How the NWO brainwashed the public Part 2: The Mainstream media

Media:

Keep the adult public attention diverted away from the real social issues, and captivated by matters of no real importance.
Schools:

Keep the young public ignorant of real mathematics, real economics, real law, and real history.

Entertainment:
Keep the public entertainment below a sixth grade level.

Work:
Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think; back on the rat race.

THE so called 'FREE' PRESS

None of this mind manipulation could happen without the media the brains of society. Again, only a few people in the media know they are playing a key role in programming the human mind to walk the road to a global tyranny. The overwhelming majority of journalists have no idea how they are being used. As I suggested earlier, they are two aspects of the same illusion.

The politicians from the Prime minister to its lower members act as if they rule the world and the media report events as if politicians are the global decision makers but rather in reality are highly paid PR people creating the illusion. Thus, the real controllers can stay in the shadows, unreported and unidentified and cannot be criticised by the general public as they will condemn the puppets with no power whether be it Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron in the UK or Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama in the USA . There are exceptions when you meet a very bright journalist outside the mainstream media known as the Alternative media, who can see behind the façades.

They know they are imprisoned within a media structure which severely limits what they can say and do. But they take every opportunity to get across as much information as they can. If only that were true of the rest. Most journalists on local and regional papers and local radio are either time-servers, who are programmed to turn out the same old establishment line without question while thinking their years in the profession make them streetwise, or they are youngsters fresh out of university who have no experience of the world and the manipulation that goes on. There are, I stress, exceptions, but I am speaking generally here. I don't say this out of condemnation, but as this mindset stands between the events in the world and the way the information about them is communicated to the public, it is important that we know the nature of how this works. As these people are only considered 1 cell that makeup that organism and if they do not do this they will be replaced by someone else that follow the establishment line.

At the national and international level, the number of journalists knowingly manipulating the human mind is far greater than the local and regional media, but it is still a relative few. The rest just conform to the traditional structure and approach and allow themselves to be manipulated to manipulate their audience. Interviewing people working in BBC Television national newsroom everyone around me appeared to be extremely genuine. Most of them were very nice people who loved their children and would not wish them to face a centralised global dictatorship. But every day they turn out stories which feed millions of viewers the line the Elite want them to see and hear. As these people do not see the bigger picture of the great harm they are doing to the general public.

To manipulate the world, you don't need to have people running around all the time, like one of those stage performers trying to keep a dozen plates spinning on the end of a stick. Once you have created the structure of an organism, anyone coming into that organisation, say a newspaper or television newsroom, has to conform to what is already there as this individuals are seen as cells. If you can get your representatives into the positions which appoint others into that organisation, it is even better, because you can then fill the place with clones of your own attitudes.

Also, journalists are there to report events. If you can engineer significant events, the journalists will report them. You don't have to control every journalist to do this; the event will be reported anyway. Most of the time, the background information and explanation of that event will come from official sources. Watch a television news bulletin today if you can, and see where the words the reporter is speaking are overwhelmingly coming from: official sources. So without even manipulation a single journalist, your engineered event, be it a "terrorist bomb" or "economic problem", is both reported and explained in the way you want.

The media is being conned day by day and it then cons its audience. Ask 99% of journalists about the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Elite in general, and they will look at you in bewilderment. They won't even have heard of them, let alone know what their roles is.

But there are some journalists in strategic positions who do know and support what those organisations are doing. The media is a powerful medium that if it ever got into the hands of the Elite, the potential would be limitless. But we don't have to worry because, as we are told so often, we have an independent media. Ummm. Independent of what and whom? In the August/September 1993 edition of the Netherland's based magazine, Exposure, details were published of the controlling boards of the three television networks in the United States, NBC, CBS, and ABC. These networks are supposed to be in 'competition' and it is this very 'competition' that is part of the 'independence' which ensures we enjoy unbiased news. That's the theory, anyway.

Please consider the names of the board of directors of this report may have changed because the report was done 14 years ago however the links with the elite are still the same in this very day.

The Exposure research came from the work of the American New World Order investigator, Eustace Mullins. The following is provable fact: the NBC is a subsidiary of RCA, a media conglomerate which appears regularly on the career details of a number of people named throughout this book. Among the NBC directors named in the Mullins article were: John Brademas, a director of the Rockefeller Foundation; Peter G. Peterson, former head of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. (Rothschild), and a former Secretary of Commerce; Robert Cizik, chairman of RCA and of First City Bancorp, which was identified in Congressional testimony as a Rothschild bank; Thomas O. Paine, president of Northrup Co. (the big defence contractor) and director of the (Elite-controlled) Institute of Strategic Studies in London; Donald Smiley, a director of two Morgan Companies, Metropolitan Life and U.S. Steel; Thornton Bradshaw, chairman of RCA, director of Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Atlantic Richfield Oil, and the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies (both of the latter headed by 'environmentalists' and elite Bilderberger, Robert O. Anderson). Clearly the NBC board has considerable Rockefeller-Rothschild-Morgan influence

