It
is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when
powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we
see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage
in.
-Julian
Assange
“You
will always have partial points of view, and you'll always have the
story behind the story that hasn't come out yet. And any form of
journalism you're involved with is going to be up against a biased
viewpoint and partial knowledge.”
-Margaret
Atwood
The
lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation,
disinformation and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most
people's lives - has overrun real journalism.
-Carl
Bernstein
This message is directed
globally to all mainstream press, major network news organizations and
affiliates and all other news outlets and reporters (including cbs, nbc, abc,
cnn, towers productions and others) controlled/influenced by the fbi/cia, or any
other government entity:
Each of you is in default
of your duty to the world's population, to your profession, and to Humanity, for
refusing to print/publish/air/report/investigate the atrocities being committed
by the fbi/cia and other government agencies.
Specifically, you refuse to cover
in your so-called work any mention (inter alia) of the ongoing terrorist
practices of the fbi/cia that I and others report on this website
(sosbeevfbi.com) regarding the United States government's unlawful targeting for
death/torture of certain individuals; you also refuse to report on the growing
evidence of United States' sponsored terrorism here at home and abroad,
especially as such crimes (by the fbi/cia) involve the use of drugs, chemicals,
biological agents, high tech electronic human experimentation and related war
games (on some targets) and the widespread dehumanizing mind control efforts by
this nation's government.
As a result of your fraud
and deceit, you personally are responsible for the continuation of the
unnecessary killing and the torturing by the fbi/cia of people who have no
defense to the high-tech cut throats in our government to whom (by your
subservience) you pay homage ; such thugs operate impliedly in silent
association with you and threaten people everywhere on the
planet.
The demise of your
profession is in the making now and you know it; yet, you still refuse to honor
your duty; further, your self-enrichment through obedience to the fbi/cia's
terms of broadcasting is evident everywhere and you (each and everyone) are now
seen in a historical perspective as the mirror reflection of a corrupt and
sinister system which cannot ever be trusted again by the people of the
world.
-Former FBI Agent Geral
Sosbee (2002)
This
report will address an important question: Is there intelligent life
on the Internet?
I've
worked as a journalist for a very long time. I've worked in the
so-called mainstream media, as a radio, TV producer/host, and in
print media, writing independently for periodicals, newspapers.
I've
never been a “reporter”, rather, an advocacy journalist, with a
focus on specific issues, and have done all my own investigations. I
have maintained a policy of not allowing my work to be edited before
publication, but only to be published with the proviso that it was a
“hands off” deal, or no deal at all. (This was before the
Internet, when self-publishing was not much of an option.)
To
be very clear, I am not interested in “reporting the news” and I
don't run a “news” site, rather an archive of my work, going back
for more than two decades. Just in case any of my adversaries on the
hard left (or more to the point, in the government) want to accuse me
of being a purveyor of “fake news”, the latest craze.
I've
not been an “employee” of any news organization, though I worked
for a few years at one radio station in Greenwich, CT (WGCH), where I
had a small salary which came in part from advertisers for my
programs. As the producer of my own shows, I determined the content.
In
1990, I was arrested in Greenwich, with other activists, for
protesting the torture of small animals for cosmetics testing. My
photo appeared on the front page of The Greenwich Time, and the
manager of the station called me into his office, expressing his
concern that since I was a public figure, as representative of the
station, maybe I should consider “toning down” my activities.
I
refused, and told him, You do what you have to do, and I'll do what I
have to do.
(He
was a very nice man and I'm sure he was only answering to the owners
of the station and their interest in maintaining the “image” of
the station. If you've ever lived in Greenwich, as I did for five
years, you'll know exactly what I mean.)
The
arrest was politically motivated, and the “mayor” (First
Selectman) wanted me off the air, because my show had higher ratings
than his, and thus a better time slot. Then, there was the Bush
Family, who maintained a home there. Dorothy Walker Bush (Dubya's
grandmother) was a regular listener to my show, and a "fan", I was told by a
client of mine, who was Dorothy's nurse/caregiver, until she passed
away in 1991. She may have put in a good word for me, as at that time
there was no animosity (not openly, anyway) between my family and the
Bush clan.
