Is Rupert Murdoch the most evil media mafia man in the world?

Rupert Murdoch: The evil empire, British politics, phone hacking and a murdered teenager

http://breakingdownthnews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-rupert-murdoch-most-evil-media-mafia.html

On Sunday 10 July 2011 News of The World went on sale for the last time, bringing it’s 168 year history to an end. It was 42 years since Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper at a shareholder’s meeting in January 1969 beating Robert Maxwell in a bitter year long battle over the acquisition.

Murdoch had begun his life as a newspaper baron at an early age, inheriting his father’s Australian News Limited newspaper group in 1953 at the age of 22. After fifteen years of buying up newspapers across Australia and New Zealand he returned to the UK (where he had studied at Oxford University before his father’s death) and within a year had beaten Maxwell to get his hands on News of the World.

In the aftermath Maxwell famously described Murdoch as a “cynical maneuverer” that “plays by the laws of the jungle“, damning criticism from a man that went on to pilfer the pension schemes of his employees in order to maintain his life of luxury, allegedly worked as a double agent for the Israeli and British secret services and ended his life “falling off” his luxury yacht off the coast of the Canary Islands in 1991 shortly after the pensions scandal broke.

Later in 1969 Murdoch acquired his second British newspaper taking control of the mid-market daily broadsheet The Sun and immediately re-releasing it as the salacious sex filled tabloid it has remained until the present day. As the Sun and News of the World raced to the bottom of the British news market and Murdoch ruthlessly forced out anyone that got in the way of his agenda, it soon became clear that Maxwell’s warnings about Murdoch had been right, causing many amongst the British establishment elite to regard him as an immoral impostor.

Murdoch showed his ruthlessness by going back on his word that he would run News of the World alongside former owner Sir William Carr by forcing him out within three months of the takeover. He then outraged the British establishment by publishing the memoirs of the model Christine Keeler in the News of the World. She had played a large part in bringing down the Harold MacMillan government when her affair with minister John Profumo came to light in 1963. Following his resignation Profumo had been seen to have redeemed himself through years of charity work so Murdoch’s decision to publish the sordid details were seen as muck-raking of the lowest kind, done entirely for his own personal gain.

After repeated rejections from the British establishment Murdoch left the UK in 1973 to continue his empire building in the United States. His first acquisition was the San Antonio Express in 1973 followed by a stream of other newspapers. He liked to claim that it was him that chose to reject the British establishment and often justified the simplistic and sensationalist style of his newspapers by dressing it up as anti-elitism.

In 1981 he returned to the UK to buy out the Times group, a move that shocked both sides of the political spectrum. He was facilitated in his acquisition by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who allowed the deal to go ahead without referring it to the Monopolies Commission as it should have been. The two remained close allies from that point onwards, Murdoch’s papers provided unrelenting support for Thatcher’s divisive regime while Thatcher allowed him to sack 6,000 striking print workers in 1986 and passed the merger between Murdoch’s loss making Sky TV and the only other major satellite broadcasting network BSB in 1990.

Murdoch and Thatcher had a number of shared ideologies, from hatred of trade unions to belief in the privatisation and the neoliberal economic model. They both also had a ruthless streak, would dispose of anyone that stood in their way and they both had management styles best described as “divide and conquer“. Murdoch’s relationship with Thatcher seems like one of the few genuine relationships he had with politicians rather than his usual modus operandi of exerting as much control over them as he could in order to increase his own wealth, power and influence.

Read More: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/rupert-murdoch-evil-empire-hacking.html

Ben Fellows: ‘Murdoch Newspaper Does a ‘BBC’ to Protect Pedophiles and Child Abusers’

The Jimmy Savile paedophile ring at the centre of the BBC has taken an interesting twist this week as this journalist has come to realise that accusations of child abuse and paedophilia only extend to the deceased.
If you’re a living, breathing human being in the entertainment industry mainstream media won’t expose you. If you are a paedophile or child abuser in the entertainment industry and are famous or powerful you can breath a sigh of relief – you won’t be exposed, at least not by the Murdoch empire.

