is done every single day in the name of national security.

Check out Time Magazine's sports article and book blurb on page 18 which synthesize to support Stop-Loss. The book is a spook limited hang-out book by Jane Mayer loaded with lies and she just did a big tour of progressive media to ingratiate herself with both Pacifica Radio's audience and naive NPR liberals using deceptive 'me-too-ism' during Congressional hearings on torture.

Check out the clean sunny photos on page 35 of US soldiers in Afghanistan looking like summer camp counselors to Afghans.

Check all the ads very carefully.
Check for gender messages about capable/moral males vs incapable/immoral females, like page 5 vs page 9.

Note the subliminal negative framing of women in ads on pages 29 and 43.

There are two pages in a row taking another stab at Obama.
On page 21 there's a follow-up essay on the New Yorker cover flap with a photo of it as a target full of darts. Smear repeated and amplified.
On the next page there's a pizza ad with a brown face that looks like Obama's which implies low-status hucksterism and appealing to superficial urges.

Note the two very visually-boring black and white pages of poll results on American's economic attitudes on pages 40-41 saying they DO want the New Deal social safety nets...followed on the next page with an opinion piece that seems to refute those results with a misleading statistic dead center AND has a nicely colored photo of a silhouetted male waving an American flag against a blue sky.

Perfect heuristic psyops for the many people who skim the magazine.
What little truth presented is cleverly minimized and then countered with manipulative editing that sells the equivalent of Reaganomics.

Once you sensitize yourself to subliminal framing, especially of gender, AND KNOW THE AGENDA, you'll be astounded by how much of it is linked to concurrent news cycle management in the same media long used by CIA.

It is long past time to stop being a coincidence theorist and start paying closer attention to the perception management editing techniques exploiting basic linguistics, mnemonic neuroscience, and social psychology...and WATCH spooks run this country with mainstream media psyops every single day to carry out what military doctrine calls "stability operations."

[8bitagent]

God that cover makes me want to vomit.

The "Right" war? Fuck you Time magazine and every liberal and Bush bot who thinks Afghanistan is the "right war"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_c ... present%29

[MinM]

Bill Colby..Hank Luce..and the boys, would be proud.

The Return of PSYOPS

Henry Luce

Ben Bradlee

Joesph Alsop

Cord Meyer

Jack Anderson

Walter Pincus


Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 70,00.html

[8bitagent]

Someone should have told Colby that helping expose the Franklin Coverup is bad for your health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby#Death

On Saturday, April 27, 1996, Colby died in an apparent boating accident near his home in Rock Point, Maryland, although his body was actually found, underwater, on Monday, May 6, 1996. The subsequent inquest found that he died from drowning and hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe, and there was no further investigation.

[edit] Theories about death

Although the inquest into Colby's death found he had died of natural causes, there were some suspicious circumstances: he rarely went canoeing at night; he had not spoken to his wife of any plans to go canoeing; his house was unlocked, with the radio and computer on and the remains of a meal on the table; there was no sign of the life-jacket his friends said he usually wore; and his body was found approximately 20 yards from the canoe (itself found 100 yards from the house) after the area had been thoroughly searched several times. Some allegations that Colby was murdered have been made:

* Dr. Deko Dekov asserts that the former FBI Director Louis Freeh killed Colby. [1]

* Dr. Steven Greer, alleges that the U.S. government killed Colby because of his knowledge of extraterrestrial technology.[5]

* Kay Griggs, ex-wife of United States Marine Corps Colonel George Griggs, has alleged that Colby was murdered.[6]

* John DeCamp, who claims to have been a close friend of Colby, has stated in his book, The Franklin Coverup, that Colby was murdered because he knew too much about corruption in US politics.[7]

[MinM]

[Nordic]

Yeah, TIME is the worst. I figured it out while I was still in high school.

My parents subscribed to it. For a TIME I believed it to be the authority on just about everything. Then I started realizing there were different versions of "the truth" out there and it became pretty freaking obvious that TIME was trying to shove its version of reality down my throat, and what really bothered me was how pompous it was. It had the attitude that they knew better than anybody about everything, especially how to fix damn near everything.

I hate that fucking magazine.

