The best way to arrive at the truth is to first figure out what the media are trying to sell you. The people at the top are aware of all the ongoing scams and revel in them. One must understand that people at the top don't read the MSM or turn on the telly to find out what's happening in the world - they have their friends for that. They read and they turn on tellies to find out what's being sold to you.
It's an informal setup. People who don't perform are shut out. It's a cruel game up that high. But they're all in for a penny and a pound and they rarely go away willingly.
First learn to view the world through their eyes. Then use that perspective to see what their agendas are. There are myriad agendas, not just one. A single agenda and a NWO and worldwide conspiracy? Leave that to kooks like Alex Jones. Think Occam. The easiest is the truthiest.
As an example, what about the Bonniers in Sweden? Yesterday a clip from National Geographic made the rounds. How many people realise the Bonniers profit every time you view their clips on YouTube? Probably not a lot.
How about the Bonniers and Julian Assange? Oh wow - there's a story! But let's go back to 2009 or earlier to see what's going on. In fact, let's jump first to 2006 and then play 'ketchup' and skip to 2009, then to the present day, to Julian's Xmas speech from the balcony at 3 Hans Crescent in Knightsbridge.
Settle in for the ride.
The Bonniers are a clan that run a huge media empire. But by 2006 their empire was in real trouble. There was a new government about to take office in Sweden and for the first time in a really long time, it wasn't going to be the usual social democrat government. It was going to be a government advised by - Karl Rove.
Yes, that Karl Rove. Bush's Brain. Turd Blossom. Advising prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
The Republicans have an international arm. That arm's been cultivating Fredrik Reinfeldt for over thirty years. And Karl Rove came in as a campaign adviser for Fredrik's 'New Conservatives' for the most recent election. What's been tossed out of Washington DC has been welcomed into Sweden. By Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Governments take over almost immediately after an election in Sweden. Elections are most often held in September. This is actually cool as it means the campaigns will be during the summertime when most people are away on holidays and care less about politics than ever. It also probably means less money is wasted on campaigns. Those are good things.
But the Bonniers saw a bad thing coming and they needed to talk to Rove's Reinfeldt's people about it. For the reigning social democrat government gave the Bonniers no rest.
The Bonniers are one of those curious clans where for some unknown reason they keep trying to break the law. All in the name of greed of course. But Sweden has some pretty cool laws to stop the worst of that.
Television in Sweden: a touchy subject. Like most European countries, television starts as owned by the state. Which is why it's so boring. Then cable comes along. And Swedes literally get worried their society will collapse because there's too much to choose from. But cable or not, most people watch the terrestrial channels anyway. And the Swedish state has a monopoly there.
[Yes true. Swedes prefer one brand for every product. 50 TV channels? They panicked! Worse: they actually recommended the country not allow cable TV at all because TV viewers would be woefully confused. Welcome to Sweden. Ed.]
The monopoly's funded by taxes and 'licence fees'. There's no insight to speak of. Which is why there's so much graft. Collecting licence fees? They have special vans with antennas on their roofs that look like they come out of a cheap science fiction movie. They patrol the neighbourhoods to 'triangulate' on the criminals. The antennas are mostly for show. They tell people in advance what neighbourhoods they'll be inspecting.
They inundate their own television channels with scary advertisements public service announcements about people getting caught and fined and shamed. Then they use public records to find out who has a TV licence and who doesn't. Then they drop scary letters through mail slots for those who haven't paid their tribute.
[Don't ask former social democrat PM candidate Mona Sahlin about this - she has a TV, never paid her licence fee. She got caught. Ed.]
And so it goes. The government hold a monopoly on television (and radio too) for the longest time. They provide two channels appropriately named TV1 and TV2. They regularly conduct surveys to find out what shows are the most popular. Something like a free election under Saddam Hussein. Great variety. Perhaps six hours per day in the good old days and half the time all they got is a clock onscreen so you can wait for the next show to begin. Seriously.
The other half of the time it's copycat live shows where people who know others who already work there get gigs as game show hosts and trip over their own feet on stage and then trip again on the way to the bank.
Or cheap pseudo-documentaries so they can save the cash for important things like their trip to the Cannes Film Festival with fancy rooms at the Carlton.
Pros all the way.