Another American TV network, ABC, had on its board of directors: Ray Adam, director of J.P. Morgan, Metropolitan Life (Morgan), and Morgan Guaranty Trust; Frank Cary, chairman of IBM, and director of M.P. Morgan and Morgan Guaranty Trust; Donald C. Cook, general partner of Lazard Freres banking house; John T. Connor of the Kuhn, Loeb (Rothschild) law firm, Gravath, Swaine and Moore, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, director of the Chase Manhattan Bank (Rockefeller/Rothschild), General Motors, and chairman of the J. Henry Schroder Bank and Schroders Inc, of London (see the funding of Hitler); Thomas M. Macioce, director of Manufacturers Hanover Trust (Rothschild); George Jenkins, chairman of Metropolitan Life (Morgan) and Citibank (which has many Rothschild connections); Martin J. Schwab, director of Manufacturers Hanover (Rothschild); Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, director of J.P. Morgan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Hoover Institution, Time magazine, and General Foods; Ulric Haynes Jr, director of the Ford Foundation and Marine Midland Bank (owned by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank).
Again, we see the same Rockefeller-Rothschild-Morgan lineup on the board of the ABC network which, we are told, is independent of NBC. The ABC Company was taken over by Cities Communications, whose most prominent director is Robert Roosa, senior partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, which has close ties with the Bank of England. Roosa and David Rockefeller are credited with selecting Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve Board.

Which brings us to CBS, the third of the 'independent' networks. Its financial expansion was supervised for a long time by Brown Brothers Harriman and its senior partner, Prescott Bush who was a CBS director. CBS banks through the Morgan Guaranty Trust and reports of CBS connections with the CIA and British Intelligence are legion among New World Order researchers.

Some know it as the Conspiracy Brainwashing System. On the CBS board are: William S. Paley, the chairman (for whom Prescott Bush personally organised the money to buy the company); Harold Brown, executive director of the Trilateral Commission, and former Secretary of the Air Force and Defence; Roswell Gilpatric, from the Kuhn, Loeb (Rothschild) law firm, Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, and former director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Henry B. Schnacht, director of the Chase Manhattan Bank (Rockefeller/Rothschild), the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, and Committee for Economic Development; Michel C. Bergerac, chairman of Revlon, and director of Manufacturers Hanover Bank (Rothschild); James D, Wolfensohn, former head of J. Henry Shcroder Bank, who has close links with the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, (in 1995, Bill Clinton successfully nominated him to head the World Bank); Franklin A. Thomas, head of the Ford Foundation; Newton D. Minow, director of the Rand Corporation and, among many others. The Ditchley Foundation, which is closely linked with the Tavistock Institute in London and the Bilderberg Group. People connected with research into how the public mind reacts to events and information are on the board of a United States television network? What?

Again with CBS, we are looking at the same names at the helm, and all three networks are closely interlocked with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. How can it possibly be claimed that the three television networks in America, through which the overwhelming majority of Americans get their news, are independent? They are controlled or strongly influenced by the same people!

Look at the potential for recruiting only those producers, journalists, and editors who support your views and aims, and for sacking those who challenge your interference in what is and isn't shown. Look at the potential for selling a common line on events and news stories to ensure the American people have no other explanations than those you want them to believe. In July 1995, ABC was merged with the Walt Disney Empire and the giant Westinghouse Electric made its move to buy CBS. The concentration of power gathers pace.

The same familiar elites control the three television networks and America's main newspapers, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. This is without even mentioning all the other media outlets and international news agencies (like Reuters) which the Elite control and the agencies run by the major newspapers which feed a common line to the smaller papers via the wire machines and syndicated columnists.

The mind manipulation possibilities this offers are just incredible. Scores of leading U.S. journalists and editors are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and they are covertly working to that party line in their selection, dissection and presentation of news and information. Typical was a 'report' by the famous CBS News anchorman, Walter Cronkite, into the wealth and power of the Rockefellers. He closed by saying that if any family had to have as much power and money as the Rockefellers, it was a good thing it was the Rockefellers. Violin, anyone? I am grateful for the research into UK media ownership in the early 1990s by Colonel Barry Turner, which he published in 1992 as a paper entitled "Control of the Communications Media and Conditioning of the Public Mind". Much of the following information about names and newspapers is thanks to his painstaking work.
The leading 'quality' newspaper in the UK is The Daily Telegraph.

