The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News Medi

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News

Postby admin » Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:50 am

Hadley Cantril [Albert Hadley Cantril, Jr.]
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 6/3/20

Albert Hadley Cantril, Jr.
Born: 16 June 1906, Hyrum, Utah, U.S.
Died: 28 May 1969 (aged 62)
Alma mater: Dartmouth College; Harvard University
Occupation: Psychologist, researcher
Spouse(s): Mavis L. Cantril

Albert Hadley Cantril, Jr. (16 June 1906 – 28 May 1969) was a Princeton University psychologist who expanded the scope of the field.

Cantril made "major contributions in psychology of propaganda; public opinion research; applications of psychology and psychological research to national policy, international understanding, and communication; developmental psychology; psychology of social movements; measurement and scaling; humanistic psychology; the psychology of perception; and, basic to all of them, the analysis of human behavior from the transactional point of view."[1] His influence is felt in education, law, philosophy, politics and psychiatry.[1]

"Hadley Cantril, Princeton psychologist, is representative of most quantitative scholars of social influence who, while holding their political commitments close to the vest, nevertheless saw themselves clearly in the ranks of reformers loosely attached to the progressive movement…. Focus on social process and a psychological view of people put the academic scientists of society in a frame of mind to assume the polis languished chiefly because of inaction on the part of enlightened administrators."[2]:74


Cantril was born in Hyrum, Utah in 1906 and first studied at Dartmouth College, graduating Bachelor of Science in 1928. He did graduate study in Munich and Berlin, then studied at Harvard graduating with Doctor of Philosophy in psychology in 1931. He was hired as an instructor by Dartmouth and joined the Princeton University faculty in 1936. The next year he became president of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis and one of the founding editors of Public Opinion Quarterly. Later he became chairman of the Princeton University Department of Psychology.[1]

Cantril was a member of the Princeton Radio Research Project. The Project looked at the reaction to Orson Welles' The War of the Worlds and published a study accenting the public's disturbance.[3]

In 1940 he served as a consultant to the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.[4]

Cantril's later psychological work included collaboration with Adelbert Ames, Jr. developing a transactional method for studying human perception, as well as other research in humanistic psychology.[5]:389–90

Public opinion research

Though trained as a psychologist, Cantril's most important work concerned the then-new topic of public opinion research. Influenced initially by the success of George Gallup and Elmo Roper during the 1936 presidential election, Cantril sought to apply their systematic polling technique to academic social psychology.[5]:388 While Cantril was department chairman he became a presidential advisor:

Cantril's small-scale program at Princeton became more extensive in September 1940 when Nelson Rockefeller, FDR's Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, asked the Princeton psychologist to "set up mechanisms which would gauge public opinion in Latin America." In cooperation with Gallup, and with funds from the Office of Emergency Management, Cantril established an ostensibly independent research organization, American Social Surveys. He recruited his friend Leonard Doob, and another researcher Lloyd Free, to analyse Nazi propaganda coming into Latin America. Through Rockefeller's office, the results of Cantril's program were brought to the attention of FDR. The president asked Cantril to monitor public sentiment on avoiding war versus aiding Britain. Cantril duly kept tabs on views about aiding England and on the public's willingness to change U.S. neutrality laws in favor of Britain.[2]

In 1942 Cantril conducted a small-sample survey of Vichy officials in Morocco, prior to Operation Torch, that revealed the intensity of the anti-British sentiment of the French forces there. This information influenced the disposition of forces during the operation, with American troops landing near Casablanca and mixed forces at Oran and Algiers.[5]:389[6] According to George Gallup, "On the basis of his opinion studies, [Cantril] advised Presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennnedy at critical points in history. Judged by subsequent events his advice was exceptionally sound."[7]

In 1955 he and Lloyd Free founded the Institute for International Social Research (IISR).[8] The IISR was often asked by United States government agencies to conduct small-sample public opinion polls in foreign countries.[9] Notably, Cantril and Free conducted a poll of Cuba during 1960 demonstrating great support for Fidel Castro, which was overlooked during the presidential transition between Eisenhower and Kennedy and read only after the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco.[8]

Cantril's most-cited work is The Pattern of Human Concerns, notable for the development of the self-anchoring scale (also known as "Cantril's Ladder").[10] Cantril and Free also first discovered the paradox that American voters tend to oppose "big government" in general while supporting many specific liberal social programs.[8]

During the late 1950s, Cantril served on the International Objectives and Strategies panel of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's Special Studies Project.[11]


• 1934: Social Psychology of Everyday Life
• 1935:(with Gordon Allport) Psychology of Radio from Internet Archive
• 1939: Industrial Conflict: a Psychological Interpretation,
• 1940: The Invasion from Mars, a Study in the Psychology of Panic
• 1940: America Faces the War, a Study in Public Opinion
• 1941: Psychology of Social Movements from HathiTrust
• 1944: Gauging Public Opinion, Princeton University Press, via Internet Archive
• 1947: (with Muzafer Sherif) Psychology of ego-involvements : social attitudes & identifications via HathiTrust
• 1950: The "Why" of Man's Experience
• 1950: Tensions that cause wars (a report for UNESCO)
• 1951: (with Mildred Strunk) Public Opinion, 1935–1946, polls from the USA, Europe and Canada, via Internet Archive
• 1953: (with William Buchanan) How Nations See Each Other, a study in public opinion
• 1954: (with William H. Ittelson) Perception: a Transactional Approach
• 1956: On Understanding the French Left
• 1958: Faith, Hope, and Heresy: the Psychology of the Protest Voter via HathiTrust
• 1958: Politics of Despair via HathiTrust
• 1960: Reflections on the Human Venture
• 1960: Soviet Leaders and Mastery over Man
• 1961: Human Nature and Political Systems
• 1965: Pattern of Human Concerns
• 1967: (with L. A. Free) Political beliefs of Americans; a study of public opinion
• 1967: The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research
• 1988: (Albert H. Cantril, editor) Psychology, Humanism, and Scientific Inquiry: the Selected Essays of Hadley Cantril