It all started when I was contacted by Ruth Lewy from The Times newspaper on October 16, 2012. She wanted me to do an exclusive interview about my experiences as a child actor when I had run the gauntlet of paedophiles in the entertainment industry. She wanted to “give this a great showing” but she would also “want to be the only people you speak to until it appears in print this weekend.” All I asked for in return for giving The Times an exclusive was that the story would definitely run. She agreed to the terms and said that senior Times journalist Jack Malvern would interview me and a photographer would take some pictures of me for the article, which would appear on Saturday the 20^th October 2012. So we arranged a time and a place to meet.
Jack Malvern a tall, balding ex-public school boy complete with the uniform of his generation was late to the meeting. When he did eventually arrive he had to go shopping for a new pad! When he did eventually arrive proper, he sat down in front of me at the Novotel in Greenwich and asked me specifically to name names of people who, I alleged, were suspected paedophiles or had abused me in some way while I was a minor.
For the next two hours I sat in the Novotel being interviewed intensely and having only one cup of tea. The deal was that I was happy to name alleged paedophiles and child abusers in the wider industry, based on my own experiences but the story had to run.
What was good about the article, I thought, was that The Times were going to be brave and publish the names of actual living breathing people, rather than dead people like Jimmy Savile or Wilfred Brambell. Famous and powerful people who could argue back, perhaps call me a liar or fantasist in an attempt to clear their name.

I talked about cabinet minister Ken Clarke MP, groping my penis through my trousers in political lobbyist Ian Greer’s office. How he gave me alcohol in an attempt to get me drunk. I explained to Jack Malvern that there was even video evidence of the incident as we’d filmed it during our “cash for questions” sting operation for The Cook Report, we had a camera in a briefcase which captured the sordid event.
I talked about a senior female BBC producer who likes to have sex with teenagers. Or I should say have sex with me when I was a teenager.  I continued with a long list of names of extremely well known actors, casting directors, producers, directors, writers and executives who had all abused me or attempted to abuse me sexually while I was a child actor.
I explained to Jack Malvern of The Times, that I only ever had sexual relations with women however that didn’t stop predatory gay men from attempting to get into my pants. As a child actor you are not responsible for your actions, you’re naïve, vulnerable and quite frankly an idiot, well I was. So, saying no when powerful industry people are telling you to take drugs with the implication that if you don’t – you won’t be hanging around for long, is highly unlikely. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book and works really on children, now add sex, money and power into the mix and you’re lucky if you don’t spend life after being a child actor in rehab and therapy – of course some do.

So, from the age of 15 I was a regular at Stringfellows, Cafe De Paris and The Atlantic Bar and Grill. I attended many celebrities parties and private functions.
One party was in a house in the New Forest and I must have been around sixteen at the time. At the party was a certain founder of a child protection charity. I was given drugs, alcohol and was propositioned by men and women all night until I ended up passed out in the garden. I eventually got a cab back to my digs in a terrible state. You’d think that for someone who is known for their charitable works protecting children she might insist that this party was for adults only and make me go home or at least keep an eye on me and stop me from drinking – recognising the fact that I looked and was very young.
For consenting adults there is nothing wrong with sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. However, I was a teenager and was being introduced to a very murky world by so called “respectable” industry figures and celebrities.
Now, none of my story seemed to be a problem for Jack Malvern when he interviewed me, he was happy to publish what I said. After the interview I even checked to see if he was happy with what I said. The only issue was that later in the day he wanted to interview my mother about an incident when I was called into a casting for a major drinks company. I gave him my mother’s telephone number, he left two messages which she ignored as she didn’t want to talk to him. My mother never agreed to talk to Jack Malvern which is what I told him when I later informed him that she didn’t want to be interviewed as she’s a very private person and it was her choice. Jack Malvern didn’t seem to think it was an issue and left me with the impression that the article would run as planned on Saturday 20th October 2012.
Of course printed here are just a few stories of the many that I told him. He’d asked for names and I’d given them to him with details only one who was there would know. He even empathised at one point and told me that my story rang true for him as he’d experienced similar problems with predatory gay men when he was a young journalist or so he told me.
Little did I know that the next BBC person I named was the one that would stop the article from coming out. The person who I am referring to shall remain nameless in this article, however they are a new star of SKY Television.  It seems that Sky have a lot invested in this person and like the BBC stopping the Jimmy Savile Newsnight programme Murdoch et al. have withdrawn an explosive article in The Times that threatened to reveal a far seedier side of their new star than they would like. Drug taking, inappropriate sexual behaviour and child abuse isn’t something the Murdoch empire want revealed.
Now, Jack Malvern of The Times may say that I’m an unreliable person or that they couldn’t corroborate the accusations I was making. But isn’t that what child abuse is all about? There are laws preventing people from making false allegations so why would I lie. In any case they said they’d run the article either with or without the names. So, why didn’t it run? My theory is that they didn’t want to give me the platform of appearing in The Times, just in case I mentioned names at a later date.
The Murdoch empire and BBC are clearly safe havens for child abusers to operate.
A society that takes the position of not believing victims, hiding the truth and protecting abusers for their own personal gain is a sad state of affairs. It is typical of a society gone mad, set up to procure children and to protect paedophiles. In other words children’s well-being comes down to simply politics. If you accuse someone of abuse and they happen to be famous or powerful then tough luck you lose. You won’t be believed, regardless of the validity of your claims by either the state or mainstream corporate media seems to be the message.
The irony is that the Murdoch empire, who has always been quick to name and shame is curiously reluctant when it comes to naming one of its own stars. It appears that the empire is only prepared to expose child abusers and paedophiles as long as it doesn’t affect its own reputation.
We’ve moved on from just phone hacking.
One of News International’s slogans on their Website is “We’re delivering more news, to more people, more often, in more ways than ever”. If the Murdoch press is willing to deny the public vital information which is in their interest to know, like exposing paedophiles and child abusers, then the question has to be – Are News International’s titles worth the paper they’re written on? Or more importantly are the Murdoch’s responsible enough to run a media empire influencing millions of people all around the world.
If they’re hiding child abuse then the answer is no.

