Americans Target Of Largest Media
Brainwashing Campaign In History
By Lonnie Wolfe
Executive Intelligence Review
www.larouchepub.com
10-16-1
Introduction: Are You Brainwashed?
Are you brainwashed? What about some of your neighbors, are they
brainwashed? Before you answer that, let us ask you a few preliminary
questions: Do you believe that the United States was struck by a terrorist
attack on Sept. 11? Do think that the people behind that attack were "Arabs"
and that its "mastermind" was this fellow Osama bin Laden, operating from a
cave in Afghanistan? Do you believe that the way to stop terrorism is to hit
them hard, to hit them at their "bases" in such places as Afghanistan, and
to hit the nations who might sponsor them, like, say Iraq?
And what about the economy? Do you think that the recent fall of the
stock market, and the weakness in the economy, have been caused by the
Sept. 11 attacks? Well, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you
probably are brainwashed! If you answered "yes" to more than one, you are
definitely a "goner."
"But," you, reply, "isn't that what most people think? Wouldn't they
answer those questions the same way I do? Well, the answer to that is,
yes. But, we would remind you: Just because the majority of people might
BELIEVE something to be true, doesn't make it true. All it means, is that
you and most of your neighbors are suffering from a mass
delusion--or, put more bluntly: YOU ARE BRAINWASHED. So, the question is,
really, how did you get this way? How did you come to believe things like
those statements in the first questions were true? "Well, I heard it on....
Well, I saw it on.... Well, I read it in...."
You needn't bother finishing those statements; we can do it for you:
You, and your neighbors were told the "truth" by the mass media. The
American "news" media, which is so proud of calling itself "free," and has
been patting itself on it back for the wonderful job it has done for all us
during and after Sept. 11, is the largest, most expensive,
mass-brainwashing machine ever assembled in human history. It is a machine
that so completely brainwashes the nearly 300 millions Americans, that the
Nazis' infamous Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels would be envious.
Here are the essential facts of what happened on Sept. 11: According to
Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, whose assessment
is shared by many competent specialists on terrorism and irregular
warfare, in this country and around the world, what took place was not a
terrorist attack, but strategic, covert special operation, organized to have
the appearance of a "terrorist" attack. Mr. LaRouche and others
concur that, given both its scope, and the extent of the cover-up and
misdirection which followed, such an operation could not have been
organized by any Arab terrorist cells or networks, nor by an Arab or Middle
Eastern state, nor any combination of the above; it had to be organized from
within the United States, with the participation and connivance of a rogue
network within the Anglo-American intelligence and military establishment.
As with any such covert special operation, there is a psychological
warfare component, intended to maximize its effectiveness against a
targetted enemy, to confuse that enemy and misdirect him. In the case of the
Sept. 11 attack, the targetted enemy is the POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. The "psywar" component of the operation
is being carried out by the American media-machine, with the intent to
brainwash the American people INTO ACCEPTING THE ONGOING COUP D'ETAT AGAINST
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Does that mean that the directors of the U.S. mass media are involved
in the operation? No; it doesn't work that way. As EIR explained and
documented in a 1997 special report, the U.S. media are controlled and run
as a cartel, by the Anglo-American establishment. As such, it routinely
serves the interest of that establishment, reporting what it wants, and
suppressing what it doesn't want reported; or slanting reporting to conceal
reality. Thus, the media's performance before, during and after Sept. 11
could be prediscounted by those who planned the operation, so as to become a
feature of it; it were merely required to insert certain specific "psyops"
content into this media-brainwashing apparatus, for it to be spread far and
wide with the desired effects on you and your neighbors.
The brainwashing methods are relatively simple and classic. First, use
the terror itself to put people into a state of shock, making them more
susceptible to suggestion. Then resort to the "Big Lie" technique to
repeatedly hammer home your psywar message--those affirmative answersto
the questions we first asked. And most importantly, lie, by suppressing
all counter-evidence, by refusing to report anything that might point
to the assessment shared by Mr. LaRouche and others: the cover-up. All
this has been done, along with initial softening of the population to
the mass delusional suggestion of the enemy image and the alleged
capabilities and motivations of the so-called terrorists, PRIOR TO THE
LAUNCHING OF THE ATTACK ITSELF.