1. F. P. Kilpatrick (November 1969) "Hadley Cantril – The Transactional Point of View", Journal of Individual Psychology 25: 219–25, reprinted as Epilogue, pages 229–34, in Albert H. Cantril, editor (1988) Psychology, Humanism and Scientific Inquiry, Transaction Books ISBN 0-88738-176-6
2. J. Michael Sproule (1997) Propaganda and Democracy, page 184, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-47022-6
3. Hadley Cantril, Hazel Gaudet, and Herta Herzog (1940) The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic: with the Complete Script of the Famous Orson Welles Broadcast, Princeton University Press
4. Investigation of un-American propaganda activities in the United States. United States Government Printing Office. 1940. p. 3244. and a special consultant for the Office of the Coordinator of Inter- American Affairs
5. John Gray Geer (2004) Public opinion and polling around the world: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIOISBN 9781576079119
6. Stuart Oskamp, P. Wesley Schultz (2005). Attitudes and Opinions. Routledge. p. 314. ISBN 0-8058-4769-3.
7. George Gallup (1969) "Hadley Cantril 1906 — 1969", Public Opinion Quarterly 33(3): 506 doi:10.1086/267731
8. "Lloyd A. Free, 88, is dead; Revealed Political Paradox", New York Times, November 14, 1996.
9. "Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A." New York Times, December 26, 1976
10. Understanding How Gallup uses the Cantril Scale from Gallup
11. Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports. Doubleday. 1961.
• Hadley Cantril from Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
Site Admin
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News

Postby admin » Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:31 pm

Video Transcript: Media Refuses to Retract their "Russian Disinformation" Lie Even as NYT & WP Authenticate the Emails
My latest update on one of the worst media disinformation campaigns in modern U.S. political history.
by Glenn Greenwald
Mar 31, 2022

The following is a full transcript (for subscribers only) from yesterday's episode of my System Update video program on Rumble: NYT & WP Confirm Biden Archive, Yet the Media Refuse to Retract their "Russian Disinformation" Lie. You can watch the program on the Rumble page at the link above, or watch the full episode on the player below:

Glenn Greenwald: Hey, everyone, this is Glenn Greenwald, welcome to a new episode of System Update here on our home on Rumble. Two weeks ago, the New York Times, which many people, not myself, but many people consider the paper of record, purported to confirm what has been obvious since at least the days before the 2020 election, namely that the laptop discovered by and reported on by the New York Post in the days leading up to the election, was not, in fact, Russian disinformation, as many, if not most, liberal corporate media outlets claimed in conjunction with the CIA and Big Tech prior to the election, but instead was authentic.

In fact, they did a variety of reporting in which they based their reporting on the emails in the archive, the key ones of which they stated they were able to fully authenticate. Now, just about six months ago, a reporter from Politico, Ben Schreckinger, published a book in which he provided ample proof of what the New York Times two weeks ago purported to confirm, namely that the key emails that triggered the controversy surrounding the Hunter Biden reporting that led to Big Tech censoring the New York Post, Facebook and Twitter, both censoring that story on the grounds that, according to the CIA and ex officials of the CIA and other security state agencies, it was Russian disinformation and therefore couldn't be trusted was in fact true, and in September I did a video right here on Rumble examining the evidence presented by this political reporter, which was completely dispositive.

He went and spoke with third parties who were on the email chains and was able was able to confirm and match the emails and other documents in their phones and computer that they received in real time that word for word matched the emails and other documents that were in the Hunter Biden archive that the New York Post was using to report. He obtained documents from governments, including the Swedish government that had been nonpublic that also match word for word the other key documents that were in the archive, and in his book, he basically essentially said that the the emails in the Hunter Biden laptop were not Russian and they were not disinformation. They were fully real and fully authentic.

Here from Politico, which is his employer. They published an article promoting the book by the reporter that was headlined “Double Trouble for Biden.” Part of it read:

Ben Schreckinger’s The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power, out today, finds evidence that some of the purported Hunter Biden laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy.

Now, this article downplays significantly the extent of those findings. I not only examine those findings and that September video I just showed you, and in an article I wrote at Substack accompanying the video, but what I also went through very systematically is that long before the Politico article was published, let alone before the New York Times purported to confirm that the emails were authentic, all the way back in October of 2020, there was already overwhelming evidence right from the beginning that these materials were authentic, and I went through the evidence.

Remember when I was reporting on them or trying to reported them at the time, I was with The Intercept, the media outlet that I co-founded in 2013. I was barred. I was censored by the senior editors at The Intercept, the outlet that I co-created from reporting on these materials. Based on the lie, the CIA lie that the materials were Russian disinformation and therefore they couldn't be verified. It was my own outlet and many, many others that lied to the public and said it was Russian disinformation and then used that lie, The Intercept did, to block me from reporting.

And that was when I quit in protest over being censored
because my contract at the time said that nobody could prevent me from publishing to the internet whatever I want to publish without any editorial interference. And that is what they did. They violated the contract because they were petrified.

Like most liberal outlets that also spread this lie, that this reporting would help Donald Trump win and Joe Biden lose because it sheds so much light not on what Hunter Biden was doing, but on what Joe Biden was doing in Ukraine, the country essentially over which he ruled as vice president for President Obama at the same time that his son, Hunter, was getting paid 50,000 dollars a month by a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma, and Hunter was attempting to induce his father to do favors for Burisma.

There's certainly evidence that he did, including getting rid of a prosecutor that was hostile to Burisma. But beyond that, there was a lot of evidence about the pursuit of business deals in China in which Joe Biden was going to be a profit participant.
Obviously, China was an important country for when Joe Biden was vice president and Joe Biden would have lot of power if he ever were elected president again, as most people expected, he would run and try and become president. And at the time, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's brother were trading on Joe Biden's name not only to pursue deals for themselves in China, but also to generate profit for Joe Biden.