But
what's the point of being a journalist if you don't stand up for what
you believe in, for what matters? I don't think it's possible to be
an advocacy journalist without being an activist. Anyway, I stayed at
the station and received no further complaints about my activism for
animals.
I
have been formally trained as an investigator, but not as a
journalist, did not go to journalism school. The one exception is
that I was trained in TV production, and as a talk show host (“on
camera talent”) by an anchorwoman (whom I will not name) from a
mainstream TV network (sponsored by a CIA front), when I was expected
to become a spokesperson for certain strains of CIA propaganda, on
mainstream TV.
I
didn't get that far, by my own choice. Despite lucrative offers of
contracts made to me, I quit when I saw where things were heading and
precisely how they were planning to exploit my talents. And the harm
to the people, not only in the U.S., but the world, which would
result from CIA's propaganda campaigns.
No
way would I agree to be a part of that. I also did not want to become
well-known in the mainstream media. I did not have common interests
with the ilk of person involved, did not want the additional
pressures, and would have totally lost my privacy, which I fiercely
defend.
But
here's the point: I know how the mainstream media works. And I
learned long ago through experience that the government has taken
over the mainstream media, has appropriated most “journalism”, at
least since before I was born (1951).
CIA,
in particular, has built a behemoth media empire, employing
battalions of journalists for their propaganda war ministry. For
those who have not been involved, they would likely be surprised to
learn how many of the talk show hosts (and print journalists) are “on
the job” as CIA operatives, assets under contract.
And
for those they don't employ, per se, they still control, one way or
another, by controlling the flow of information; by selective
censorship; by trend-setting and special interest focus groups; by
think tanks; by sponsoring pressure groups of agitators for left-wing
ideology/causes; by promoting pop psychology, New Age doctrines, and
by planting politically correct thought police in positions of
influence in the culture at large. As always, the agenda focuses on
co-opting hearts and minds, a specialty of CIA since the advent of
the agency in 1947.
(Journalists
working under CIA auspices would most likely be required to sign a
non-disclosure agreement, and could be charged with a crime, if
violated. That certainly puts the chill to the principles of
journalistic integrity.)
What
is the ultimate goal? The same goal which permeates the entire
culture: A global totalitarian government, the New World Order.
The
mainstream media is only one of the tentacles of the Octopus, but one
of the most powerful. How to more easily enlist hearts and minds? And
the targeted group (We the People) are, as usual, paying to be
propagandized.
As
a journalist in mainstream media, you don't have to be particularly
bright, you don't have to care much about the subjects and issues
being reported, nor even to engage in critical thinking, to employ
logic, or use intellectual discernment to do your job. You don't even
have to care if the “news” you report is true, or false. Who
cares?
From
my observations, you only have to look “presentable” by today's
standards (if a woman, you are expected to be clad in flashy
clothing, a short skirt, burdened with layers of makeup, at least for
TV), and to follow the script handed to you from your superiors at
the network. Don't ever stray from the official narrative given to
you. Don't ask too many questions. And whatever you do, don't ever do
any fact checking!
The
“news” has become little more than entertainment, a circus to
distract the viewers from the most important issues of our time,
reported by vapid clowns.
(I
remember the days when there were actually “fact-checkers” one
could hire, to ensure accuracy. No more, they appear to have become
extinct in the Brave New World of journalism as sensationalist
entertainment.)
We
don't need no stinkin' FACTS!...seems to have become their motto. As
long as the money keeps rolling in, as long as the populace continues
to be inculcated, distracted and mesmerized, that's all that matters.
And
sadly, it has worked like a charm. “My people perish for lack of
knowledge...”
THE
WORLD WIDE WEB IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Now
that we have the Internet, although there is certainly more
opportunity for independent media, and for journalists, there is more
than equal opportunity for CIA-sponsored propaganda, which they have
exploited, with a vengeance.