Don't be so hasty in dismissing the possibility of your own
brainwashing. The enemy knows your profile and uses it. Doesn't that make
you a bit angry--maybe for the right reasons, for the first time in a few
weeks?
Our report below is designed to give you a view from inside this
brainwashing process, to see how it has worked on you and your neighbors.
And, while we can't yet say who precisely is behind what was done to this
country--is still being done--we can show you how they think about
brainwashing and use your weaknesses against you.
Psychological Terror as a Means of Warfare: Dresden Redux Before
discussing the brainwashing operation itself, we provide a little background
on the use of terror against mass civilian populations. Not
surprisingly, this was pioneered by the brainwashers of the Anglo-American
establishment.
As commentators on the scene at "Ground Zero" of the World Trade Center
(WTC) attack on Sept. 11 surveyed the devastation, they reached for
metaphors to describe the incredible scene. "It looks like Dresden," said
one, referring to the firebombing of that German city by the Allies in 1944.
Dresden had no military value as a target. For centuries, it had been a
center of German cultural heritage--a heritage that had everything to
do with positive developments in human civilization, and nothing to do
with the Nazi disease that had been imposed on Germany by the
Anglo-American financial elite. Dresden was chosen for destruction as an act
of TERRORISM, directed, not against the Nazis, per se, but the German
people.
The firebombing of Dresden, creating a raging inferno of destruction
that slaughtered more that 100,000 human beings, was conceived and
directed by a group of social psychiatrists at the Strategic Bombing Survey,
affiliated with the Special Operations Command of the Office of
Strategic Services (OSS). This group was effectively overseen by the head of
the British Psychological Warfare Directorate, Brig. Gen. John Rawlings
Rees, the director the Tavistock Clinic in London, which, since the 1920s,
had served as a center of psychological warfare operations of the British
Empire.
The team at the Strategic Bombing Survey, which included a host of
U.S.-based Tavistock operatives, such as Kurt Lewin, Rensis Likert, and
Margaret Mead, theorized that the terror inflicted on the German
population through the "message of Dresden" would break their will to fight,
leaving them fearful, frightened, and disorganized. They projected that it
would have a lasting effect on Germany, removing that nation from among the
great states of Europe, making it a permanently psychologically scarred
entity. The German people, they argued, would be made to realize that "all
that is German" could be wiped away, all of its culture and history, in an
instant, as it were, by powers who would oppose an assertive future Germany.
In his 1941 book, "Time Perspective and Morale," Kurt Lewin described
the psychology behind the use of this terror tactic for mass effect:
"One of the main techniques for breaking morale through a `strategy of
terror' consists in exactly this tactic--keep the person hazy as to
where he stands and what just he may expect. If, in addition, frequent
vacillations between severe disciplinary measures and promises of good
treatment, together with the spreading of contradictory news, make the
cognitive structure of this situation utterly unclear, then the individual
may cease to know when a particular plan would lead toward or away from his
goal. Under these conditions, even those individuals who have definite goals
and are ready to take risks will be paralyzed with severe inner conflicts in
regard to what to do."
As the pilots and their crews came to realize what they had done--the
creation of a raging inferno, burning civilian targets and
civilians--many returned to their bases horrified. At the instruction of the
psyops warriors, the crews had not been fully briefed on the mission. Now,
they were greeted by teams of psychologists and others, who would profile
their responses to the terror they had unleashed; they were told, as the
crews who later dropped, unnecessarily, atomic bombs on two Japanese cities,
that it would "shorten the war."
As one former intelligence officer remarked decades later, "we killed
for pure terror, slaughtered people as A TERRORIST WOULD. And, it had no
effect on shortening the war. In fact, it seemed to help rally the
German people to the Hitler government. The fools who designed this mission
probably extended the war" (emphasis added).
The attack on the U.S. Sept. 11, in particular the WTC attack, was
designed for a similar PSYWAR brainwashing effect.
