Home | About | Donate

Zero for 40 at Predicting Attacks: Why Do Media Still Take FBI Terror Warnings Seriously


Zero for 40 at Predicting Attacks: Why Do Media Still Take FBI Terror Warnings Seriously

Adam Johnson

On Monday, several mainstream media outlets repeated the latest press release by the FBI that country was under a new “heightened terror alert” from “ISIL-inspired attacks” “leading up to the July 4th weekend.” One of the more sensational outlets, CNN, led with the breathles


It's amazing how many uniformed automotons don't recognize the Stasi tactics because the uniforms have changed.

This "If you see something, say something" is the age-old recipe for the ultimate "snitch state."

Trust is the glue that holds relationships together from marital unions to cohesive social or political groups where persons share commitments to social ideals; and plan actions on that basis. The antithesis of trust is the spied upon--"anyone could be looking/watching/listening in at any time"--mentality.

Trust us! ... Because We're watching you!

The elites win on a number of fronts for maintaining the scare tactics:

  1. WHEN the next event happens (and it's at least a 50-50 chance it will be an inside job), they can say "we warned you."
  2. The hyped up "fear factor" maintains the rationale for all the money dumped into the idiot Homeland Security operations (and human "resources")
  3. The climate of distrust acts as deterrence to the sort of cohesion that makes groups (preferably, those opposed to the martial/fascist status quo) effective
  4. This uber-patriotic climate supports authoritarian claims and sets up a pretext for punishing dissenters (or those who question today's authority figures... "By their fruit ye shall know them." Indeed!)

Good article, Mr. Johnson. It's important for journalists to call out the bull-shit that is now in place as a substitution for sane, humane, just, fair, and wise government/leadership.


Paid trolls love to turn matters of major social significance either into:

  1. A flaw in the spokesperson's background, funding, persona
  2. A matter that is merely personal and only requires that said individual change what he or she is doing... in this case, turn away from mainstream media.

While many people have, in fact, done that, the FACT remains that mass media impacts millions of persons. And since MILLIONS of persons were not accidentally misinformed about the alleged relationship between Saddam Hussein and the events of 911; and an equal number purposely led to believe that Iraq possessed "Weapons of mass destruction," added to the idea that "Saddam gassed his own people," it is significant that mass media uses its position of privileged leadership (having had its oligarchs twist arms to gain almost entire control of the nation's radio stations, TV stations, and print media) for the express purposes of: propagandized messages, phenomenal streams of dis-information, fake narratives, and other distortions used for things as odious as engendering foreign wars of aggression on the basis of cases FIXED FOR WAR: This qualifies as THE Supreme Crime Against Humanity.

In other words, when mass media tells the same lies often, it acts as a co-conspirator in crimes of major magnitude.

To turn THIS problem around by suggesting that Mr. Johnson merely PERSONALLY avoid the media is a way of pretending no massive problem exists.

But that is your job, right? To poke fun at whatever writers you can, supply glib one liners that work to turn significant matters into superficial phenomena, and otherwise shoot messengers through a variety of character assassinating techniques and tactics. And that's when you don't turn the conversation towards trivia.


Siouxrose has your number clearly defined.


Thank you. Dubet is hardly alone.

I recently met a brilliant man (I say this because lighting hit the outside AC unit on my mobile home and he was able to take it apart and figure out what tiny computer chip had been damaged and fixed it!) who is VERY well-read and we now exchange info on great documentaries, books, etc. In any case, he's from California and he told me that he'd seen footage showing young people sitting in rooms where all they do is sit at computer terminals working websites with Talking Points favorable to "their sponsors." These days, with war functions privatized and corporations having more rights than citizens, the lines between one entity and another are blurred. Bottom line: these entities pay to have opinions shaped and they use the Internet (chat rooms, message boards) almost as much as the MSM.

Thank you for noticing!


A favor of fear


Watching cable news, one is subjected to all those blinky "RED ALERTS!" and scare crawlers - it's nothing but fear-mongering.
I know, it's overkill for failing to warn the public about 9-11. There were warnings, but it seems they were not specific enough to do much good. The present fear mongering works marvelously for psychological conditioning.
There was an ominous undercurrent in the military community that something was stirring summer 2001. A friend of mine was planning to go from reserve to active duty June 2001. He insinuated that "something" was going to happen and they had to amp up their manpower. I also picked this up from another source in the military.
After the Charleston attack, more churches have burned. All over the internet, there are militant and racist groups spewing more hatred and inciting language, there are Neo-Confederates advocating secession, and slews of other domestic threats. (I'm not even going to start on Fox News and how they spin the current situation in the south, such as Charleston.) It was said the FBI also monitored white supremacists through COINTELPRO. So, where are they now? Is DHS going to stop another attack on a black church? How is the NSA going to stop another mass shooting with their mass surveillance?
And what about grassroots watchdog groups? Are the watchdogs asleep at the masters' feet?
I am not worried about ISIS in the region where I live. What would they do in the little town where I live? Blow up some cows?