I mean my GOD that fucking Obama cover -- "Why the economy is trumping race". Can you believe the fucking audacity of that? Maybe "why having someone with half a fucking BRAIN is trumping lying and stupidity and major clusterfucks in every department, not just the economy" is actually more the truth, but nooooooo, TIME has it all figured out and is telling us, the poor STUPID dipshit of a reader, what the truth really is, and it's about how people care so much about money than anything else, they'll even vote for a nigger!

Disgusting.

God I hate them.

[Perelandra]

Yes, yes, and yes. The banner made me think of the crude popular slogan, "bros before hos", which example of misogyny has deep roots, going back to the Greeks and further. I appreciate your exploration of modern ramifications.

I've had a deep distrust and hatred of marketing and advertisement since I was a child, and was fortunate to grow up without too much of it. I'm paranoid for my own now, and actually have to struggle with some otherwise well-meaning influences. It's not easy to ask people to turn the movie or tv off, or not buy things, etc. An innocent request seems to be such a big issue for many. Part of the program?

None of this is new, yeah. The shadows have been apparent to me for a long time, but it's amazing how little to nothing of the reality is widely known.

Thanks for all you do. I'm learning more every day.

[2012 Countdown]

You know, that Momma Mia post you made is only half as laughable now.

I'll throw out another layer to your presentation. McCain has said he is a huge ABBA fan and saw Momma Mia!

McCain Defends ABBA: "Everybody Goes To Mamma Mia"
CNN's Political Ticker | August 15, 2008 09:13 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/1 ... 19117.html


Coincidence?

[Uncle $cam]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/012805.html

Money, Media & the Mess in America

By Robert Parry
January 28, 2005

Sometime after 2009, when historians pick through the wreckage left behind by George W. Bush’s administration, they will have to come to grips with the role played by the professional conservative media infrastructure.

Indeed, it will be hard to comprehend how Bush got two terms as President of the United States, ran up a massive debt, and misled the country into at least one disastrous war – without taking into account the extraordinary influence of the conservative media, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, from the Washington Times to the Weekly Standard.

Recently, it’s been revealed, too, that the Bush administration paid conservative pundits Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher while they promoted White House policies. Even fellow conservatives have criticized those payments, but the truth is that the ethical line separating conservative “journalism” from government propaganda has long since been wiped away.

For years now, there’s been little meaningful distinction between the Republican Party and the conservative media machine.

In 1982, for instance, South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon established the Washington Times as little more than a propaganda organ for the Reagan-Bush administration. In 1994, radio talk show host Limbaugh was made an honorary member of the new Republican House majority.

The blurring of any ethical distinctions also can be found in documents from the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush administration began collaborating secretly with conservative media tycoons to promote propaganda strategies aimed at the American people.

In 1983, a plan, hatched by CIA Director William J. Casey, called for raising private money to sell the administration’s Central American policies to the American public through an outreach program designed to look independent but which was secretly managed by Reagan-Bush officials.

The project was implemented by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to the National Security Council staff and put in charge of a “perception management” campaign that had both international and domestic objectives.

In one initiative, Raymond arranged to have Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch chip in money for ostensibly private groups that would back Reagan-Bush policies. According to a memo dated Aug. 9, 1983, Raymond reported that “via Murdock [sic], may be able to draw down added funds.” [For details, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

Besides avoiding congressional oversight, privately funded activities gave the impression that an independent group was embracing the administration’s policies on their merits. Without knowing that the money had been arranged by the government, the public would be more inclined to believe these assessments than the word of a government spokesman.

“The work done within the administration has to, by definition, be at arms length,” Raymond wrote in an Aug. 29, 1983, memo.

In foreign countries, the CIA often uses similar techniques to create what intelligence operatives call “the Mighty Wurlitzer,” a propaganda organ playing the desired notes in a carefully scripted harmony. Only this time, the target audience was the American people.

Payoffs

In the 1980s, there were also propaganda operations directly comparable to the payments to Williams and Gallagher.

In a May 13, 1985, memo, which surfaced during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan-Bush official Jonathan Miller boasted about what he called “white propaganda” successes. As an example, he cited the Wall Street Journal’s publication of a pro-administration opinion piece on Nicaragua that had been written by a government consultant, history professor John Guilmartin Jr.