The Sept. 24 issue of "The New Yorker," commented that, according to
"defense experts," the Sept. 11 strike "was clearly an example of what
military strategists call `psyops'; that is, a brand of warfare whose aim is
not to disable military targets, but to sap the overall will of a nation and
its people."
The article goes on to quote from a 1999 paper by military strategist
and analyst Joseph Cyrulik of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., "Asymmetric
Warfare and the Threat to the American Homeland": "By killing and wounding
people, damaging and destroying their homes and communities, disrupting
their jobs and economic livelihoods, and undermining their confidence and
sense of security, an enemy can inflict pain to the point that people demand
a change in their government's policies.
"Used at the right time and place ... an attack could destroy the
people's faith in their government, their military, and themselves. It could
become a decisive attack against the political will of an entire
populace."
Cyrulik is part of a network of "thinkers" who seek to change all
military doctrine to meet alleged 21st Century threats; in so doing, this
network wants to activate psyops, including "covert warfare" such as
assassinations. While we can't say that such people are directly
responsible for what occurred on Sept. 11, their assumptions about strategy,
tactics, and the elevated value of psychological warfare, as well as the
misdirection involved in their ascribing powers to "terrorist organizations"
or "rogue states" fit nicely into the overall operation.
There are new methods, not available at the time of the Dresden attack,
for maximizing the psychological effects of a TERROR CAMPAIGN that
parallel standard brainwashing techniques. One involves the repetition of
terrifying images, the kind that would make a person recoil, and then
compelling that person to continue viewing them. Such terrifying images
weaken the ability of the mind to reason, making it more susceptible to
suggestion and manipulation.
In the hours following the attack on the World Trade Center, every
television media outlet in the United States broadcast, again and again, the
images of the airplanes smashing into the Twin Towers, from all conceivable
angles, and then, the shots of the two towers collapsing. It was easily the
most terrifying real-life image that most Americans had ever seen.
A population induced into a state of terror and shock was then
bombarded with SUGGESTION: images started to appear, the mugshot-like photos
of the alleged perpetrators, and the image of the "evil mastermind" behind
the deed, Osama bin Laden.
And, you still believe that you weren't brainwashed?
The Movies in Our Heads "God, this is just like a movie," exclaimed CBS
anchor Dan Rather as the first of the World Trade Center towers
collapsed. "Only, it's the real thing." Did you have the sense, as you were
witnessing the horror of the WTC attack, that you, too, had seen this
before? You probably had--and that is part of the brainwashing operation.
In the last five years, there have been at least a half-dozen movies,
whose plots have centered on a terrorist attack on the United States.
Hollywood statisticians have estimated that these have been viewed, both in
movie theaters and home videos, by more than 100 million people. And, many
of these movies, in the recent period, have portrayed "Arabs" or "Islamic
fundamentalists" as being behind the terrorist assaults.
Each of these latter films has some "expert" advisor, usually a "former
counterterrorism expert" and, in some cases, someone who has worked in
the military. While it would be a leap to say that the movie-production
companies or the "experts" are necessarily witting accomplices in the
current plot, the movies, with their "steered" scripts helped people
believe that "Arab" terrorists might be capable of what was done on Sept.
11.
Long before there was television, images were placed, for "playback" in
America's memory banks--first by the print media, and then, starting
early in the 20th Century with the first of the real mass media, the
movies. Hollywood is a component of the Anglo-American media cartel, a
point made more obvious by recent creation of "entertainment conglomerates"
through mergers and acquisitions. Thus, a mere handful of companies, with
interlocking boards, comprised of people within the Anglo-American
establishment, controls all of what we see in the multiplexes, on
television, in the print media, and, more lately, on the Internet.