[Sweden has the biggest representation by far at the Cannes Film Festival and the state TV staff go berserk in their office corridors in the spring each year trying to get on board - this leaked by people working there who obviously don't approve. Ed.]
Enter one Jan Stenbeck. A media mogul from up north. He starts expanding into cable. Stenbeck starts a really shitty cable TV company called Kabelvision. They install cable in Sweden's households, 52% of which are blocks of flats, often owned by municipalities. Quality is abhorrent but that doesn't stop Stenbeck.
Stenbeck's also into mobile. Of course he is. And most importantly - Stenbeck's into television.
Stenbeck starts a new Swedish TV channel. He calls it TV3. But he can't broadcast terrestrially. That's illegal. As they agreed in the Swedish parliament: 'free television would threaten our democracy'. (They said that about radio too. Yes it's Orwellian. Welcome to Sweden.)
So this channel is actually a satellite channel and it's beamed to Sweden. One of Stenbeck's first discoveries is a cute blonde who later goes on to MTV in the UK and later still has an affair with one of the UK's most famous football coaches. TV3 is beamed into Swedish households - with Swedish advertising.
Television advertising is illegal in Sweden. The social democrats who rule in Sweden are livid. What does Stenbeck think he's doing? I'm not doing anything illegal, Stenbeck tells them. TV3 is a satellite channel. It's not Swedish. It's available to everybody. But the advertising is in the Swedish language and it targets Swedish consumers, say the government. So what? says Stenbeck. TV3 can target anybody in any country. TV3 is a satellite channel based in the UK and you guys have no jurisdiction there.
And so forth. An Ecuadorean stalemate. The government aren't giving up, Stenbeck's not giving in.
Stenbeck has a sister. And Stenbeck's sister hates sport. And Stenbeck likes to piss her off. So he gets a brilliant idea: hey let's put lots of sport on this TV3 to piss my sister off!
Brilliant. Then he discovers that most of the major sport events are traditionally bought up by state television and the Swedish people have come to see it as a sort of tradition that the biggest events are transmitted on state TV.
[There's also the matter of accessibility. TV3 reaches a few, state TV reaches 99.8% of all households at this time. Ed.]
Stenbeck is smart and he's filthy rich. He gets people to go out with bulging wallets to talk to the organisers of the big sport events and buy up exclusive transmission rights on everything.
Stenbeck now has the testicles of the Swedish government in a bear trap. They're panicking. They don't transmit the big events and there'll be mutiny. They approach Stenbeck on all four, caps in hand. That's precisely what Stenbeck wants.
One evening in the cold of that winter, there's a Mr Beadle boarding a commuter train headed north from the capital. He takes a seat in front of a group of people that includes one of the proprietors of this site. He begins laying out a lot of paperwork from his briefcase. Mr Beadle is a short man as all Mr Beadles are, and so it's easy to peek over his shoulder.
Before him, Mr Beadle has a secret agreement between the Swedish government and Jan Stenbeck.
The key details of that agreement:
Stenbeck will let Swedish state television have a 'T' in the feeds but with a time delay.
The Swedish government will in return get off Stenbeck's case about advertising on his TV3.
This leads to several comical situations. At one point, state television send their loveable clown Arne Hegefors south of town to a secret but ordinary flat in the burbs to watch a feed from Stenbeck. Hegefors has a direct feed back to state television and the illusion will be that he's actually on location for the event rather than holed up in a crappy flat in Skärholmen or wherever. But the media somehow find out.
But it also leads to the Swedish government mysteriously dropping their titanic battle with Jan Stenbeck. Free television is making its way in - free television funded by advertisers - and there's nothing more the social democrats can do about it.
The Swedish government decide to fight back by passing a new law allowing for one - and only one - commercially financed independent television channel. The channel will be called TV4. And there will be strict rules about how this channel will be operated. But it will be a terrestrial channel as opposed to Stenbeck's satellite TV3.
Ads can only be shown before and after transmissions. And so forth. And most importantly: the new channel TV4 must have a consortium of investors so that no single investor has more than a 50% share.
Further: there must be at least three major investors.
