JP Morgan Infilitrated 25 American Newspapers, page 1

While it is true that JP Morgan was instrumental in the covert control of editorial policy of the major newspapers, it is important to provide more context to fully appreciate the true nexus in our history of which this corporate maneuver is representative.

This element,. namely the usurpation of editorial policy and reporting practices in what was essentially the 'public feed' of information disseminated through the country, was among the most revolutionary changes in corporate posture in the US since the civil war and the emergence of the Robber Barons and the industrial era, fueled by the 'age of shoddy.' During this time, on behalf of the US government, private corporations were loaned and subsidized millions to lay a national telegraph cable system as well as a transcontinental railroad (despite not really needing one until decades later), as well as other megalithic infrastructure and defense projects. Since all these "captains of industry" were closely related to, if not directly controlling, financial institutions, capital loans were not hard to come by; especially in light of the government guarantees with which they were 'acquired.'

The first surprising element of the story is the fact that from the onset of the corporate entity, businessmen like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller... and other so-called "Captains of Industry" labored in two critical ways to forge an empire which they could claim to control. The efforts were not simply business; they were not simply political, and they were far from altruistic. The first was was to monopolize and control national resources for the purpose of commerce; the second was to consolidate (secretly) control of the two dozen or so key press sources, from which perhaps eight tenths of the nation's news papers drew information for local publication.

Some contend, and have made a reasonable case, that there were other influences upon them, driving them to create conditions which allowed the corporation to become a political entity, and to redress the issue of requiring public consent to increase the amount of direct influence they had in regulatory controls. Whether this is taken as true, or contested as conspiracy theory paranoia is irrelevant. Ultimately, they did and still do influence more than the average citizen, and seem impervious to unwelcome challenges - especially in light of the government's own predisposition to consider the super-corporation's affairs akin to national security.

I say all this because it may be true that the key reason for the consolidation of press control may have been 'sold' to an eager and willing lapdog political careerists, as a means to ensure security for the nation, but it's most valuable result (to them) was the complete consolidation of the national banking structure into a body disingenuously named the "Federal Reserve Bank" whose board of directors are neither elected nor governmental... and to some degree secret. It created a monopoly of monetary policy, and monopoly of credit, a monopoly of currency, and more importantly in my opinion, a secret economic weapon which can be used to drive or destroy economies as is convenient for the corporate cartel it represents.

So direct was the Federal Reserve's control of the government that it actually engendered the creation of an agency just to create tax regulations and collect taxes.... all manned by by administrators who - even to this day - will not address the underlying relationship between the IRS and the FED for the public record.

Now, the above couple of paragraphs were included to provide the context of the newspaper consolidation by Morgan and associates. You see, it's not like they were operating in a vacuum. The cabal of banking and industrial interests had tried multiple times before to create this economic monstrosity (from the perspective of that which actually creates wealth "the people's labor.") In each attempt they were exposed, disrupted, and otherwise defeated. Andrew Jackson was the first to reject the 'proto-corporate' attempt at establishing a central banking system. He knew full well that it represented a threat to the nation's sovereignty; and many MANY newspapers all over the country recalled the warnings of the framers and founding fathers to the effect of controlling the currency as a key element to maintaining a free country.

Others rebuffed them too. Many others. Ending with Lincoln's "greenbacks" which he undertook to raise money for the union - since he refused to pay the outrageous interest the banks demanded - and he had as a presidential privilege, the authority to produce the country's own currency.

Among the last people to actually fight the creation of the central reserve bank we call the "Fed" was Congressmen Lindburgh ("This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Woodrow Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.")

The entities that were undertaking the final attempt to secure the Fed's existence knew that the press would review the past and likely rekindle the alarms that contributed to their past failures. Hence the extraordinary investment in 'the right people' in 'the right places' at the top 25 papers in the country.

Suddenly, and for all intents and purposes illegally, a bill was passed; a bill which newspapers hailed as the salvation of the country. In 1913 the Fed was born. The press cast the act as a 'necessity' which had overwhelming support (it did not.)

So you see the control of the press wasn't simply to provide slick marketing opportunities, it was to convince each American that all other Americans think a certain way.... thereby creating the illusion of a public sentiment which a certain group of people concocts.

Two things:

One: Look carefully at the membership of the Council of Foreign Relations and other such elite organizations..., lot's of high profile media names there. Look at the nature of what the press generally tells us.; that there is something called a 'double-dip' recession (not a depression), that we are in a 'recovery', that we MUST send our citizens to die in foreign lands to 'protect' our freedoms., that we must submit to unprecedented levels of intrusions on our persons for our own 'protection' from those who would stuff a grenade up their butt. They told us that we supported the trillions in bailouts to banks; thereby socializing the loss, while privatizing the gains. The press seems to tell us exactly what's best for the corporate entities.... and seems to imply that it necessarily means it's good for us.

Two: Notice that a half-dozen or so corporate entities own well over 90% of the media market - meaning they own the tools of information propagation, the workforce to produce the news, and most tellingly, are 'allowed' by regulators to 'take a pass' when scrutiny comes their way.

Perhaps it's time we review our loyalty to the press, the media, and who they work for.... for they certainly have none for us.