Rupert Murdoch: Key figure in 9/11 and the 9/11 wars?

Question:  Kevin Barrett sent me an email asking, “Rupert Murdoch: Key figure in 9/11 and the 9/11 wars?” 

Bollyn Responds:  Kevin, why do you use a question mark?  Murdoch is obviously ”the key figure” in spreading the 9/11 deception propaganda to the public. The current Murdoch scandal about phone hacking is just the tip of the iceberg, of course.  When Ed Miliband of the Labour Party calls for the break-up of News Corp., you know there are much bigger fish to be fried.  Rupert Murdoch has evidently served his purpose – the global deception of 9/11 – but his son of an Estonian mother will certainly not do for the Zionist masters behind Murdoch. This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote this last year:

“The global Murdoch media empire was created with Rothschild funding and exists to spread Zionist propaganda among the English-speaking populations of the world. Murdoch’s son James is in line to take over at the helm of their media empire although it is quite likely that the empire will not survive very long after Rupert Murdoch passes away.”
- “Eric Hufschmid and Rupert Murdoch – Agents of Deception”, October 21, 2010

Selling Wars–The Blood on Murdoch’s Hands

Nailing Rupert Murdoch for his employees’ phone tapping or bribery would be a little like bringing down Al Capone for tax fraud, or George W. Bush for torture. I’d be glad to see it happen but there’d still be something perverse about it.
I remember how outraged Americans were in 2005 learning about our government’s warrantless spying, or for that matter how furious some of my compatriots become when a census form expects them to reveal how many bathrooms are in their home.
I’m entirely supportive of outrage. I just have larger crimes in mind. Specifically this:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
The Fox News Channel is endless propaganda for war, and various other deadly policies. As Robin Beste points out,
“Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers and TV channels have supported all the US-UK wars over the past 30 years, from Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands war in 1982, through George Bush Senior and the first Gulf War in 1990-91, Bill Clinton’s war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and his undeclared war on Iraq in 1998, George W. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Tony Blair on his coat tails, and up to the present, with Barack Obama continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now adding Libya to his tally of seven wars.”
In this video, Murdoch confesses to having used his media outlets to support the Iraq War and to having tried to shape public opinion in favor of the war. That is the very definition of propaganda for war.
The propaganda is, also by definition, part of the public record. Although that record speaks for itself, Murdoch has not been shy about adding his commentary. The week before the world’s largest anti-war protests ever and the United Nation’s rejection of the Iraq War in mid-February 2003, Murdoch told a reporter that in launching a war Bush was acting “morally” and “correctly” while Blair was “full of guts” and “extraordinarily courageous.” Murdoch promoted the looming war as a path to cheap oil and a healthy economy. He said he had no doubt that Bush would be “reelected” if he “won” the war and the U.S. economy stayed healthy. That’s not an idle statement from the owner of the television network responsible for baselessly prompting all of the other networks to call the 2000 election in Bush’s favor during a tight race in Florida that Bush actually lost.
Murdoch’s support for the Iraq War extended to producing support for that war from every one of his editors and talking heads. It would be interesting to know what Murdoch and Blair discussed in the days leading up to the war. But knowing that would add little, if anything, to the open-and-shut case against Murdoch as war propagandist. Murdoch had known the war was coming long before February 2003, and had long since put his media machine behind it.
Murdoch has been close to Blair and has now published his book — a book that Blair has had difficulty promoting in London thanks to the protest organizing of the Stop the War Coalition. Yet Murdoch allowed Mick Smith to publish the Downing Street Memos in his Sunday Times. Murdoch’s loyalty really seems to be to his wars, not his warmakers.
John Nichols describes three of those warmakers:
“When the war in Iraq began, the three international leaders who were most ardently committed to the project were US President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. On paper, they seemed like three very different political players: Bush was a bumbling and inexperienced son of a former president who mixed unwarranted bravado with born-again moralizing to hold together an increasingly conservative Republican Party; Blair was the urbane ‘modernizer’ who had transformed a once proudly socialist party into the centrist ‘New Labour’ project; Howard was the veteran political fixer who came up through the ranks of a coalition that mingled traditional conservatives and swashbuckling corporatists.
“But they had one thing in common. They were all favorites of Rupert Murdoch and his sprawling media empire, which began in Australia, extended to the ‘mother country’ of Britain and finally conquered the United States. Murdoch’s media outlets had helped all three secure electoral victories. And the Murdoch empire gave the Bush-Blair-Howard troika courage and coverage as preparations were made for the Iraq invasion. Murdoch-owned media outlets in the United States, Britain and Australia enthusiastically cheered on the rush to war and the news that it was a ‘Mission Accomplished.’”
Bribery is dirty stuff. So is sneaking a peak at the private messages of murder victims. But there’s something even dirtier: murder, murder on the largest scale, murder coldly calculated and played out from behind a desk, in other words: war.
Murdoch is a major crime boss being threatened with parking tickets.
I hope he’s brought down, but wish it were for the right reasons.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee chased Richard Nixon out of town for the wrong reasons. The full House impeached Bill Clinton for the wrong reasons. And the worst thing the U.S. government has done in recent years, just like the worst thing News Corp. has done in recent years, has not been spying on us.
It’s no secret what drove public anger at Nixon or what drives public anger at Murdoch. But, for the sake of historical precedent, it would be good for us to formally get it right.
Charge the man with selling wars!
David Swanson is a writer in Charlottesville, Va.