“Officially, this office had no role in its preparation,” wrote Miller, who worked out of the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy. “The work of our operation is ensured by our office’s keeping a low profile.”

At the time, a Reagan-Bush National Security Council official told me that the administration’s domestic propaganda campaign was modeled after CIA psychological operations abroad where information is manipulated to bring a population into line with a desired political position.

“They were trying to manipulate [U.S.] public opinion – using the tools of Walt Raymond’s tradecraft which he learned from his career in the CIA covert operations shop,” the official said.

Another administration official offered a similar description to the Miami Herald’s Alfonso Chardy. “If you look at it as a whole, the Office of Public Diplomacy was carrying out a huge psychological operation, the kind the military conduct to influence the population in denied or enemy territory,” the official said.

After disclosure of these “perception management” schemes, a legal opinion by the congressional General Accounting Office concluded that the administration’s secret operation amounted to “prohibited covert propaganda activities designed to influence the media and the public to support the administration’s Latin American policies.”

Expansion

But these ad hoc propaganda tactics of the 1980s didn’t go away.

With the investment of billions of dollars over the next two decades, the strategy grew into the permanent conservative media machine that we know today, a vast echo chamber to amplify conservative messages on TV, in newspapers, through magazines, over talk radio, with book publishing and via the Internet.

This media machine gives conservatives and Republicans a huge political advantage both during elections and between elections. It has even changed how Americans perceive the world and what information they rely on to make decisions.

The clout of this conservative media machine explains why millions of viewers to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News believe “facts” that aren’t facts, such as their stubborn beliefs that the Bush administration did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was collaborating with al-Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks.

These days, a large number of Americans are fed a steady diet of conservative propaganda disguised as information – and millions more are influenced by the conservative messages that pervade TV, radio and print.

But the influence doesn’t stop there. Since the 1980s, this conservative media machine – often in collaboration with Republican politicians – has targeted and pressured mainstream journalists who discover information that conflicts with the propaganda.

Many independent-minded mainstream reporters have seen their careers damaged or destroyed after being denounced as “liberal” or “anti-American.” Other journalists have protected themselves by tilting their reporting to the right or avoiding many controversial stories altogether.

So, in 2002-2003, for instance, the major news media largely acquiesced to – rather than challenged – the Bush administration’s false claims about Iraqi WMD.

When some mainstream reporters, such as the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus, did produce skeptical WMD stories, the articles were killed or buried deep inside the papers where they got little attention. By contrast, editors at the Washington Post and the New York Times trumpeted the administration’s WMD charges on their front pages.

New Rationales

In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the conservative news media continued to hype every false alarm suggesting that WMD had been found, possibly explaining why so many Americans think WMD was discovered.

Whenever that would happen, even at a small outlet like Consortiumnews.com, we would get e-mails from conservative readers demanding that we apologize to President Bush for doubting his word.

Surely at large news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post, the stakes were much higher. If WMD caches had been found, any reporter who had displayed any skepticism before the Iraq invasion would have been pilloried by the right-wing media and its legions of angry e-mail writers.

Those future historians gazing back on the Bush administration should not underestimate this fear factor in explaining why so few journalists at the major news outlets were willing to take the chance.

It’s also true that while career death awaited any journalist who questioned the WMD case – if stockpiles had been found – journalists have not suffered any serious consequences for buying into the Bush administration’s false claims. Most right-wing commentators simply have shifted their war rationales and continued to berate critics of Bush’s war policies.

The Game

Rather than face up to any responsibility for the deaths of more than 1,400 U.S. soldiers and the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the propaganda game has just moved on.

Indeed, listening to the continued angry rhetoric on Fox News or right-wing talk radio, a listener would get the impression that these very well-paid, mostly white men were part of some persecuted minority, not a group of privileged individuals wielding extraordinary power.

By now, the huge investment of money in this conservative media machine may mean that even if conservative “journalists” did reach an honest conclusion that their behavior was damaging the United States, they would be hard pressed to change course.

That’s because like any large bureaucracy, the conservative media machine has taken on a life of its own.