And the media was so afraid of this story that they spread this CIA lie, that these documents were Russian disinformation, something for which there was never any evidence, it was made up out of whole cloth by intelligence officials interfering in the American election with an outright lie. Big Tech seized on that lie that these materials are Russian disinformation in order to justify bending the story. It was an incredible disinformation campaign, probably one of the gravest in modern American history perpetrated by a union of Big Tech corporate media and the intelligence community designed to manipulate the outcome of the election.

And now, as I said, even though we have now, since the election is over, the major media outlets are reporting that proof that these materials are authentic all the way back then, I knew they were authentic. I'm somebody who has staked my career many times on authenticating large archives. I did that and the Snowden story that I reported in 2013. I did it again in 2019 with 18 month long investigative exposé based on a gigantic archive provided to me by my source that contained hacked telephone chats of top level Brazilian authorities that I had to authenticate before publishing.

I've done it many times while working with WikiLeaks. I know how these archives are authenticated. You go to third parties, people who got the emails in real time and you ask them to compare what they got to, what's in the archive and if word for word it's authentic as it was, you know, it's real. There are other indicia of authenticity that were there from the beginning. These media outlets knew they were lying when they said it was Russian disinformation, but they didn't care. They were willing to lie. They were eager to lie because they viewed not telling the truth and fulfilling journalistic responsibilities as their highest duty, but defeating Donald Trump in 2020 as their highest duty, even if it meant lying, which is exactly what they did.

So we have the evidence from the very beginning, from the start that I was willing to stake my entire journalistic reputation on it and others were as well because it was so obvious the archive was real. Then we have the Politico reporter publishing this book filled with information which media outlets just simply ignored. They pretended this didn't exist. It was a reporter from one of their own, a mainstream news outlet only Politico, his employer, even noted it in passing, downplaying it. But every other outlet that told this lie that these materials were Russian disinformation just ignored this book. Huffington Post, Politico Mother Jones, The Intercept one after the next that told this lie. CNN, MSNBC, they all just pretended this proof in this book didn't exist.

Then 10 days ago, when The New York Times published their article almost two weeks ago, now the headline of which was “Hunter Biden paid tax bill, but broad federal investigation continues” and it's an article, as you see there, on how broad the Justice Department criminal investigation into Hunter Biden is. It doesn't just include suspicions that he hid his taxes, but all kinds of potential illegalities and his international business deals. The New York Times, to tell the story had to rely on the emails in that archive, which only 14 months ago, most liberal corporate outlets were saying were fake were forged by the Russians. Here's what the New York Times said as to why they use the emails in that archive:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity.

“Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.

So here they are, giving credence to the original story told by the New York Post about how they got the laptop, which was Hunter Biden brought it in to be repaired by Hunter Biden's own accounting, it was at a time when he was struggling with drug addiction. He was asked in interviews, Is it possible you just left your laptop there as they claim? And he said, Look, this was a long period in my life when I was dealing with addiction, when I wasn't exactly careful with my belongings. Of course, that's something an addict would do. And New York Times says these files appear to have come from that the laptop abandoned in that Delaware repair shop exactly what the New York Post said from the start.

But here's the key of what the New York Times acknowledged:

The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

So the New York Times is now saying, The Paper of Record, just like the political reporter said, just like all the evidence before the election, that these emails were not Russian disinformation. They were authentic, and the New York Times has authenticated them. Now you would think, I guess, that when the New York Times, venerated as the Paper of Record themselves comes out and says we have authenticated the key emails, you would think that those outlets that publish those lies, that this is Russian disinformation, repeating that over and over and over again to discredit the reporting to justify the brute censorship by Big Tech, to save Joe Biden.

You would think they would feel an obligation to at least acknowledge the proof that the New York Times just offered that these materials were real and that therefore what they said about the archive was a lie. They didn't, not one media outlet. And even in the wake of that New York Times report, even acknowledge the existence of this proof, let alone retracted their lies, that's how much contempt they have for you and the public and their jobs as journalists, even when they got caught red handed lying, blatantly lying, spreading a CIA falsehood for which there was never any evidence, even when they got caught red handed doing that, they feel no compunction even about acknowledging the proof, let alone retracting it and admitting they spread a falsehood.

Because they see their job, they see their job as lying to protect the Democratic Party. That is really how they think. I worked within these newsrooms and with these newsrooms. That is how they think. And the proof is in the pudding. Now, the New York Times story from two weeks ago wasn't enough to make them retract. Today, we have the other most significant paper in their world, The Washington Post that went even further. They reported on Hunter Biden's quote, “Multimillion dollar deals with a Chinese energy company.”

When the New York Post first reported this story on October 14, 2020. Three weeks before the 2020 election, the first story they reported was about Joe Biden's business dealings in Ukraine on behalf of his son. The second story was about this, published the next day, October 15. Hunter Biden's multimillion dollar deals of the Chinese energy company and the relationship of Joe Biden to those deals, finally, the Washington Post on March 30th, 2020, with the election very safely over, finally reports on this and admits:

a Washington Post review confirms key details and offers new documentation of Biden family interactions with Chinese executives.

So in order to report on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's activities in China, what The Washington Post did is the same thing the New York Times did. They used the emails on that laptop because they now are willing to admit they're authentic and not Russian disinformation, quote:

Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden.

They're now using to do their reporting the same emails that Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of, that most of these corporate outlets, Biden said, were forged by the Russians. The Post goes on quote:

“The Post review draws in part on an analysis of a copy said to be of the hard drive of a laptop computer that Hunter Biden purportedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and never came to collect.”

“Biden aides and some former U.S. intelligence officials have voiced concern that the device may have been manipulated by Russia to interfere in the campaign.”

That's not what happened. I'll show you what happened in just a minute. These outlets and Joe Biden and Jen Psaki stated explicitly and emphatically, not that they had concern that the base may have been manipulated by Russia, they stated explicitly it was Russian disinformation, which was a complete and total lie. The Post goes on:

“On Capitol Hill, Democrats have dismissed earlier reports about Hunter Biden’s work in China as lacking credibility or being part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

Do you see how any facts that interfere with, or undermine or subvert the Democratic Party's interest automatically now get labeled Russian disinformation?