This is owned through the Hollinger Group by the Canadian, Conrad Black. The group owns more than 200 newspapers and magazines in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Israel. Conrad Black is a member of the elite Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group, a Trilateralist, and a member of the Institute for Strategic Studies. The senior international advisors to the Hollinger Group are Henry Kissinger (CFR. TC. Bil. RIIA) and Lord Carrington (TC, RIIA, Bil). Some members of the Hollinger International Supervisory Board are Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, TC, Bil); Giovanni Agnelli (Bil, Black Nobility); David Brinkley, news commentator with ABC News; Paul Volcker (CFR, TC, Bil), the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board responsible for Reaganomics and Thatcherism; Lord Rothschild, chairman of Rothschild Holdings; and Lord Hanson, chairman of Hanson plc. On the board of The Daily Telegraph is Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman of the N.M. Rothschild merchant bank. N.M. Rothschild are merchant bankers to the Hollinger Group to complete the cosy relationship.

A former editor-in-chief and board member at The Daily Telegraph is Andrew Knight, another member of the Bilderberg Group Steering Committee and the Ditchley Foundation, and formerly of The Economist magazine (director, Evelyn de Rothschild), a publication set up to press for an end to the Corn laws and promote the principle of 'free trade'. Knight moved on to become executive chairman of Rupert Murdoch's News International which owns The Sun, , The News of the World, and The Times and Sunday Times. Murdoch owns newspapers, magazines, and television networks that are estimated to have a potential audience of three billion people. That is without his interests in the film industry. He is now linking in with a global telephone and communications network, MCI, and has made a bid for parts of the vast Berlusconi media empire in Italy. According to The European newspaper, he is also planning to substantially increase his media interests across Europe. In a feature in The Spotlight newspaper headed: "What is Murdoch UP To And Who Is Backing Him?" the writer Dan McMahan linked the rise of this media mogul to names like Harry Oppenheimer (South Africa, Anglo-American, De Beers), Armand Hammer (Occidental Petroleum), the Bronfman family, and the Rothschilds.

It is not the front men we need to look at so much as who is behind them pulling their strings. It is they who make the money available and manipulate the politicians to allow great media takeovers and cartels to emerge. With unbelievable hypocrisy, Conrad Black's Daily Telegraph said of Murdoch's domain: "This is a huge and potentially dangerous concentration of media power..." And the Telegraph owner's empire is not?

The controlled media can feed the same basic messages to the public and hypnotise the collective mind to accept them. And if the same messages are coming from apparently unconnected media outlets, it must be true because "they are all saying it". Just as we have a One Party political state, so we have a One Media State. In the UK, you would think that Murdoch’s Sun and the Independent or Guardian were miles apart and offering different opinions. But if you analyse what they are all agreed on and the way they operate, none are vehicles for a radical alternative to what we have. They actually say the same. They just say it differently.

The least radical newspaper in Britain is the one claimed to be most radical: The Guardian. The founding editor of The Guardian's 'rival', The Independent, was Andreas Whittam Smith. He was a member of the Trilateral Commission during his eight years at the top of that newspaper. The political 'choice' is an illusion and so is the media 'choice'. Indeed the two are practically the same.

The Illusion of choice

Once negative events and propaganda have been projected at public opinion, out go the opinion-polling organisations with their clipboards. The people who ask the questions on the street don't know what they are involved in. They are just asking the questions they are told and paid to ask. But opinion polls are not there to measure public opinion so the people can be given what they desire. They are there to direct public opinion, often using loaded questions to attract the desired reply. Tell people that 80% of the population believes something and those of the sheepie mentality will quickly conform and believe the same. Eighty per cent of people cannot be wrong, can they? Oh yes they can, if they have given their minds away.

The other role of opinion polls is to check if the propaganda against a target group is working. Once the opinion polls say that a sufficient majority now believe the target group is a problem and "something must be done", the legislation (the solution) is taken out of the file and put before Parliament. This approach has another advantage in that the potential political opposition, what little there is, fears the electoral consequences of opposing laws to 'solve' a 'problem in this July 7 attacks' about which the public has now been programmed to believe that "something must be done". Therefore highly controversial legislation like the Terrorism act 2006 bill (which removes basic freedoms) goes through Parliament with not much protest.
Organisations like the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (and their brothers and sisters in the United States such as the Stanford Research Institute, and the Rand Corporation) research into how people will react. individually and collectively, to events, changes, and 'buzz words'. It was Tavistock, according to research that I've read, which devised the policy of 'future shocks', the means by which the collective human mind is bombarded with so many changes, events, and contradicting information that it overloads, switches off, and becomes subservient.

This is happening all over the world today, most obviously in the United States and Japan, where the population is being given one event after the other to fill them with fear and insecurity. The aim is to destabilise society and break its resistance to fundamental change.
Many of the so called 'spontaneous' trends that are taken on by the young are introduced by these and other organisations and then hyped into a frenzy by advertising and the controlled media.

