- 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
- 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
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 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- "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.