“The Post analysis included forensic work by two outside experts who assessed the authenticity of numerous emails related to the CEFC matter.”

“In addition, The Post found that financial documents on the copy of Hunter Biden’s purported laptop match documents and information found in other records, including newly disclosed bank documents obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees.”

They ran a separate article in the post. “Here's how the Post analyzed Hunter Biden's laptop. Two experts confirm the veracity of thousands of emails.” And then they say, "but a thorough investigation was stymied by missing data” they couldn't confirm all of them, but they confirmed quote:

Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post.

Why didn't they do that before the election, when it actually mattered.
Now there's something going on because you have the New York Times, two weeks ago, on March 16th, now The Washington Post today coming out and saying we have confirmed the key emails, the controversial emails on Hunter Biden's laptop, they're not Russian disinformation. They are authentic. Let's remember what CNN did.

On October 17, 2020. So just a couple of weeks before the election, they invited on this man. James Clapper, who was President Obama's senior national security official, he was the director of national intelligence. Remember, James Clapper got caught red handed lying to the US Senate in 2013 when he went to testify and was asked by Senator Ron Wyden does the NSA collect dossiers on millions of Americans? And James Clapper looked at him in his face and said, “No, we don't, not wittingly.”

And that was when Edward Snowden, who had in his hands the proof that the US was spying on American citizens en masse, knew Clapper was lying and made the final decision to come forward
with that evidence because he couldn't let James Clapper get away with that lie. After James Clapper lied to the Senate. And we all know he lied. He wasn't fired. He wasn't prosecuted. He was kept on as President Obama's top national security official. The liar, the one who got caught lying, kept on by President Obama and then got hired by CNN, where he still works to deliver the news.

Remember when the CIA in the security state used to use clandestine methods to influence corporate news? Now they just right out in the open go to work in their newsrooms on their payroll
. This is who CNN has telling the news and listen to what he said. This congenital career trained liar, now working for CNN right before the election about the materials on Hunter Biden's laptop, just listen to what he said.

CNN: How much do the does the source matter here?

James Clapper: Well, source matters a lot, and the timing matters a lot, I think. And to me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work. The Russians have analyzed the target. They understand that the president and his enablers crave dirt on Vice President Biden. Whether it's real or contrived, it doesn't matter to them. And so all of a sudden, two and a half weeks before the election, this laptop appears somehow and emails on without any metadata. It just it's all very curious. But so here you have a willing target, and the Russians are very sophisticated about how to exploit a willing target. And to me, that's what's at work here.

CNN: And so when you try to figure out the specifics of, you know, whether that meeting email, for example, is real in the midst of this, do you think stuff like that could just have been planted in there and be completely fake?

James Clapper: I do. I think the emails could be could be contrived, particularly since, as I understand it, from what I've read, they appear without any metadata that is from/to, any technical data at least immediately evident now if this computer is in the hands of the FBI. They have obviously excellent, sophisticated technical and forensic analytic capabilities, and I think they'll be able to sort it out, whether this is genuine or not. But, you know, it's all pretty curious, given again two and a half weeks out from the election.

Glenn Greenwald: Do you see what just cold blooded liars they are? Here you have a supposed journalist, at least that's her job title with this media corporation working in tandem with a former security state official who's now her colleague in a newsroom somehow. And they're both concocting a lie, a false claim out of nowhere, telling Americans to believe that this incriminating evidence that was forged by the Russians was fabricated and was fake. None of which was true.

They are right, the corporate media is the liberal wing of the corporate media, which is most of the corporate media, that there is a grave disinformation problem in the United States. The United States does indeed is indeed plagued by a very serious extreme problem of disinformation. What they're wrong about is the source of that disinformation, it doesn't come from QAnon or Facebook or teenagers on 4chan. It comes from them. These are the liars. These are the disinformation agents. You see it over and over. You hear what they just said is complete fabrications to help Joe Biden two weeks before the election.

Now here's CNN. Today, with The Washington Post story coming out, they didn't mention that, but also the New York Times story from two weeks ago, they suddenly decide to take seriously the Hunter Biden investigation now that Joe Biden is safely elected. Listen to what you hear now on CNN.

CNN: Just lay out your reporting here because this is very, very bad for the president's son.

Analyst: It is, and it's an investigation. As you pointed out, going back to 2018, and right now, prosecutors in Delaware are focusing on a number of things, including whether Hunter Biden and some of his business associates violated laws, including a tax and money laundering laws and foreign lobbying laws.

A lot of this has to do with Hunter Biden's time working with this company called Burisma, an energy company in Ukraine. He was getting paid as much as fifty thousand dollars a month for that company during a time that Joe Biden, his father was vice president, was in charge of handling Ukraine issues for the Obama administration.

And that, of course, raised questions of of a conflict. And so what we know is this investigation, you know, for a while, it has been going on and it seemed to not not a lot was going on. Until recently, a lot of activity has picked up, with no witnesses have gone in to talk to the grand jury in Delaware. We know of witnesses who are going in to talk to investigators in the next few weeks, so we know that there is a lot of activity now picking up. He's not been charged. Hunter Biden says that he committed no wrongdoing and that he says at the end of this, he believes he'll be cleared. But obviously, as you pointed out, this is a political mess for the sitting president to have his son being investigated by the Justice Department, his own Justice Department.

Glenn Greenwald: Oh, wow, wow. So I guess what they're saying is that Hunter Biden was engaged corruptly in Ukraine and being paid in order to exercise influence with his father, the former vice president and Democratic presidential frontrunner, to benefit companies that were paying Hunter Biden. It's amazing that just 14 months ago, the same network was telling you to disbelieve all of that, that it was all fake and forged. That it was fabricated by the Russians, it was Russian disinformation, Soviet tradecraft.

