Stephen Harper's very ascent to the Prime Minister's office was enabled by a corporate media strategy of censorship through omission.
Corporate media conveniently suppressed Harper's previous affiliation with the fascistic Northern Foundation and the National Citizens Coalition -- an extreme right wing lobby group. The convenient suppression of his past political associations -- enabled by media baron Conrad Black (who was also a member of the Northern Foundation), allowed Harper to present himself as a "moderate" conservative, and to emerge victorious as Prime Minister of Canada in 2006.
Corporate media monopolies, already welded to transnational corporate polities
are now even more powerful. Information streams can be further exploited with the passage of the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) in the U.S.
According to Susanne Posel in "How The NDAA Allows U.S Government To Use Propaganda Against Americans", an amendment in the NDAA "empowers the State Department and Pentagon to utilize all forms of media against the American public for the sake of coercing U.S citizens to believe whatever version of the truth the U.S. government wants them to believe."
Transnational media monopolies also enable government legislation to more easily pass beneath the radar. The "Integrated Cross Border Law Enforcement Operations Act"
is one such piece of legislation. This legislation essentially allows U.S. police to enter Canada with equal empowerment to enforce Acts of Parliament as the RCMP. The Act also allows intelligence sharing, and it exempts U.S. police from Canadian laws. This seemingly innocuous law, which is currently restricted to water-based operations, was passed "under the radar" in Omnibus legislation, and will likely expand -- under the radar -- for land-based operations.
Centralized transnational control of media messaging for the purposes of propaganda, coupled with stealth legislation that further integrates Canada and the U.S., raise red flags that need to be addressed.
In the context of false flagevents and the "War On Terror," American author and journalist Naomi Wolf offers this advice on her Facebook page:
" ... we must vet any news story that a: heightens fear and encourages populations to submit unquestioningly to authority and b) rationalizes boots on the ground (Nigeria schoolgirls...) -- because they may all be completely correct but some, like the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction" story that you recall was on the front page of the New York Times, may be spun, hyped or distorted by what are now private companies confirmed in multiple FOIA requests, whose goals are to heighten fears in populations to boost spending on 'the terror threat' -- or to suppress dissent -- or to create chaos in a geopolitical area that has value for private corporations (Ukraine, Nigeria, Venezuela). We need to face that it is a new time we are in in which private actors have contracts to spin, hype, distort and affect the news and trusted brands such as CNN and CBC often do not bother or don't have resources to check or question news streams generation by these private entities..."
This, then, leads to the tragedy in Moncton, Canada, where three mounties were slain, and two wounded, on June 4, 2014.
This incident meets Wolf's two criterion that should trigger "vetting":
First, the tragedy does heighten fears that would encourage populations to submit unquestioningly to authority -- for their perceived safety.
Second, the tragedy could trigger "boots on the ground", or in this case, further police militarization.
Fear of a re-occurrence of a similar incident could make a population more amenable to police state security, including the loss of freedoms, in exchange for perceived protections. Police state measures would likely include increased surveillance, normalization of lock-downs, plus more and better police armaments: a ramping up of the police-industrial complex. The government would have more control, the citizens less, and profits would roll in for certain industries.
If, for example, a criminal organization, foreign or domestic, wanted the government to have more control over a population, and more power to contain protests against fracking companies, then a fearful population would be to its benefit.
If the tragedy was enabled or manufactured to criminally advance such ulterior agendas, then the Moncton tragedy is a false flag, and justice has (so far) been thwarted.
If, on the other hand, the tragedy is exploited (rather than manufactured) to advance an ulterior agenda, then justice may still be compromised.
So far, the corporate media, with its singular narrative of the incident, is exploiting the tragedy, through its presentation of a "trial by media" narrative.
Hopefully, justice will be served, and appropriate measures will be taken to limit the likelihood of such a tragedy re-occurring.
Respect for the victims, however, demands that the tough questions be asked.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
