Are You Brainwashed? Part II
Lonnie Wolfe for Executive Intelligence Review
‘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 “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 neighbours, 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 neighbours, 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.
Last updated 04/11/2002