And now, when it doesn't matter anymore, they're willing to say that it's true.
Let me just show you beyond CNN, how aggressively and deliberately and shamefully these media outlets just lied and remember not one of them, not CNN, or any of the ones I'm about to show, you have even acknowledged all the proof that has emerged from Politico reporter from the New York Times, from The Washington Post that they lied.

Here is Huffington Post. This is what they published on October 20th, 2020, a couple of weeks before the election. They, I think, purported this to be some sort of like reporting video when it was just so plainly a Biden campaign ad masquerading as reporting filled with lies, lies. Listen to what The Huffington Post told their readers:

Do you hear this sinister music, the fact that there's only one side of the story presented, the fact that it's all designed to convince you to ignore the evidence that was reported by the New York Post and others because it's all Russian disinformation, as these honorable intelligence officials have said.

Here's what Mother Jones said quote “Giuliani and the New York Post are pushing Russian disinformation. It's a big test for the media. With its new Biden story, Murdoch's tabloid is a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin.” Do you see any caveats there? The Washington Post claimed they were saying that, Oh well, we might have some concerns that perhaps some of the emails up. No. Giuliani and the New York Post are pushing Russian disinformation, they're being useful idiots for Vladimir Putin. Here was the first reporter to break the story that the Biden archive was Russian disinformation. It was Natasha Bertrand, who at the time worked for Politico. Every time she lies, she gets promoted. She began at Business Insider. She was a heavy proponent of various Russiagate lies, including this fake nonexistent connection between Trump and Alfa Bank that she got her promoted to the Atlantic and MSNBC. Then she got promoted to Politico, where she told this lie. “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation, dozens of former intel officials say.”

Now the reality is that headline is a lie. The intelligence officials didn't say this story is Russian disinformation. They admitted in their letter that they had no evidence to believe that, that they just were using their experience and their intuition to say it seems like it has the hallmarks.
Like James Clapper said of Russian tradecraft in the hands of these lying reporters that got turned into something more definitive. Hunter Biden story is Russian disinformation. Here was The Huffington Post again, “more than 50 former Intel officials say Hunter Biden's snare smear smells like Russia.”

Here's the media outlet I to my great embarrassment, co-founded in 2013, which not only censored my own reporting on the story by saying it didn't meet their lofty, rigorous editorial standards because the email was likely Russian disinformation and couldn't be verified. Five days before I tried to publish my own story, this is the crap they publish.

The CIA stenography it was by James Risen, a former New York Times reporter. The Intercept was created to oppose the New York Times, and yet the editorial leaders of any of The Intercept higher New York Times reporters to control the newsroom because they're desperate for approval and popularity with other liberal media outlets. And they get it by hiring New York Times reporters and that they put in charge. And James Risen wrote the article: “We're not a democracy. Four years ago, the nation tumbled down the Trump rabbit hole. We've been lost in the dark so long it's hard to know which way is up.”

The The Intercept, this outlet that I co-founded at the height of the Snowden reporting was founded to be adversarial to the claims of U.S. security state agencies such as the CIA. It was created based in the awareness that the U.S. corporate media was far too interconnected with and deferential to the CIA, the Pentagon, the FBI, the NSA and just repeated their lies as we just saw repeatedly them doing. We were supposed to be adversarial, more critical, applying critical scrutiny. Look at what Jim Risen and the intercept editors did in their desperation to help Joe Biden win the election
, they were talking about this laptop quote:

Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani. The New York Post story was so rancid that at least one reporter refused to put his byline on it.

The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

This week, a group of former intelligence officials [the people we were supposed to be adversarial to, but instead they're now subservient to] issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.
(I separated the truth from Trump’s lies about Biden and the Ukraine in a piece last year.)

All things we know to be a complete and utter lie, as a result of the proof that exists at the time that has emerged since then. Do you think the intercept of the Huffington Post or Mother Jones of CNN or any of these other outlets have acknowledged any of this or retracted their story? Go look at these articles and see if you can find an editor's note on any of them saying that subsequent to the publication of our story, evidence emerged that what we said here is a lie and that these materials were fully authenticated from the start and had nothing to do with Russia, as we falsely told you.

That's what media outlets with integrity would do. They don't care about integrity, and so they don't do that.

A couple of weeks ago or actually last week in the wake of the New York Times story, my Substack colleague, Matt Taibbi published a story about the extraordinary, mass dropping moment that this is for the corporate media quote “The media campaign to protect Joe Biden passes the point of absurdity.” And he details in there using The Intercept as an example how editors is deliberately lied by claiming that this material was Russian disinformation when they had no reason to believe that other than the CIA told them to say it, quote:

Editors Betsy Reed and Peter Maass in October 2020 refused to publish a Greenwald piece unless he addressed the “complexity” of the ‘disinformation issue,’ with Reed condescendingly suggesting there was a lot of ‘in-house knowledge’ the Pulitzer winner could ‘tap into.’

By ‘in-house knowledge,’ Reed meant Robert Mackey and Jim Risen, two former New York Times reporters who’d already denounced the laptop story as conspiracy theory.

Intercept editors Reed and Maass not only effectively demanded that Greenwald run his copy by a pair of New York Times vets — odd for a site specifically launched as a counter to Times-style reporting — but chastised Greenwald for refusing to address the “earmarks of Russian disinformation” canard issued in a group letter of 50 of the exact same Bush and Obama-era intelligence officials who’d denounced the Snowden disclosures and had originally been the Intercept’s primary reporting targets.”

This is what went on in every newsroom. I promise you, I promise you. They knew this story was a lie. No one believed these documents were forged by Russia. Nobody. The CIA letter was designed to give them a way to tell this lie with a straight face, but the reason everybody knew it was a lie was because all the things we used as journalists to verify these documents were there from the beginning.

You had Tony Bobulinski and others on the email chain showing on their phone and computers. Look, here's the emails I received in real time. And they match exactly what's on this archive. Of course, the archive is authentic and genuine. They lied on purpose inside these newsrooms. They were desperate not to be perceived as helping Donald Trump. So now we have the proof. From multiple sources, including the outlets they claim are the most credible. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico.