 One of the charges against Murdoch and Company is that they paid a private detective to hack into the voice mail of 9/11 victim family members to get access to their private communications both on the day of the attack and after. My guess is that the very efficient Murdoch money-delivery (i.e. bribery) system is already at work trying to head off US Congressional hearings – and may well succeed. But lest we forget…Murdoch and Company did in fact target at least one family member of 9/11 victim. 

See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/spin/bill-oreilly-murdoch-creation.html#sthash.XD0d3oiT.dpuf

Rupert Murdoch’s Jewish origins: a matter of controversy

A well placed correspondent with connections to the newspaper world (who has asked to remain anonymous) reports to us:
“I shall quote exactly what Candour [a rightwing British journal edited by A K Chesterton] said in its June 1984 issue (vol. XXXV, no. 6):

 BIOGRAPHICAL details of [Rupert] Murdoch’s past are sketchy and often contradictory. One reads that his grandfather was an impoverished Presbyterian minister who migrated to Australia from England, that his father was a low-paid reporter for a British newspaper in Australia, and yet, young Rupert divided his time between his family’s suburban home near Melbourne and the family’s sheep ranch in the country. He was educated first at the fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England.“Rupert’s father Sir Keith Murdoch [see below] attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, néeElisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife’s connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town. For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew…

And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.
Spotlight [a rightwing Washington weekly published by Willis Carto] in fact examined Murdoch in considerable depth in no fewer than three issues, 30th January and 6th and 13th February [1984]. My friend Ivor Benson whom I regarded as a very judicious observer and commentator, reckoned, along with Spotlight, that his meteoric ascent was completely artificial, and that he was a front for far more powerful super-rich subversives, Michel Fribourg, Armand Hammer and Edgar Bronfman, “all of them part of a super-rich ‘Zionist Mafia’”, to quote Benson, who added: “By comparison with these three, Murdoch is just an ambitious midget who has been given the job of drawing all the public attention away from those who make the real decisions.” (Benson’sBehind the News, March 1984)
Could well be. Certainly I can confirm that at least part of his meteoric ascent was artificial. I remember my brother-in-law [a former editor of The Times] telling me, at the time of Murdoch’s acquisition of The Times, that it was a strange business. Murdoch was by no means the highest bidder.
For my part, I myself have always had good personal motives to take a favourable view of Murdoch, because my brother-in-law was easily his favourite editor of The Times, and, when my brother-in-law died (in office), Murdoch treated my sister completely fairly, from a financial point of view, without making the slightest difficulty. But, despite that reason for some prejudice in his favour, I have always been forced to the judgement that he has been a force for unspeakable evil.

• His was the “breakthrough” which made the tabloids genuinely pornographic.
• In my opinion at least, his policy with The Times completed its collapse from its position as the most respected newspaper in the world.
• And his republicanism makes me sick — it is not for the purpose of creating a better world, but quite obviously purely destructive. And I could go on.

PS: QUITE recently, a Times correspondent actually resigned because he was not allowed to report properly what was going on in Israel, or even to use accurate words to describe facts which were undisputed. He stated: “Murdoch’s executives were so scared of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop by tracking, interviewing and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece ‘without mentioning the dead kid’. After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit.” Unusually courageous for a modern journalist.