Stenbeck's in on this one of course, but so are the Bonniers. The Bonniers want in on it bad. But the Bonniers aren't going to settle for a pithy share. They want it all - which as long as social democrats remain in power is an impossibility. The social democrats are all over the Bonniers like a cheap suit. The Bonniers keep trying tricks and the social democrats are there right away to rap their knuckles.
But now the Swedes tire of the corruption in the social democrat party - and are particularly furious over the tsunami scandal which results in a constitutional committee hearing - and so, in an historical election, they vote the social democrats out and vote Reinfeldt and Rove in.
The Bonniers are traditionally a 'liberal' clan. They own the country's biggest daily DN.se and the explosive tabloid Expressen. But they're liberal - they're not off the far right end like Reinfeldt and his sugar daddy.
But they can still do deals. They all understand the power of the almighty dollar and the need to skip past uncomfortable legislation from time to time.
So the Bonniers approach the coming Reinfeldt government with an innocent inquiry. The year is 2006.
Legislation surrounding TV4 was formulated in such a way that transgressions must be handled by a sitting government. That's to say that if the Bonniers should break the law, it doesn't count unless the government themselves file charges. And unless the government file charges, in effect no law has been broken.
That's a pretty stupid law, but leave that for now. For that's the way the law works. And up to now, the social democrats have been all over the Bonniers like flies to dung. But the Reinfeldt government might be people the Bonniers can finally talk to.
The Bonniers make it clear to Reinfeldt that they plan to buy up the remaining stock in the TV4 group. This group's making more money every day, having expanded into pay channels and who knows what. The Bonniers with their worldwide empire of printed publications (including Popular Mechanics and yes National Geographic) are bleeding cash. It's tough times. They need more revenue streams to hold them over.
Reinfeldt and the Bonniers of course reach an agreement. They're all reasonable people. Reinfeldt promises not to file charges against the Bonniers when they take over virtually 100% of TV4. And the Bonniers agree to pimp Reinfeldt in their media organisations - especially at election time.
This becomes extremely pivotal in the 2010 elections. News organisations usually have enough decency to make clear which printed words are fact and which are pure propaganda. DN.se and Expressen formally dispense with this and say so. Starting now, journalism in Sweden is no better than North Korea's. And it's all necessary, for the Bonniers must make sure Reinfeldt wins reelection. Otherwise the social democrats will take over and bust the Bonniers and leave them bankrupt.
The UN representatives tell Boström they've discovered an Israeli network selling body organs. They take Boström out to look at what they've found.
This has all been since proven to be true, but Boström wasn't entirely convinced at the time. He filed a report anyway with DN.se, calling for a full scale investigation, but unaware of who controlled what in the Bonnier empire. The Bonniers, a staunch Jewish clan, of course refused to publish Boström's piece. Boström then goes to the competitor Aftonbladet. And they're glad to publish.
Boström's article results in a full scale diplomatic crisis. It turns out the Bonniers even control the Swedish embassy in Israel. Their ambassador there, a Bonnier herself, comes out on the side of the Israelis and against her own country.
Sweden's Carl Bildt is drawn early on into the fracas. The Israelis demand Bildt intervene and get Aftonbladet to take Donald Boström's article offline. Bildt says 'nej' - Sweden has 'freedom of the press'.
But Aftonbladet? They don't take it sitting down - they send a team to the middle east to check out Boström's story, to get the answers to the questions he'd posed. And they get the answers they came looking for. The story checks out: there was indeed a network selling body parts.
[This is later made into a Turkish box office smash starring a plasticine Gary Busey as the evil Israeli doctor managing the body organ traffic. Ed.]
This in turn led to a full-blown investigation of the Bonniers headed by Assange friend Johannes Wahlström. Who just happens to be the son of anti-Zionist Israel Shamir from Counterpunch. You see where this is going now, don't you? Remember James Ball's betrayal?
Wahlström digs deep. And he gets all the dirt on the Bonniers. And it's a lot. And it's published at Aftonbladet. And Wahlström thereby makes himself Enemy of the Bonniers for Life.
Then Wahlström was tasked by Bosse Lindquist and Jesper Huor of state television to hike it on over to the UK and hang out with Julian Assange for a while. To get to know him. Lindquist and Huor were working on the acclaimed documentary 'WikiRebels' released in December 2010.