How many news outlets have retracted this false story in the past year and a half now that the proof is available? Zero. Zero.

And you know what they won't, they never will. And I'll tell you why. These outlets do not see themselves as journalistic in nature. They don't these media corporations, they see themselves as activists for the Democratic Party. They have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is such a singularly threatening and unprecedentedly dangerous figure, essentially the return of Adolf Hitler, and that his supporters and movement behind him are basically the equivalent of neo-Nazis that everything and anything is justified to stop them from remaining in power or winning another election, including joining hands at the CIA to lie to abuse their journalistic platform to spread lies knowingly, and to work with Big Tech to censor any information that may undermine the Democratic Party.

This is who they are. Now, President Trump has called these people the enemy of the people. I would not use that phrase just because of its historical meaning, but I also would not tell people who do think that way that they're wrong. What else can you say about a group of people who work inside an industry whose function in their minds is to deceive and manipulate with lives in conjunction with the US security state designed to manipulate US politics domestically?

What else can you say about them besides the fact that they are an extremely malignant force that however much you distrust them, and polls showed they're at their record low of distrust, however much you distrust them and despise them, it is not enough. It's not enough.

This episode reveals once and for all who and what they really are. It's not just that they spread lies before the 2020 election is that even when their faces are rubbed in the dispositive proof that what they published was false, they just ignore it. They won't even acknowledge it, let alone retract it. That's how much contempt they have for you, for their journalistic duties, and for the truth.
Site Admin
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News

Postby admin » Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:04 am

Public Relationships: Hill & Knowlton, Robert Gray,
and the CIA

by Johan Carlisle
Covert Action Quarterly
from the Spring 1993 issue of CAQ (Number44)

Public relations and lobbying firms are part of the revolving door between government and business that President Clinton has vowed to close. It is not clear how he will accomplish this goal when so many of his top appointees, including Ron Brown and Howard Paster, are "business as usual" Washington insiders. Ron Brown, who was a lobbyist and attorney for Haiti's "BabyDoc"Duvalier, is Clinton's Secretary of Commerce. Paster, former head of Hill and Knowlton 's Washington office, directed the confirmation process during the transition period and is now Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the White House. After managing PR for the Gulf War, Hill and Knowlton executive Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado became director of public liaison for the inauguration.

The door swings both ways. Thomas Hoog, who served on Clinton's transition team, has replaced Paster as head of H&K's Washington office.

Hill and Knowlton is one of the world 's largest and most influential corporations. As such, its virtually unregulated status, its longstanding connections to intelligence agencies, its role in shaping policy, and its close relationship to the Clinton administration deserve careful scrutiny.

In Turkey, "in July 1991, the same month President George Bush made an official visit there, the body of human rights worker Vedat Aydin was found along a road. His skull was fractured, his legs were broken, and his body was riddled by more than a dozen bullet wounds. He had been taken from his home by several armed men who identified themselves as police officers. No one was charged with his murder." De- spite hundreds of such "credible reports" acknowledged by the State Department, documenting use of "high-pressure cold water hoses, electric shocks, beating of the genitalia, and hanging by the arms," Turkey reaps the benefits of U.S. friendship and Most Favored Nation status. "Last year Turkey received more than $800 million in U.S. aid, and spent more than $3.8 million on Washington lobbyists to keep that money flowing." Turkey paid for U.S. tolerance of torture with its cooperative role in NATO, and its support for Operation Desert Storm; it bought its relatively benign public image with cold cash. Turkey's favorite Washington public relations and lobbying firm is Hill and Knowlton (H&K), to which it paid $1,200,000 from November 1990 to May 1992. Other chronic human rights abusers, such as China, Peru, Israel, Egypt, and Indonesia, also retained Hill and Knowlton to the tune of $14 million in 1991-92. Hill and Knowlton has also represented the infamously repressive Duvalier regime in Haiti.

On October 10, 1990, as the Bush administration stepped up war preparations against Iraq, H&K, on behalf of the Kuwaiti government, presented 15-year-old "Nayirah" before the House Human Rights Caucus. Passed off as an ordinary Kuwaiti with firsthand knowledge of atrocities committed by the Iraqi army, she testified tearfully before Congress:

"I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital...[where] I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."

Supposedly fearing reprisals against her family, Nayirah did not reveal her last name to the press or Congress. Nor did this apparently disinterested witness mention that she was the daughter of Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S. As Americans were being prepared for war, her story- which turned out to be impossible to corroborate -became the centerpiece of a finely tuned public relations campaign orches- trated by H&K and coordinated with the White House on behalf of the government of Kuwait and its front group, Citizens for a Free Kuwait.

In May 1991, CFK was folded into the Washington-based Kuwait-America Foundation. CFK had sprung into action on August 2, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. By August 10, it had hired H&K, the preeminent U.S. public relations firm. CFK reported to the Justice Department receipts of $17,861 from 78 individual U.S. and Canadian contributors and $11.8 million from the Kuwaiti government. Of those "do- nations," H&K got nearly $10.8 million to wage one of the largest, most effective public relations campaigns in history.

From the streets to the newsrooms, according to author John MacArthur, that money created a benign facade for Kuwait's image:
"The H&K team, headed by former U.S. Information Agency officer Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado, organized a Kuwait Information Day on 20 college campuses on September 12. On Sunday, September 23, churches nationwide observed a national day of prayer for Kuwait. The next day, 13 state governors declared a national Free Kuwait Day. H&K distributed tens of thousands of Free Kuwait bumper stickers and T-shirts, as well as thousands of media kits extolling the alleged virtues of Kuwaiti society and history. Fitz-Pegado's crack press agents put together media events featuring Kuwaiti "resistance fighters" and businessmen and arranged meetings with newspaper editorial boards. H&K's Lew Allison, a former CBS and NBC News producer, created 24 video news releases from the Middle East, some of which purported to depict life in Kuwait under the Iraqi boot. The Wirthlin Group was engaged by H&K to study TV audience reaction to statements on the Gulf crisis by President Bush and Kuwaiti officials. "

All this PR activity helped "educate" Americans about Kuwait -- a totalitarian country with a terrible human rights record and no rights for women. Meanwhile, the incubator babies atrocity story inflamed public opinion against Iraq and swung the U.S. Congress in favor of war in the Gulf.