Real,
professional journalism has, for the most part, died an ignominious
death. It has been all but replaced by “bloggers” and social
media, mostly populated by “anonymous” users hiding behind silly
screen names.
As
for the “news” they claim to be reporting, it is mostly recycled,
or scavenged off the “alternative media” sites run by government
propaganda pimps, the controlled opposition to government corruption,
the official voice of “dissent”, orchestrated by
counterintelligence operatives. Government stooges parroting the
drivel of other government stooges.
Let
the conspiracy theories fly! Meanwhile, actual conspiracies, like
destroying this country from within, incrementally, and trampling the
Constitution into the dust, continue apace.
And
let's not forget the armies of trolls, paid by the government to
infiltrate and disrupt message boards, chat rooms, the comments
section of websites.
Where,
in all this mayhem, can any truth possibly be found?
It
is a sorry state of affairs. The Internet is now the only game in
town, and a journalist cannot expect to be heard, even in the most
limited circles, without using it. Which is the only reason I do.
Just
recently, after the announcement that Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry
Soetoro (the Liar-in-Chief who has unconstitutionally usurped and
occupied the Whore House for the past eight years) had turned over
control of the Internet (ICANN) to the globalist tyrants at the
United Nations, I found a notice popping up on my screen when I tried
to post a report.
It
was about the European Union, and some new “policies” for users.
I can only say I was outraged, and for the record, NO, I do not agree
to these “policies” if they in any way interfere with my freedom
of speech or my complete autonomy in determining the content of my
own website. How dare you!
Speaking
for myself, I have developed an intense dislike for the Internet. But
it's that or nothing if I want to keep publishing my reports. But I
do have firm guidelines, to protect my privacy and security as best I
can.
I
don't use social media. Facebook, Twitter (and others) are
government-sponsored surveillance operations, used to collect
personal information and build permanent data bases which can be
accessed at any time to target any person who might be deemed a
“problem”.
And
this does not even factor in the NSA (and others) spying on American
citizens, though it is certainly connected by method and intent.
(Those of us reporting on this long before the Snowden revelations
were called “paranoid conspiracy theorists”, but now at least we
have been vindicated. Thank you, Edward Snowden.)
This
is unlawful and violates the Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court's
opinion of “the reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Amendment
IV
The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You
cannot be “secure” in your “persons, houses, papers, and
effects”, when the long tentacles of government are reaching out to
seize them without a by-your-leave.
But,
you may say, people are providing their own information voluntarily.
Yes, that holds true if they PUBLISH the information with the intent
that it be made available to the general public. But what about using
social media with “private” settings, in the naive belief that
the information will be conveyed only to selected recipients?
About
this (and much more) they have lied to you. And when challenged, they
continue to lie. (Note their “privacy policies”, which are
meaningless and offer no protection at all.)
What
about private e-mail, sent to selected recipient(s)? No privacy, no
security whatsoever there.
I've
heard people say, Well, there's no privacy anymore, there's nothing
we can do. So they simply resign themselves to illegal government
spying, or worse, they become a part of the problem by embracing it,
exploiting it, and encouraging others to do so.
And
so, the government gets away with continuing violations, because so
few people stand up to protest their reprehensible actions. That is
always what it boils down to: No righteous anger, no outrage, no
holding the perpetrators accountable.
And,
more to the point: No support for defending the Constitution, the
Supreme Law of the Land.
Where
are the crusading journalists (including whistleblowers), the
champions of a free press, of free speech? I would venture to say
that many have been silenced, one way or another.
Some
have been subsumed into the “new media”, and are well compensated
for their compliance.
Some
have been driven to such poverty that they are hard pressed to
continue working, having been forced into survival mode by the
counterintelligence campaigns against them. (That would be me.)
Some
have been murdered (or “suicided”), for caring too much about the
truth, for their patriotism, for their refusal to back down. Danny
Casolaro, Gary Webb, Steve Kangas, Mike Ruppert, Bill Cooper, just to
name a few.
As
my regular readers will know, I love my privacy, which is an integral
part of my Liberty. I may be considered a dinosaur, but that's the
way I like it. I still believe in the kind of communications where
people actually talk to each other, such as a telephone.
