As an introduction to this article, I would like to
mention that from my own experience, it appears that many Christians are "brainwashed" by their local church
or denomination. They are made to believe things that just
aren't true, sometimes regarding issues of immense eternal
significance, salvation for example. How this happens is quite
simple: the people don't bother to verify the truth of what they
hear in the pulpit or in the Sunday school classroom. They may
be lazy or they may assume that their teachers are more reliable
than they really are. Our hope at this website is that you do
not wish to be among the ignorant and complacent... Instead, you
want to know the truth and you wish to dig as deep as you have to in
order to get it, which can include doing your own in-depth bible
studies, researching articles written by people who do not agree
with your pastor on a particular subject or doctrine, looking
outside of your particular denomination for truth, studying church
history and the teachings of respected bible teachers and preachers
of the past.
Americans Target Of Largest Media
Brainwashing Campaign In History
By Lonnie Wolfe
- 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
- 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
- As with any such covert special operation, there is a
psychological warfare component, intended to maximize its
effectiveness against a targeted enemy, to confuse that enemy
and misdirect him. In the case of the Sept. 11 attack, the
targeted 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 answers to 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
- 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
- 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"
- 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
- "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
- 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
- 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
"G-d, 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
- 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 power 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 labeled the film, produced
by Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox, "dangerous and
- 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 sh-ts'--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
- 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 targeted 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- * 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
- 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
- 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,
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.