As movies were becoming a truly mass-media phenomenon, the
Anglo-American commentator Walter Lippmann described their power, along with
the popwer of media generally, in shaping "public opinion"--what you and
your neighbors think. In his 1921 "handbook" on the mass manipulation of the
public mind, "Public Opinion", Lippmann, who had been trained by Rees, among
others, at the British propaganda directorate during World War|I, writes in
his introductory chapter, "The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads":
"Public opinion deals with indirect, unseen, and puzzling facts, and
there is nothing obvious about them.... The pictures inside the heads of
these human beings, the pictures of themselves, of others, of their
needs, purposes and relationships, are their opinions. Those pictures
acted on by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of
groups, are Public Opinion with capital letters.... The picture inside [the
head] so often misleads men in their dealings with the world outside."
Somewhere in your memory banks, were planted the "pictures in your
head" of the WTC attack. New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane writes in the
magazine's Sept. 24 issue, "How often have we listened to these words [since
Sept. 11]. The statement of fact: `The worst terrorist bombing since
Oklahoma City.' The promise: `Make no mistake about it--we will hunt down
the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy.'
The caution: `You can't fight a war against an enemy you can't see.'
And the ominous look ahead: `This is a time of war; the fact that it is
inside our border means that it is a new kind of war.' We have learned
such sentiments like a script; that we have heard it again and again [in the
days since Sept. 11] has not diminished the sternness with which we have
given our assent.
"Just one problem: it IS a script. All the lines quoted come from `The
Siege,' a 1998 thriller directed by Edward Zwick."
The plot of that movie involves a network of "Arab" terrorist cells,
which commit acts of increasingly violent intensity, against civilian
targets in New York City. Video clips of President Clinton commenting on the
attacks launched, by his administration, against the networks of
Osama bin Laden are spliced into the movie footage. As the terrorists
wreak more havoc and kill more people, New York City is placed under
martial law; anyone who looks "Arab" is rounded up and placed in internment
camps, even as the violence continues.
In the end, the movie becomes a sermon on how to moderate attacks on
the Constitution, and on ethnic profiling of Americans, while the nation
goes on to fight the foreign, "Arab"-terrorist enemy.
When "The Siege" opened in November 1999, it was greeted with protests
from the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, who charged that
it "portrays Arabs and Muslims as an homogeneous, threatening mass,"
and labelled the film, produced by Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox,
"dangerous and incendiary."
Despite such protests, and relatively poor reviews, the movie sold
several score millions of dollars worth of tickets and has done well in its
video release. In remarking how successful the movie-brainwashing
effort has been, Lane noted, in the "New Yorker," that the majority of
Americans reacted to those events with the same kind of unreasoned emotion
that they express at the multiplex or in the home theaters:
"And the exclamations from below, from the watchers of the skies caught
on video, as they see the aircraft slice into the side of the tower:
where have you heard those expressions most recently--the wows, the
whoohs, the `holy shits'--if not in the movie theaters, and even on your own
blaspheming tongue." Hollywood, through films like the "The Siege" and "Die
Hard," writes Lane, has provided a "sensory education ... fed to a hungry
public."
In the days following the attack, President Bush's approval rating shot
up to above 90%, and stayed there, especially after his nationally
televised address of Sept. 13. Following the speech, a CNN commentator
observed that President's approval was so high because he was behaving the
way Americans expected him to: "Like the President in `Independence
Day' [a blockbuster movie about an attack on Washington and the U.S. by
aliens] or the guy from the `West Wing' [a popular television show]."
And, you think you haven't been brainwashed?
`Morphing' the Enemy Image Take a close look at the image of Osama bin
Laden, as it appears on the television screens, in this time of a new
"war." In psyops terms, bin Laden has become the image of the enemy--the
picture that a targetted population keeps in mind as the person, or,
specifically, the type of person it is fighting. There is the swarthy
complexion, the beard, the burnoose, the weapons in hand--it is all there,
all as expected, an ideal subject for the projected rage and hatred of an
injured nation. No matter that bin Laden is not really the "evil
mastermind."
In the days and weeks leading up to the attack, media-watch
organizations reported that the major U.S. television news outlets,
including the cable networks CNN and Fox News, devoted an inordinate amount
of what passes for their "international" coverage, to bin Laden, describing
him as a "terrorist mastermind" or "terrorist controller," almost always
accompanied by a photo or video clips.