People talk about the "latest craze" and very few stop to ask, "Where did this start and who was behind it?" We hear about the "craze that's sweeping America" and that's all. The 'Flower Power' period of the 1960s was hijacked and directed by this same mind manipulating force. The CIA and British Intelligence were experimenting with the effects of the drug, LSD, in the 1950s before it was unleashed on the market and destroyed any possibility of substantial positive change emerging from that time. In 1953, the CIA commandeered the entire supply of LSD tablets from the Swiss manufacturers, Sandoz (which was owned by S.G. Warburg of London). Later they did the same with Eli Lilly when it began to produce LSD in the United States. People were so doped and duped that they thought LSD was a weapon of 'freedom'. Some still do. I'm not sure the CIA and British Intelligence had that in mind, somehow.

In the world of propaganda and public mind manipulation, we are constantly being subjected to this. Accusations of anti-Semitism, anarchist, communist, liberal, woman hater, Anti American, Al Qaeda supporter, racist, etc against anti New World Order investigators is a classic example of diversion. You concentrate attention on the issue of the messenger's alleged racism and divert attention from what he or she is saying about their research. We have the strategy of infiltrating 'moderate' wings of political parties while covertly following an extreme game plan.

This is a diversion which stops extremists being identified while they, themselves, denounce their legitimate opposition as extremists. We hear from time to time of 'revelations' about intelligence agencies, gut how many are real revelations and how many are systematically leaked to divert people from what is really going on?

The media have to keep the banks and advertisers happy. That's where the power really lies. The Organism of the Global Elite coordinates major advertisers into pressurising papers into following or not following, a particular cause. But, of course, we have the media 'watchdogs' which are there to protect us from media abuse. The chairman of the newspaper 'watchdog', the Press Complaints Commission, is Lord Wakeham, the former cabinet minister, who controversially went from government to the board of N.M. Rothschild. And while Lord Rees Mogg (Bil), the former editor of The Times, was chairman of the television and radio 'watchdog', the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, he was also a Rothschild’s' director, Sir Zelman Cowan, another former chairman of the old complaints body, the Press Council, was involved in 1991 with the takeover of the Australian Fairfax Group by Conrad Black's Hollinger Group. Lord Armstrong, the former head of the Civil Service and cabinet secretary (who went on to become a director of N.M. Rothschild) also joined the board of Carlton Television, which broadcasts to London and the 'Independent' television network in the UK.

I could go on and on across the UK media, revealing the interconnections between certain names and companies. Rest assured, however, there is really nothing to worry about. AS the then Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, said in The Financial Times on January 19th 1989: "Broadcasting will not be run by tycoons." Phew, that's a relief! I rather prefer the opinion on the true state of affairs within the media of John Swinton, a journalist on the New York Times, who is reported to have told his staff at his retirement dinner:

"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

But here again, we come back to the same theme. The media is our creation. It reflects the collective mind of humanity and if it did not, it could not survive and prosper as it does. We can debate which came first, the collective mind's attitudes or the programming of those attitudes, but if you read the average tabloid newspaper and then spend an hour in the average bar, you will see that the thought patterns of the paper and the people are largely the same. Vast numbers of people think and act like a tabloid newspaper. They have allowed themselves to become tabloid thinkers with tabloid minds. We now have tabloid radio and tabloid television, too, which follows from the success of the tabloid newspapers.

They all want it short, incredibly superficial, and with each item full of either mockery, condemnation, instant judgments, the official line, and/or defence of the status quo. Oh yes, and if you can get lots of tits and bums in there at every opportunity, so much the better, because women are only here to lust after.

Have I just described the content of a tabloid newspaper or the content of a conversation you will hear in almost any bar when 'the lads' get together? Both. And that's the point. Those thought patterns in the collective mind created the reality we call the media. Tabloid newspapers reflect, and programmed, the thoughts of great tracts of humanity in an ever-downward spiral. The more our thoughts are programmed, the more open we become to even more severe programming. The media won’t change until the collective mind changes and that will result only from changes in individual thinking. We create our own reality and the media is no different.

Whatever dominates the thought patterns of the collective mind will be the physical reality. The human race in general want someone else to do their thinking for them, and they have allowed their minds to close to the point where they do not want to discuss anything that isn't superficial or full of mockery and instant judgments of others. Hence the media we have today. We have thought that into existence, too. When we change, it will change.

In conclusion the mainstream media is summed up in the scenes from the documentary in this scene in Zeitgeist watch between 28:40 – 32:35 in this short 5 minute scene.

In final part of the series of how the NWO elite brainwashed the masses, it’s called part 3 Mass Hypnosis.