This free market approach to manufacturing public perception raises the issue of:
whether there is something fundamentally wrong when a foreign government can pay a powerful, well-connected lobbying and public relations firm millions of dollars to convince the American people and the American government to support a war halfway around the world. In another age this activity would have caused an explosion of outrage. But something has changed in Washington. Boundaries no longer exist.

One boundary which has been blurred beyond recognition is that between "propaganda"-which conjures up unpleasant images of Goebbels-like fascists-and "public relations," a respectable white collar profession. Taking full advantage of the revolving door, these lobbyists and spinmeisters glide through Congress, the White House, and the major media editorial offices. Their routine manipulations -- like those of their brown shirted predecessors--corrode democracy and government policy. H&K's highly paid agents of influence, such as Vice President Bush's chief of staff Craig Fuller, and Democratic power broker Frank Mankiewicz, have run campaigns against abortion for the Catholic Church, represented the Church of Scientology, and the Moonies. They have made sure that gasoline taxes have been kept low for the American Petroleum Institute; handled flack for Three Mile Island's near-catastrophe; and mishandled the apple growers' assertion that Alar was safe. They meddle in our political life at every turn and apparently are never held accountable. Not only do these PR firms act as foreign propaganda agents, but they work closely with U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, making covert operations even harder to control.

In the 1930s, Edward Bernays, the "father of public relations," convinced corporate America that changing the public's opinion--using PR techniques -- about troublesome social movements such as socialism and labor unions, was more effective than hiring goons to club people. Since then, PR has evolved into an increasingly refined art form of manipulation on behalf of whoever has the large amounts of money required to pay for it. In 1991, the top 50 U.S.-based PR firms billed over $1,700,000,000 in fees. Top firms like Hill and Know- lton charge up to $350 per hour.

PR firms manipulate public and congressional opinion and government policy through media campaigns, congressional hearings, and lobbying. They have the ability and the funds to conduct sophisticated research for their clients and, using inside information, to advise them about policy decisions. They are positioned to sell their clients access and introductions to government officials, including those in intelligence agencies. Robert Keith Gray, head of Hill and Knowlton's Washington office for three decades, used to brag about checking major decisions personally with CIA director William Casey, whom he considered a close personal friend.

One of the most important ways public relations firms influence what we think is through the massive distribution of press releases to newspapers and TV newsrooms. One study found that 40 percent of the news content in a typical U.S. newspaper originated with public relations press releases, story memos, or suggestions. The Columbia Journalism Review, which scrutinized a typical issue of the Wall Street Journal, found that more than half the Journal's news stories "were based solely on press releases." Although the releases were reprinted "almost verbatim or in paraphrase," with little additional reporting, many articles were attributed to "a Wall Street Journal staff reporter."

While some PR campaigns are aimed at the general pub- lic, others target leadership, either to persuade them or to provide them with political cover. On November 27, 1990, just two days before the U.N. Security Council was to vote on the use of military force against Iraq, while the U.S. was extorting, bullying, and buying U.N. cooperation, Kuwait was trying to win hearts, minds, and tear ducts. "Walls of the [U.N.] Council chamber were covered with oversized color photographs of Kuwaitis of all ages who reportedly had been killed or tortured by Iraqis. ...A videotape showed Iraqi soldiers apparently firing on unarmed demonstrators, and witnesses who had escaped from Kuwait related tales of horror. A Kuwaiti spokesman was on hand to insist that his nation had been `an oasis of peaceful harmony' before Iraq mounted its invasion." This propaganda extravaganza was orchestrated by Hill and Knowlton for the government of Kuwait. With few exceptions, the event was reported as news by the media, and two days later the Security Council voted to authorize military force against Iraq.


The government's use of PR firms in general, and Hill and Knowlton in particular, goes beyond ethically dubious opinion manipulation. It includes potentially illegal proxy spying operations for intelligence agencies. "H&K recruited students to attend teach-ins and demonstrations on college campuses at the height of the Vietnam War, and to file agent-like reports on what they learned," according to author Susan Trento. "The purpose was for H&K to tell its clients that it had the ability to spot new trends in the activist movement, especially regarding environmental issues." Richard Cheney (no relation to former Secretary of Defense Cheney), head of H&K's New York office, denied this allegation. He said that H&K recommends that its clients hire private investigative agencies to conduct surveillance and intelligence work. But, Cheney admitted, "in such a large organization you never know if there's not some sneak operation going on."

Former CIA official Robert T. Crowley, the Agency's long-time liaison with corporations, sees it differently. "Hill and Knowlton's overseas offices," he acknowledged, "were perfect `cover' for the ever-expanding CIA. Unlike other cover jobs, being a public relations specialist did not require technical training for CIA officers." The CIA, Crowley admitted, used its H&K connections "to put out press releases and make media contacts to further its positions. ...H&K employees at the small Washington office and elsewhere, distributed this material through CIA assets working in the United States news media." Since the CIA is prohibited from disseminating propaganda inside the U.S., this type of "blowback"- which former CIA officer John Stockwell and other researchers have often traced to the Agency-is illegal. While the use of U.S. media by the CIA has a long and well-documented history, the covert involvement of PR firms may be news to many. According to Trento:
"Reporters were paid by the CIA, sometimes without their media employers' knowledge, to get the material in print or on the air. But other news organizations ordered their employees to cooperate with the CIA, including the San Diego-based Copley News Service. But Copley was not alone, and the CIA had `tamed' reporters and editors in scores of newspaper and broadcast outlets across the country. To avoid direct relationships with the media, the CIA recruited individuals in public relations firms like H&K to act as middlemen for what the CIA wanted to distribute.