But his creation by the media as "terrorist mastermind" doesn't really
begin there. To understand what happened, one needs to look at a nearly
30-year span of news reporting, that led us to this point, where some
character, a former and current asset of U.S.-British-Israeli
intelligence networks, operating from "caves" and other bases in one of the
most remote and isolated areas of the world, has become U.S. "Public Enemy
Number One."
Look at the bin Laden enemy image as a morphing process that begins
with the television image of the Black September terrorists of the 1972
Olympics. Then, continue to the 1973 images of Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat; later, there are the images of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and the
fanatic mullahs.
Think of someone in Hollywood central casting, trying to find a person
to portray the terrorist archetype, given these past figures and
images: An oil-rich, almost mystical clerical type (although he holds no
religious position), who looks like a morph of "enemies" Arafat and
Khomeini, gets the "part."
The population has also been pre-conditioned to accept the "storyline"
that terrorists who would do such things as took place on Sept. 11 MUST
BE ARAB AND/OR MUSLIM FANATICS, as thousands of televised hours of
misreporting has repeated. Arab organizations in this country report
polling results showing that, by a large margin, Americans believe, even
without supporting evidence, that any act of terrorism has "Arab" origins
and "Arab" perpetrators.
As one intelligence source said this week, within minutes of the World
Trade Center attack, Americans had decided that this was done by "Arab
terrorists" connected to "terrorist mastermind" bin Laden. "They didn't
need to be told to think this," said the source. "They had already been
conditioned to believe it." Are such people not "brainwashed?"
We are told that our press is "free." But isn't that a lie? How "free"
can it be, if the most important event of our time is lied about, at
almost every turn, misreported; if the truth is nowhere to be found among
the smorgasbord of news outlets that comprise our glorious, "free
press."
In Nazi Germany, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels boasted that the
press was free to report whatever it wanted. But, that press was
"coordinated" through the operation of a "press trust," that encompassed all
media. The Nazis planted stories in the press to suit their ends, and the
trust dutifully reported them, with various spins that might give the
appearance that not all media were receiving information from the same
spigot.
While Americans might find it hard to believe, THERE IS NO PRACTICAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPAGANDA OPERATION OF THE NAZI PRESS TRUST AND
THE ANGLO-AMERICAN MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT CARTEL. It is not hard to
slant the coverage of any event to suit almost any purpose--as long as
that purpose fits the needs of those elites that control the media. All it
takes is the planting of a few key items of content, which are then
flushed down through the media sewer pipes. Before you know it, the poor
citizen is deluged. In a certain sense, the Nazi operation was less
insidious, because it was more overt; only fools would fail to realize that
they were being fed the "line" by Goebbels and his crew. Here, the
appearance of choice, the appearance of a flood of information, confuses the
average citizen into believing that he MUST BE GETTING THE TRUTH, FROM
SOMEWHERE.
But, even a cursory content analysis of all, or most of our news
sources, especially the major television providers, shows that the general
content line from all sources is basically the same. This has been the case,
for example, in coverage of Lyndon LaRouche and his policies; in the major
media, the coverage of LaRouche has followed the line dictated by the late
Lazard Freres-linked Katharine Graham of the "Washington Post" to never
cover LaRouche, unless it is to slander him. Similarly, the decision to
black out the present global depression and financial collapse. While there
may be no formal meetings among the controllers of the media cartel, where
such policy is laid out, a policy consensus, nonetheless, ruthlessly
enforces the content of the "news."
In periods of crisis like the current one, however, some of the
controls become more visible; less is left to chance.
It has been reported by some sources, that within a few hours of the
Sept. 11 attacks, Executive Orders were issued that put the U.S. media
under effective wartime censorship. That is not to say that government
auditors of news reporting actually issued orders censoring reports; it
is to say that they moved quickly to block any reporting that might have
veered away from the official "line."
(There was also coordination on the extent of coverage as well. It was
reported that all broadcast media were given the recommendation to
cease normal programming in favor of 24-hour coverage of the "Terrorist
attack on the United States" and "America at War," as the "ID logos" that
appeared on all the networks. It is also reliably reported, that the White
House and national security operatives participated in the decision to
cancel all major sporting events.