Boström → Wahlström → Assange. And don't forget Rick Falkvinge, also a Bonnier enemy for life. Bonnier intellectual property was under siege by the pirates. None of them were to get away unscathed.
Julian Assange was friends with all the wrong people.
Cut to the present. To the official Bonnier reaction to Julian's Xmas speech at 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London. Take the words of the Sweden versus Assange Twitter feed.
Swedish @dagensnyheter has as its top story the #Assange speech, yet article glaringly omits his renewed call to be questioned in UK.
What would @dagensnyheter's clear intentional failure to mention #Assange's call to be questioned in UK be due to? #svpol @wikileaks
@dagensnyheter Why hide this?: #Assange: 'the door is open - the door has always been open - for anyone who wishes to speak to me' #svpol
Instead, @dagensnyheter says #Assange 'has been hiding from Swedish justice for 6 months'.
If you've been following along, you realise those were all rhetorical questions. Because whoever's running the Sweden versus Assange Twitter feed, they obviously know the score. They know how to read the media. The media as an expression not of the truth but of what the people behind the organisations want you to believe.
It's very likely that few ducks in the pond have much of an inkling of what's been going on the past half year. Or of how the Ecuadoreans conducted a thorough study of the Assange situation. Of how they repeatedly approached the Swedes so as to break the impasse.
The Ecuadoreans were able to establish with absolute certainty that the judicial process in Sweden had long since been hijacked by forces under the control of the US. That the express purpose of keeping Assange first at Ellingham and then in Knightsbridge was to incapacitate his organisation and if possible get him into US custody. And this is why the Ecuadoreans decided to grant Assange asylum.
Most ducks in the pond are not aware of how their government representatives have been lying to the international media all along. They're not aware that Marianne Ny lied to TIME magazine in December 2010, they're not aware that the Swedish coverage of that interview was summarily scrubbed from the Internet in the days immediately after, they're not aware of how Carl Bildt lied to Jennifer Robinson when he told her the Swedish constitution prevented them from doing anything about the impasse, they're not aware that a representative from Carl Bildt's foreign office again lied to the media - this time to SvD.se - and got caught out by Ivan Johnson and had to retract, and they're certainly not aware of the final reaction of Bildt's office on Twitter that people should basically just 'fuck off'.
All the ducks know is what the media tell them. And the Bonniers have made it clear that Julian Assange is simply a lowlife trying to run from some serious charges of busting a condom and leaving his remote control mindreader at home. There is no mention of the Ecuadorean inquiry, of the WikiLeaks Task Force (WTF) at the Pentagon, of the FBI dossier on Assange weighing in at 42,135 pages, of the secret grand jury in Alexandria, of the sealed indictment against Assange revealed by Fred Burton of Stratfor. Not a mention of any of that.
And the 'journalists' writing for the 'competition' know the pond is small and there are effectively only two employers in the business and the Bonniers are by far the biggest of the two. You can't afford to be a Bonnier Enemy for Life. You have to be careful what you write.
Time and again Swedish journalists have been asked for their opinion in the Assange controversy, and time and again it's found their views are not very different from everyone else outside the pond. Yet when asked why they don't write about the case or if someone is preventing them from writing, they fall into a nervous silence. There's an incredible control being exerted on the Swedish media.
Why didn't Assange have an online chat at Expressen like he did with Aftonbladet, DN.se, SvD?
Why did Expressen's notorious editor-in-chief give permission to reveal Julian Assange's identity, breaking all rules of Swedish journalistic ethics?
Why did Expressen - owned and controlled by the Bonniers - start the smear campaign claiming WikiLeaks operatives were stalking their journalists?
Why do Bonnier attack dogs Hanne Kjöller and Karin Olsson always come with the same line in the Assange controversy and state openly they refuse to actually read up on the case?
Who published Daniel Domscheit-Berg's ridiculous book on WikiLeaks? (Yes it was the Bonniers through their German subsidiary.)
Who arranged for Domscheit-Berg's visit to Sweden for the release of his book?
Who was behind the staggering media blitz against Assange when he went to court in Belmarsh?
And so forth. Is there a single duck in the pond who knows? Who so much as wonders?
There are many journalists who know. And who wonder. But they're not allowed to step forward.
The 'truth' is kept simple in the pond. So it's easy for ducks to digest. No more Boströms making waves.