Along
with the Internet as media venue, I have come to dislike using
e-mail, for a number of reasons. First of all, I find it impersonal.
I prefer the post. You then actually have something (a card, a
letter) that is palpable. You may save it, if it is of value. Or, you
may burn it, preventing yourself from falling prey to prying eyes.
For secret documents, you may stash them away, safe from the
busybodies or the government.
With
e-mail, you may never really know if it was delivered to the
recipient, not unless you receive a response. E-mail is not reliable,
at least it hasn't been for me. I've also had my confidence violated
when recipients forwarded or published my private e-mail, or made my
e-mail address public, intentionally or not.
But
the way I see it, if someone (anyone) be they a friend, relative or
the general public, wants to contact me for any reason, they may
easily do so by post. My postal mailing address has always been
prominently displayed at the top of my website. So, in answer to
those who voice complaints that they “cannot” contact me, they
are in error.
I've
only asked that readers not send me legal briefs/testimony and
requests for investigations, consultations and the like. I am not an
attorney, nor do I offer any other professional services to the
public, which is clearly stated on my website. I do not have the
resources or the time.
For
all other issues (personal or professional), if their communication
to me is really important to them, then they will not mind the small
inconvenience of contacting me by post. If that is too much trouble,
then so be it. But the opportunity for contact is there, for those
who wish to avail themselves of it.
I
still have a large file of letters sent to me by readers of my
website, whereas the e-mails sent to me by readers (in the days I had
a public e-mail address) are mostly long gone, lost in computer
crashes, courtesy of the U.S. Government's directed energy weaponry
assaults and hacking. (Get behind me, Satan!)
And
with a letter by post, you may at least know where it came from (the
location), you are more likely to know the name of the sender, and
it's less likely to be some anonymous coward, or some whackjob with
time on his hands, sending drunken messages to strangers in the
middle of the night. Postal mail also weeds out most of the
busybodies, curiosity seekers, salesmen and tends to stop harassment,
threats and hate mail.
For
the most part, I actually enjoy hearing from readers of my website,
as long as their communications are benign. It is only those of an
intrusive, harassing or threatening nature to which I object.
Simply
because I have declined to be a participant in the hectic
free-for-all which the Internet has become, because I have guarded my
privacy, I have been accused by my adversaries of all sorts of
dastardly deeds.
I
have been accused of being a “CIA disinfo agent”; a “sociopath”;
a “coward”; a “con artist”....all because I keep to myself
and have no interest in socializing on the Internet. How bizarre! But
telling as to the common mindset of the denizens of the Internet.
I
don't have a “comments” section on my website. Some websites do,
others don't. But so what? This is a matter of individual choice.
There is no benefit to me, I have nothing to gain by publishing the
opinions of strangers. I don't run a forum for the public, I only
publish reports. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to
engage in discussions, nor arguments. That is not the purpose of my
website.
If
someone wants to send a “letter to the editor”, by post, then I
may choose to publish it, or not. That's the way it was done in the
old days, to which I dearly wish I could return.
The
prevailing mentality in the Internet culture is anathema to me. Just
a hotbed of loud, vulgar, aggressive busybodies! All jockeying for
position, all desperately seeking public attention, as if there were
nothing else of any importance in their lives.
So
no, I don't want to sign up, sign in, log in, join in the discussion,
join up today! I don't want to “connect” or “follow”, or be a
“member”.
I
don't live in a virtual reality, strange as that may seem to the
rabid cyber-junkies.
Anyone
who is interested in my views, my politics, my information, anything
I offer for the public record, may easily learn of them from my
website. They may make of it what they will, using their own
discernment.
Last
I heard, it's still “legal” to be reclusive, to enjoy my
unalienable rights, including to privacy...but maybe not for long.
Not
if the Socialist/Marxist/United Nations/ New World Order/Busybody/
Control Freak/Surveillance State/Government Rat Bastards have their
way.
Is
there intelligent life on the Internet? By my standards, not much.
Barbara
Hartwell Percival
December
15, 2016