What this translates into, we have been told, is that a muzzle has been
placed on government sources, and that all information coming out about
the attacks and the investigation, is under top-down control. This is
understood by those who control the news reporting of the major media
outlets, who have thus submitted to a voluntary censorship.
And you, of course, have managed to understand the truth in this
brainwashing environment? As they say, "Give me a break."
Beating the Drums for War There was a brief interval, that morning of
Sept. 11, as the great brainwashing machine allowed for the visual
impact of the terrorizing message to sink in, before the signal was given
for the talking heads to pronounce the name of the enemy.
If it appeared to some that no matter which channel--broadcast or
cable--you tuned to in those first hours, you saw the same dozen or so spin
doctors, you weren't mistaken: This has been confirmed by various
media-watch outfits. For example, one media-watch organization tallied more
than a dozen appearances by former CIA Director James Woolsey in the first
few days after the attack, each repeating the message about the need to wage
war against Iran, Iraq, and anyone else who allegedly
sponsored the likes of bin Laden. An only slightly less strident Sen. John
Warner (R-Va.) appeared numerous times; we lost count on Henry Kissinger.
As the media-watch group, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
stated, following Sept. 11, any hope that the media would present an
unbiased account of what happened, that it might resist the drive for an
ill-defined war, went out the window. Instead, FAIR documented how the print
and broadcast media issued emotional tirades for war, echoing what they
believed to be the sentiment of the American people; in so doing, there were
no contrary views presented, and, in effect, Americans still have no clear
idea about what happened, or exactly what the Bush Administration is
proposing to do to protect them from future terrorist threats.
Look at these following selected examples, which could be amplified by
many more:
* Kissinger-clone Larry Eagleburger, appearing on CNN, on the day of
the attack: "There is only one way to deal with people like this, and
that is you have to kill some of them, even if they are not directly
involved in this thing."
* The "New York Post", the next day: "The response to this unimaginable
21st-Century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift--kill the
bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison
them if you have to. As for the cities or countries of these host
worms, bomb them into basketball courts."
* Sept. 14 op-ed in the "Washington Times" by Defense Intelligence
Agency officer Thomas Woodrow: "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear
capabilities should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of
Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that
orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and
the current administration."
FAIR commentator and media watcher Norman Solomon commented that many
of the same people who were now calling for a "war against terrorism"
and anyone who might support it (including many of the analysts who were
appearing as talking heads and op-ed columnists) were themselves
involved in assisting terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, when such
efforts were official, if then-secret U.S. policy. "How can a long-time
associate of terrorists now be credibly denouncing `terrorism?'" he asks.
"It's easy. All that is required is for media coverage to remain in a kind
of history-free zone that has no use for facets of reality that are not
presently convenient to acknowledge."
One of those "inconvenient facts" was the well-documented involvement
of U.S. "special ops" people, and the Zbigniew Brzezinski crowd; then,
later, Ollie North and the Bush people, with bin Laden, dating back to
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which amounted to the biggest "state
sponsorship" of terrorism, or at least sponsorship by a then-dominant
faction of our government and intelligence community. FAIR and other
media-watch groups report that almost no one mentioned these "inconvenient"
matters, amidst the vast flow of war propaganda; and if they did, it was
only to lie that it was a policy that had long since been abandoned.
Similarly, much attention was given to reports about FBI and other
agencies work in putting together the "conspiracy" behind the attack. To
this date, no one in the major media outlets of the United States has
mentioned that there is even a possibility of involvement of U.S.
elements. Instead, the reporting has focussed on a combination of "spade
work" on clues and leads, as well as, alleged connections to the bin Laden
networks. FAIR remarked on such coverage, saying that the shots of bin Laden
and his camps gave the impression that there had been more than
circumstantial evidence linking them to attacks. The only proof offered
was from "intelligence leaks" coming from the wartime propaganda
apparatus created by the Executive Order or from assertions made by the
talking heads and other "experts."
The only characteristic, universal to all the coverage, is the cover-up
of any possible trail leading to a domestic source for the control of
the terrorism.
Is all reporting being so "coordinated and steered?" It is clear that
some of the wackos, like Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, a particularly vile
character, are simply being given free rein to vent their lunacy.
On Sept. 17, O'Reilly demanded that, if the Taliban do not turn over
bin Laden, "the U.S. should bomb Afghan infrastructure to rubble--the
airport, the power plants, their water facilities, and the roads....
"This is a very primitive country. And taking out their ability to
exist day to day will not be hard. Remember, the people of any country are
responsible for the government that they have. The Germans were
responsible for Hitler. The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We
should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against their
government, they starve, period."
He went to advocate, in that broadcast and others, to make the "Iraqi
population suffer another round of intense pain" and to blockade Libya
from all food supplies: "Let them eat sand."
As is typical with a "grey psyops" propaganda campaign, the most
extreme ravings are played off against those only slightly less lunatic, to
make the latter appear sane by comparison. Thus, an O'Reilly makes a Woolsey
look like a sober analyst, as he calls for a war to take out governments
that support terrorism, and for "careful" and "calculated" escalating
response against bin Laden.
To hold people's attention, to keep them on "message," it were
necessary to keep them in a highly emotional state. To do this, there was a
steady stream of "human interest" stories about the grief of affected
victims, about the courage of rescue workers and those who perished, along
with shots of grieving citizens. While the courage and grief are real, the
constant bombardment of these images is BRAINWASHING CONDITIONING.
Without them, you would have, after a few days, turned off CNN and the
"news" coverage.
Do you still insist that neither you, nor your neighbors, have been
taken in by this?
`Crash? What Crash?' Lost amid the war hysteria, or more precisely
"spun" inside of it, is the coverup of what would otherwise be the biggest
story of the day: the full-scale crash and blowout of the financial markets.
The markets, at last look, had plunged nearly 20% since Wall Street reopened
on Sept. 17. A fall that precipitous is normally called a "crash,"
engendering widespread panic, not only among traders and brokers, but among
the general population. But in the two weeks of this crash, not one
commentator on a major network has used the term! Moreover, we are told, it
is our patriotic duty to have faith in the eventual recovery of both the
markets and the economy. "We can't let the terrorists defeat us and bring
our economy down," said financial commentator Louis Ruckeyser on his
televised "Wall Street Week."
As Lyndon LaRouche has stated, the crash would have occurred anyway,
given the bankrupt state of world financial system, even without the
Sept. 11 events. However, now the financial analysts who appear on the
television news and in the print media are universally blaming most, if not
all of what happened, on "Osama bin Laden." This was to be expected, they
claim, given what happened on Sept. 11, in what is the biggest "Big Lie" of
them all.
As one trader reported, "My God! The bottom has fallen out and nobody
calls it a crash. It's like it's your patriotic duty not to mention the
word. Hell, the Dow's lost more than 1,500 points--that's a CRASH. But,
if I'm overheard saying this, people look at me: `Where's your American
flag? Remember who you are and what's going on. Do you want to help
Osama bin Laden in his plot to destroy our economy?' Unbelievable!"
But, as like many other media-brainwashed Americans, this trader was,
in his words, "going with the program. It's not a crash, it's a
terrorist event."
A Clockwork Future? Several nights after the Sept. 11 attacks, CNN
flashed images on the screen of National Guard personnel patrolling the
streets of Washington, and heavily armed special police in New York City,
inspecting cars at a tunnel entrance. Then, images were flashed of Israeli
military personnel on the streets of Jerusalem, inspecting cars. The
voiceover, by CNN news-witch Greta van Susteren, a regular featured
personality of that media sewer, along with Mossad-asset Wolf Blitzer, spoke
of America, in response to the "terrorist threat," becoming an increasingly
"policed society," where civil liberties had to be sacrificed for the
protection of its citizens. We have seen this before, she said, not just in
Jerusalem, but in Belfast, Northern Ireland, as a response to "political
terrorism" of the IRA and Protestant militia. After a while, people get used
to it, she said. "Life goes on." Interviews were
presented with Israelis who seemed to concur with the sentiment that,
under conditions of "internal war with terrorists," one needs to adjust to
sacrifices in civil liberties. "Americans will get used to it, just
like we did," the Israeli said.
Thus, the media prepares--or more precisely, conditions--the country to
accept a form of police state, justified by a threat that has not
really been dealt with, and whose true source has been covered up. Not
surprisingly, when Attorney General John Ashcroft, proposed legislation for
a sweeping abridgement of civil liberties, it was given relatively
short shrift by the same media. FAIR reports that two of the three network
news broadcasts never reported it at all; while it was hardly mentioned on
CNN or Fox News. The print media, while reporting it, maintained the theme
of the "necessary sacrifice" of civil liberties for personal
safety and security.
Back in the mid-1970s, Eric Trist and Fred Emery, two leading Tavistock
brainwashers and "experts" on the effects of mass media, forecast that,
by the end of the century, the United States were likely to become just
such a fascist police state.
The two developed a theory of "social turbulence," by which a society
is delivered a series of "shocks"--administered as shared, mass
phenomena--energy shortages, economic and financial collapse, and TERRORIST
attack. If the "shocks" were to come close upon each other, and if they were
delivered with increasing intensity, then it were possible to drive the
entire society, into a state of mass psychosis, Trist and Emery said. They
said that individuals would become disassociated, as they tried to flee from
the terror of the shocking, emerging reality; people would withdraw into a
state of denial, retreating into popular entertainments and diversions,
while being prone to outbursts of rage.
That rage could easily be steered, said the two brainwashers, by those
who had access and control over the means of mass communication, most
notably television.
It was the view of Trist and Emery, in two works widely circulated
among the networks of brainwashers and social psychiatrists associated with
Tavistock, and among the psychological-warfare operatives of the U.S. and
Britain, that the process of watching television was itself a
brainwashing mechanism. They cited their own studies, that regardless of
content, habituated television viewing shuts down the cognitive powers of
the mind, and has a narcotic-like effect on the central nervous system,
making the habituated viewer an easy subject for suggestion and
manipulation; in addition, they found that such effectively brainwashed
"zombies" would hysterically deny that there was anything wrong with them,
or, even, that such manipulation of what they "thought" were possible.
In a chilling metaphor, Trist and Emery proposed that the terrorized,
violent society of the Anthony Burgess book, "A Clockwork Orange," made
into a movie by Stanley Kubrick, was the logical societal outcome for
an America that would, by the end of the century, have been subjected to
more than 50 years of mass brainwashing by the "boob tube." Burgess's world
is one of perpetual violence and terrorism, as a daily part of life; it is
accepted that, if you go out at a certain time, or walk in a certain
neighborhood, you will be attacked and/or killed. There is no purpose to the
violence--it is random and meaningless, and therefore all the more
terrifying. The wealthy are protected; everyone else is told to go about
their business with knowledge of the risk.
With terrorist youth gangs roaming the streets, people stay home,
watching their televised entertainments, or go only to certain areas, which
are heavily protected by police and military. The most sickening thing about
Burgess's image is the sense of hopelessness, of inevitability, that nothing
can be done about it--it is just "the way it is," as Dan Rather's
predecessor as CBS News anchor, Walter Cronkite, used to remind us each
night, as he closed his broadcast.
While the Trist-Emery thesis is not exactly required reading in the
caves of Afghanistan, it is quite familiar to the psywarriors and
brainwashers who have launched a war on the American population. There is a
particular kind of oligarchical evil that would think like this, that would
see a Clockwork Orange society as a necessary outcome, to protect their
continued privilege and power. Are we Americans already so brainwashed that
we would allow this to happen? The next weeks and months will determine
whether we truly do have the moral fitness to survive.
"The end of the world. Details at 11. Now back to your regular
programming."
Remember: The first step in deprogramming yourself from mass-media
brainwashing, to freeing yourself and your neighbors, from its evil
clutches, is to recognize that you and they are, indeed, brainwashed. It
gets a lot easier, and things begin to get much clearer from there on.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