Thousands of conservative “journalists” are dependent on its perpetuation for their livelihoods. There are mortgages to pay and school tuitions due. It’s much easier just to continue doing the job and keeping the assembly lines of propaganda humming, rather than trying to shut the operation down or dramatically change the product.

In that way, the conservative “journalists” are like workers in a factory that’s polluting a river which flows through the neighboring countryside. If the pollution is stopped, they fear they will lose their jobs. So it’s in their interest to fight environmental controls, keep the factory running and leave it to someone else to clean up the mess.

Dirty Money

Another aspect of the conservative media corruption can be found in where some of the right-wing money originates.

The evidence is clear, for instance, that the wealth of one major conservative media tycoon – Rev. Sun Myung Moon – traces back to money illicitly laundered into the United States and possibly even to operatives connected to organized crime.

In the late 1970s, a congressional investigation, headed by Rep. Donald Fraser, discovered that Moon was a South Korean intelligence operative whose operations were financed from secretive bank accounts in Japan. Investigators also uncovered Moon’s close ties to the Japanese yakuza crime syndicate which runs drugs, gambling and prostitution rings in Asia.

Moon also associated with right-wing South American leaders implicated in cocaine trafficking. In 1980, Moon’s organization aided Bolivia’s “Cocaine Coup” conspirators who overthrew a left-of-center government and seized dictatorial power. The violent coup installed drug-tainted military officers at the head of Bolivia’s government, giving the putsch the nickname the “Cocaine Coup.”

U.S. government evidence about Moon’s money-laundering activities led to his conviction for tax fraud in 1982. But in that same year, flush with seemingly unlimited supplies of cash, Moon established the Washington Times as a reliable booster of Reagan-Bush policies.

Since then, the theocrat, who considers himself the new Messiah, has become a political untouchable in Washington. Both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush made special pronouncements about how valuable they considered Moon’s newspaper.

After leaving office, George H.W. Bush gave paid speeches on behalf of Moon’s front groups. Though the exact amount of Moon’s payments to Bush has never been revealed, one former Unification Church official told me the Moon organization had budgeted $10 million for the ex-president.

[For details on Moon’s background and his ties to the Bush family, see Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Confusion

So, Armstrong Williams might be understandably confused by the furor over his $241,000 grant from Bush’s Education Department to promote the “no children left behind” program. The same may be true of columnist Maggie Gallagher who touted Bush’s pro-marriage policies while on a $21,500 contract from the Department of Health and Human Services.

After all, many of their conservative colleagues have taken buckets full of money from Moon’s bottomless well of cash.

Amid this moral confusion on the Right – as the U.S. national treasury is drained, the dollar sinks to record lows and American soldiers die in a war launched for a fake reason – it’s getting harder and harder to notice any bright ethical lines.

[Sounder]

Hugh, you are a treasure.

The bringing of subliminal programming to conscious awareness is a great service to the community.

While many may think that you overreach at times, few can doubt that you do the exposing better than anyone else around.

[kelley]

'the right war'?

may i suggest the soldier pictured on the cover is looking past the mountains, to, oh, maybe, pakistan?

hugh? anyone?

[elpuma]

Hugh, you are a treasure.

The bringing of subliminal programming to conscious awareness is a great service to the community.

While many may think that you overreach at times, few can doubt that you do the exposing better than anyone else around.

I agree! Whether HMW is right or wrong can be debated. However everyone should question the media, and all citizens should question authority. Because most people don't, we are constantly being shoehorned into an "eternal recurrence" of the same crap.... the present iteration of which is the Obama/McCain dog and pony show.

[beeline]

Wow. Hugh, I'm beginning to think you're right. Keep it up.

[KeenInsight]

This has little to do with Time magazine itself, but I have noticed on every newspaper around where I live Hillary Clinton is always given a less than flattering picture. It usually frames her looking crazed and shouting on the front cover. It's Hillary, of course, but the negative framing is completely obvious.

[whipstitch]

This has little to do with Time magazine itself, but I have noticed on every newspaper around where I live Hillary Clinton is always given a less than flattering picture. It usually frames her looking crazed and shouting on the front cover. It's Hillary, of course, but the negative framing is completely obvious.

Drudge is a master of this. Here are some of the more flattering ones...