This close association and dependence upon the intelligence community by reporters has created a unique situation which has shielded PR executives and firms from closer scrutiny by the media and Congress. According to Trento, "These longstanding H&K intelligence ties and CIA-linked reporters' fears that Gray might know about them might partially explain why Gray has escaped close media examination, even though he was questioned about his or his associates' roles in one major scandal after another during his long Washington career."

Over the years, Hill and Knowlton and Robert Gray have been implicated in the BCCI scandal, the October Surprise, the House page sex and drug scandal, Debategate, Koreagate, and Iran-Contra. In October 1988, three days after the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiring with the Medellin Cartel to launder $32,000,000 in illicit drug profits, the bank hired H&K to manage the scandal. Robert Gray also served on the board of directors of First American Bank, the Washington D.C. bank run by Clark Clifford (now facing federal charges) and owned by BCCI. Gray was close to, and helped in various ways, top Reagan officials. When Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger's son needed a job, Gray hired him for $2,000 a month. "And when Gray's clients needed something from the Pentagon, Gray and Co. went right to the top." Gray also helped Attorney General Ed Meese's wife, Ursula, get a lucrative job with a foundation which was created by a wealthy Texas client, solely to employ her.


Robert Keith Gray, who set up Hill and Knowlton's important Washington, D.C. office and ran it for most of the time between 1961 and 1992, has had numerous contacts in the national and international intelligence community. The list of his personal and professional associates includes Edwin Wilson, William Casey, Tongsun Park (Korean CIA), Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Anna Chennault (Gray was a board member of World Airways aka Flying Tigers), Neil Livingstone, Robert Owen, and Oliver North.
"Most of the International Division [of Gray & Co.] clients," said Susan Trento, "were right-wing governments tied closely to the intelligence community or businessmen with the same associations."

In 1965, with Gray's help, Tongsun Park, had formed the George Town Club in Washington. According to Trento:

Park put up the money and, with introductions from Gray and others, recruited "founders" for the club like the late Marine Gen. Graves Erskine, who had an active intelligence career. Anna Chennault became a force in the club. Others followed, and most, like Gray, had the same conservative political outlook, connections to the intelligence world, or `congressional overtones.' Gray's ties to right-wing Asians like Chennault and Park had deep roots. Gray had been critical of Eisenhower [when he was appointments secretary for Eisenhower] for never being partisan enough. Perhaps that is why Gray embraced wholeheartedly the powers behind the China Lobby. One reason Gray was attached to the lobby was that they had long been behind the funding of Richard Nixon's various campaigns.

Tongsun Park was an "agent of influence," trained by the Korean intelligence agency, which was created by and is widely regarded as a subsidiary of the CIA. The George Town Club has served as a discrete meeting place where right-wing foreign intelligence agents can socialize and conduct business with U.S. government officials.

Robert Gray has also been linked with former CIA and naval intelligence agent Edwin Wilson, although Gray denies it. In 1971, Wilson left the CIA and set up a series of new front companies for a secret Navy operation-Task Force 157. Wilson says that Robert Gray "was on the Board [of Directors]. We had an agreement that anything that H&K didn't want, they would throw to me so that I could make some money out of it, and Bob and I would share that."


Gray's connection to Iran-Contra has never been fully examined. Notably, the Tower Commission, Reagan's official 1986 investigation, all but ignored it. In 1983, Texas Senator John Tower had declined to seek reelection thinking he had a deal with Reagan to become Secretary of Defense. After Weinberger decided to stay on in the second Reagan term, Tower found himself without a job. In 1986, his friend Robert Gray offered him a position on the board of directors of Gray and Co. Shortly thereafter, Tower was asked to head the presidential inquiry. Not suprisingly, the Tower Commission kept Gray and Co. out of the investigation, in spite of the facts that several key players in the scandal had worked for Gray and Co., and Gray's Madrid office was suspected of involvement in the secret arms shipments to Iran.

Despite large gaps in the official inquiry, it has been established that Robert Owen, Oliver North's messenger and bagman, worked for Gray and Co. after leaving then-Senator Dan Quayle's staff in 1983. Owen worked primarily with Neil Livingstone, a mysterious figure who claims to be a mover and shaker in the intelligence world but who is described as a "groupie." Livingstone worked with Ed Wilson, Air Panama, and as a front man for business activities sponsored by the CIA and Israeli intelligence. Owen and Livingstone traveled frequently to Central America to meet with the Contras in 1984. An interesting footnote to Iran-Contra is that in 1986, Saudi Arabian arms broker Adnan Khashoggi hired Hill and Knowlton and Gray and Co. to milk maximum publicity out of his major donation to a $20.5 million sports center, named after him, at American University.


The pattern of influence peddling and insider abuse is clear. The potential for real reform is less obvious. Despite his stated intention to restrict the influence of lobbyists and PR manipulation, Clinton's reforms are viewed with cynical amusement by those in the know. Although newly restricted from directly lobbying their former agencies, retiring government officials can simply take jobs with PR firms, sit at their desks, and instruct others to say "Ron, or Howard, sent me." Nor does the updated Foreign Agents Registration Act have real teeth. The act --legislated in 1938 when U.S. PR firms were discovered working as propagandists and lobbyists for Nazi Germany-is rarely enforced. While it requires agents of governments to register, it omits requirements for agents of foreign corporations, who often serve the same interests.

And if loopholes for lobbying are comfortably large, public relations activities remain totally unregulated and unscrutinized by any government agency. Given the power and scope of PR firms, their track records of manipulation, their collusion with intelligence agencies, and their disregard for the human rights records and corporate misdeeds of many of their clients, this lack of oversight endangers democracy. Careful regulation, stringent reporting requirements, and government and citizen oversight are essential first steps in preventing these giant transnationals from functioning as a virtual fourth branch of government.
Site Admin
Posts: 36188
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests