Mass Marketing, Bezos, the CIA and John Podesta

in conspiracy •  2 years ago

Enter the cousin of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. He was the very first person to use psychology in order to manipulate people en mass. At the time, people thought it was nonsense. In order to “prove” he could do it, he went to a cigarette company and said he could get women to smoke-which went against strict social mores of the time.

He made a “marketing campaign” wherein he asked women to “Light up for Liberty” with images of the Statue of Liberty -holding a lighted torch- and a liberty nickel from Lucky Strikes would go to men in the Army. Overnight the social taboo was broken, women began lighting up, and social mass marketing/ propaganda was born.

Credit: Edward L. Bernays Propaganda, The Public Mind in the Making.

Edward Bernays (1891–1995) pioneered the successful application of scientific technique in shaping and manipulating public opinion, which he famously dubbed “engineering of consent”, predating Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent (”.

During World War I, Bernay's was a member of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a propaganda apparatus that was mobilized to package, advertise and sell the war to the American people as one that would “Make the World Safe for Democracy.”

The CPI would become the blueprint upon which marketing strategies for future wars would be based.

Records of the Committee on Public Information (

Functions: Released government news during World War I.

Sustained morale.

Administered voluntary press censorship.

Committee work curtailed after July 1, 1918. Domestic activities discontinued after the Armistice was signed, November 11, 1918. Foreign operations discontinued, June 30, 1919.

The most fascinating documentary on American behavior, the BBC’s Century of the Self, is about Edward Bernays’ lasting effect on the American Psyche. Quite a testament that most people have never heard of him, yet the ripple effects of his efforts are all around us.

The Century of the Self (Full Documentary)

BBC/Century of the Self/Edward Bernays

People may be reminded of the famous quote attributed to CIA Director William Casey:

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Easily dismissed as a rumor or a fabrication, the question was asked on Quora in 2014:


Did William Casey (CIA Director) really say, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?


A disclaimer: I just like Quorans* ****debunking or showing the stupidity behind some of the worst FB memes.****

Reprinted in Full:

Barbara Honegger (, studied at Stanford University


I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.

The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the 'intelligence' that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.

As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public. -Barbara Honegger

Geoffrey Widdison (

Thank you for addressing this in person. Can you tell us what his demeanor was when he said it? Was it straight faced and serious? Was he being sardonic, or trying to make a larger point? Taken without context, it's hard for me to imagine a person saying this seriously. Even a person who believed in disinformation would have to be amazingly candid to say something like that. Can you offer any more insight into what he was trying to convey?

Barbara Honegger (

Hi, Geoffrey --
Thanks for the question. Casey expressed astonishment when reporting
the huge percentage of CIA 'intelligence' that was, and almost certainly
still is, based on open sources, and he was absolutely serious when
he said that the agency would be successful when everything the American
people believed was false.

Though not explicitly said at that time, it was made clear in other contexts during my two years in the West Wing in the highest level meetings that the pretext for this mentality was the claim that in a Cold War era when communications were essentially instantaneous, the vast majority of "the enemy's" -- then the Soviet Union's -- "intelligence" was also based on open press and media sources, so the most efficient way to lie to the Soviets was to lie in the U.S. and allied media, which meant the American public believing the lies was considered a kind of 'collateral damage.'

It should be lost on no one, that the person who asked the initial question likened one of the most important statements ever made about media and the American public to a “stupid facebook meme”.

While CIA Director Casey was discussing lying to the public via mass media with President Reagan in 1981, “paper of record”, The Washington Post was involved in a devastating scandal involving a faked article. It cost them a Pulitzer Prize and damaged their hard-won and well deserved reputation.

Seven years after Nixon’s resignation, upon which the paper made its mark in history (, The Washington Post suffered a huge blow to its credibility.

The Washington Post was forced to give back a Pulitzer Prize awarded to reporter Janet Cooke, after she admitted that her story about an 8-year-old heroin addict in Washington named Jimmy was a fabrication (

Over the years, the Washington Post has come under fire for various ethical and intellectual issues, summed up in one particularly scathing critique in The Nation, by none other than John Podesta’s* Center For American Progress’, Erik Alterman:

The Washington Post’s Problem (

The Post was forced to address this conundrum as it simultaneously grappled with a series of undoubtedly more serious challenges, ones that may threaten its very survival. These included the collapse of its business model—something all newspapers face—and a steep decline in the power and prestige of its product.

…Add to this a crisis of leadership at the top after attempts by the paper’s publisher and president to exploit its journalistic power for cash via expensive, exclusive salons, followed by a failed cover-up by executive editor Marcus Brauchli of his own role in them; and then attempts by Post Company chair and CEO Donald Graham to lobby lawmakers for favors for the paper’s sister enterprise, the Kaplan Higher Education Company, whose nefarious activities in the world of for-profit education have been the subject of considerable media and official scrutiny.

Then throw in the effects of endless rounds of buyouts of the paper’s most experienced (and therefore expensive) reporters and editors, the closing of every last one of its national bureaus, its shutout at the 2012 Pulitzer Prizes, and many more problems than we have room to mention here, and you have a crisis of institutional self-confidence for the paper’s leadership…

Amazon, The Washington Post and the CIA

Trust Fund Wunderkind, Jeff Bezos started Amazon with a $300,000 loan from mom and dad.

He founded Amazon at 30 with a $300,000 loan from his parents, working out of the garage in his rented home in Bellevue, Wash.

Jeff Bezos | American Entrepreneur

In late 2007 Amazon released a new handheld reading device called the Kindle
(—a digital book reader with wireless Internet connectivity enabling customers to purchase, download, read, and store a vast selection of books on demand. Amazon’s yearly net sales increased from $510,000 in 1995 to some $600 million in 1998 and to more than $19.1 billion in 2008.

Amazons Profits in Perspective

Why is Amazon not making money? In part, it's because the company invests a large share of its revenue for the future, saving little for investors. In 2012, the company spent nearly $3.9 billion on building data centers and fulfillment centers around the country. President Barack Obama visited one such fulfillment center in July, using it as an example of new job creation.

Jeff Bezos and Amazon:

Jeff Bezos purchases The Washington Post for $250 Million and after winning a judgement in its favor against IBM (, the CIA gives Amazon a contract for $600 Million.

Washington Post: Washington Post to be sold to Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (

Washington Post: Jeff Bezos purchases The Washington Post for $250 Million Dollars (

Amazon, ‘The Washington Post’ and That $600 MIllion CIA Contract (

Amazon Wins Ruling for $600 Million CIA Cloud Contract (

Amazon Wins Best Cloud In CIA Bake-Off - Information Week (

The distinction between “conflict of interest” and “consolidation of power” seems insignificant at this level. Functionally speaking the CIA and Jeff Bezos are Partners and Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post outright.

Under Amazon’s CIA Cloud: The Washington Post (

This often-quoted passage below in this piece against the contract from Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy contains a public statement from Jeff Bezos:

Norman Solomon (

News media should illuminate conflicts of interest, not embody them. But the owner of the Washington Post is now doing big business with the Central Intelligence Agency, while readers of the newspaper’s CIA coverage are left in the dark.
“Bezos personally and publicly touts Amazon Web Services, and it’s evident that Amazon will be seeking more CIA contracts. Last month, Amazon issued a statement saying, “We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA.”

As Amazon’s majority owner and the Post’s only owner, Bezos stands to gain a lot more if his newspaper does less ruffling and more soothing of CIA feathers.

Amazon has a bad history of currying favor with the U.S. government’s “national security” establishment. The media watch group FAIR pointed out what happened after WikiLeaks published State Department cables:

“WikiLeaks was booted from Amazon’s web hosting service AWS. So at the height of public interest in what WikiLeaks was publishing, readers were unable to access the WikiLeaks website.”

In 2017, after the 2016 election with all its intrigue, it’s worth re-visiting the same quote to see the last section.

“WikiLeaks was booted from Amazon’s web hosting service AWS. So at the height of public interest in what WikiLeaks was publishing, readers were unable to access the WikiLeaks website.”

Taken on its face, one could say Amazon, and Jeff Bezos have a pro-CIA, anti-WikiLeaks stance. In reality this was a pro-active step to silence dissenting media. If WikiLeaks defines itself as providing a safe place for publications obtained by dissenting whistleblowers, how is that going to play out in our current reality?

Institute for Public Accuracy, Norman Solomon (

When the main shareholder in one of the very largest corporations in the world benefits from a massive contract with the CIA on the one hand, and that same billionaire owns the Washington Post on the other hand, there are serious problems.

From the Petition, by Norman Solomon

“A basic principle of journalism is to acknowledge when the owner of a media outlet has a major financial relationship with the subject of coverage. We strongly urge the Washington Post to be fully candid with its readers about the fact that the newspaper’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA.

The Washington Post’s coverage of the CIA should include full disclosure that the sole owner of the Post is also the main owner of Amazon -- and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”

Regardless of anyone’s position- pro, con or “it’s complicated”; John Podesta’s reputation was greatly affected by Wikileaks in particular. Among other things, people connect Wikileaks and the ensuing fallout directly to the loss of the 2016 Presidential election.

Podesta, arguably the “most inside” Democratic political insider, joins the Washington Post after a strange re-emergence into public life following the intense loss.

When asked about his emails (

) and indirectly about being accused of being involved in an underground pedophilia ring, Podesta says:

You know it’s interesting, because it’s subterranean.
You don’t see it.
It shows up in the Facebook feed.
But you don’t see it because it’s not…If anything it’s being debunked in the mainstream media.
So in those sources of news, you don’t “touch and feel it” as much as you’d imagine.
But it’s sinister.
And you’s a kind of vile stream that’s running under the ground.
And it begins to take it’s toll.

This maudlin encapsulation of his personal experience struck some as a Freudian confession.

Though he mentions Facebook, much of the story of pizzagate unfolded in part due to the salacious public Instagram and photos involving children of John Podesta’s friends, and jokes about sexualizing children on other social media sites like tumblr.



Podesta’s taste for art about cannibalism, didn’t put anyone at ease.

After his humiliating loss and being called a “loser” by supreme insider Lynn de Rothschild, to whom even Hillary Clinton kow-tows, Podesta finds a sheltered position from which to control the narrative.



Depending on the vantage point, being backed by a paper who’s owner is partnering with the CIA is either proof of your innocence- or your guilt.

John Podesta joins The Washington Post as a contributing columnist.(

No one knows more abouthow Washington works, how the White House operates, and how policy ideas are translated into reality than John Podesta,”

The emphasis is deliberate, but illustrates the point. Podesta’s story was the story which created the tagline “fake news”. If this is just nasty rumor, indeed if this is, “fake”, then why are we seeing piece after piece from the Washington Post about it?
Why is this major news paper suddenly in the business of defending a political insider from slander?



As early as 2015, The Washington Post pulled no punches with allegations against Bill Clinton publishing this piece, listing all of the accusations in a neat and orderly guide, including all the rape allegations A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing


So why is this different? Why are the allegations against Podesta different? Is it, “because it’s subterranean”? The accusations against Podesta didn’t come from “above ground sources”, they came from leaks. The leaks broke the veil, and people saw what was behind the curtain.

Would any of this even be happening if not for Wikileaks? Knowing the damage done to Podesta by Wikileaks and knowing Bezos’ stance regarding WikiLeaks, and knowing the CIA’s anger at WikiLeaks publishing the CIA toolkit, “Vault 7”, what do we make of The Washington Post’s latest piece about the murder of DNC Voter outreach data analyst, Seth Rich ?

WikiLeaksCIA Vault 7 Release: (

Julian Assange on Dutch TV:


A conspiratorial tale of murder.


“The Rich story has taken on elements of the Comet Ping Pong conspiracy, a false and preposterous tale


So, the Washington Post defends Podesta and his pizza pal yet again.

As Caitlin Johnston points out,

“all the escalations with Russia that have transpired since the November elections are dependent upon Seth Rich not having been the leaker.”


Wikileaks addresses this directly by quoting Podesta:
Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it."

After finding out that Reddit has been editing Seth Rich’s newly found accounts, Johnston goes on to draw this final conclusion:

If Rich had been able to step forward and let everyone know that he was WikiLeaks’ source and not Russia, the American people would never consent to these potentially world-ending escalations with a nuclear superpower, and America’s deep state would lose geopolitical power and influence. Can’t have that. Dead men tell no tales.

So who do you trust?

The CIA and men like Podesta have realized the power of what Bernays said so long ago with chilling eloquence:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

—Edward Bernays, Propaganda

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

That's an awesome article. All kinds of info here.

wikileaks WikiLeaks tweeted @ 30 Oct 2016 - 23:46 UTC

Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it."……

LdeRothschild Lynn de Rothschild tweeted @ 22 Feb 2017 - 06:49 UTC

@johnpodesta this is pathetic;HRC lost because you ran an arrogant out of touch campaign;you have destroyed a great……

Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.