

                         Turn Off Your Television!!

                                     by
                                  L. Wolfe


Hey buddy, I'm talking to you. Yes, you, the guy sitting in front of the
television. Turn down the sound a bit, so that you can hear what I am
saying.

Now, try to concentrate on what I am going to say. I want to talk to you
about your favorite pastime. No, it's not baseball or football, although it
does have something to do with your interest in spectator sports. I'm talking
about what you were just doing: watching television.

Do you have any idea about how much time you spend in front of the television
set? According to the latest studies, the average American now spends between
five and six hours a day watching television. Let's put that in perspective --
that is more time than you spend doing anything else but sleeping or working,
if you are lucky enough to still have a job. That's more time than you spend
eating, more time than you spend with your wife alone, more time than with
the kids.

It's even worse with your children. According to these same studies, young
children below school age watch more than eight hours each day. School age
children watch a little under eight hours a day. In 1980, the average
20-year-old had watched the equivalent of 14 months of television in his or
her brief lifetime. {That's 14 months, 24 hours a day.} More recent figures
show that the numbers have climbed -- the 20-year-old has spent closer to two
full years of his or her life in front of the television set.

At the same time, the researchers have noted a disturbing phenomena. It seems
that we Americans are getting progressively more {stupid}. They note a
decline in reading and comprehension levels in all age groups tested.
Americans read less and understand what they read less than they did 10 years
ago, less than they have at any time since research began to study such
things. As for writing skills, Americans are, in general, unable to write
more than a few simple sentences. We are among the least literate people on
this planet, and we're getting worse.

It's the change -- the constant trendline downward -- that interests these
researchers. More than one study has correlated this increasing stupidity of
our population to the amount of television they watch. Interestingly, the
studies found that it doesn't matter what people watch, whether it's "The
Simpsons" or "McNeil/Lehrer," or "Murphy Brown" or "Nightline" -- the
more television you watch, the {less literate, the more stupid} you are.

The growth in television watching had surprised some of the researchers.
Back a decade ago, they were predicting that television watching would level
off and might actually decline. It had reached an absolute saturation point.
They were right for so-called network television; figures show a steady
dropoff of viewership. But that drop is more than made up for by the growth
of cable television, with its smorgasbord of channels, one for almost every
perversion. Especially in urban and suburban areas, Americans are hard-wired
to more than 100 different channels that provide them with all news, like
CNN, all movies, all comedy, all sports, all weather, all financial news and
a liberal dose of straight pornography.

The researchers had also failed to predict the market penetration of first
beta and then VHS video recorders; they made it possible to watch one thing
and record another for later viewing. They also offered access to movies not
available on networks or even cable channels as well as home videos, recorded
on your own little camcorder. The proliferation of home video equipment has
involved families in video-related activities which are not even considered
in the cumulative totals for time Americans spend watching television.

You might not actually realize how much you are watching television. But
think for a moment. When you come home, you turn the television on, if it
isn't on already. You read the paper with it on, half glancing at what is on
the screen, catching a bit of the news, or the plot of a show. You eat with
it on, maybe in the background, listening for a score or something that
happens to a character in a show you follow. When something you are
interested in, a show or basketball game, is on, the set becomes the center
of attention. So your attention to what is on may vary in intensity, but
there is almost no point when you are home, and inside, and have the set
completely off. Isn't that right?

The studies did not break down the periods of time people watched television,
according to the intensity of their viewing. But the point is still made: you
compulsively turn the television on and spend a good portion of your waking
hours glued to the tube. And the studies also showed that many people can't
sleep without the television turned on!


Brainwashing

Now, I'm sure you have heard that watching too much television is bad for
your health. They put stories like that on the evening news. Bad for your
eyes to stare at the screen, they say. Especially bad if you sit too close.
Well, I want to make another point. We've already shown that you are
addicted to the tube, watching it between six and eight hour a day. But it is
an addiction that {brainwashes} you.

There are two kinds of brainwashing. The one that's called {hard}
brainwashing is the type you're most familiar with. You've got a pretty good
image of it from some of those old Korean war movies. They take some guy, an
American patriot, drag him into a room, torture him, pump him full of drugs,
and after a struggle, get him to renounce his country and his beliefs. He
usually undergoes a personality change, signified by an ever-present smile
and blank stare.

This brainwashing is called {hard} because its methods are overt. The
controlled environment is obvious to the victim; so is the terror. The victim
is overwhelmed by a seemingly omnipotent external force, and a feeling of
intense isolation is induced. The victim's moral strength is sapped, and
slowly he embraces his torturers. It is man's moral strength that informs and
orders his power of reason; without it, the mind becomes little more than a
recording machine waiting for imprints.

No one is saying that you have been a victim of {hard} brainwashing. But you
have been brainwashed, just as effectively as those people in the movies. The
blank stare? Did you ever look at what you look like while watching
television? If the angle is right, you might catch your own reflection in the
screen. Jaw slightly open, lips relaxed into a smile. The blank stare of a
television zombie.

This is {soft} brainwashing, even more effective because its victims go about
their lives unaware of what is being done to them.

Television, with its reach into nearly every American home, creates the basis
for the mass brainwashing of citizens, like you. It works on a principle of
{tension and release}. Create tension, in a controlled environment,
increasing the level of stress. Then provide a series of choices that provide
release from the tension. As long as the victim believes that the choices
presented are the {only} choices available, even if they are at first glance
unacceptable, he will nevertheless, ultimately seek release by choosing one
of these unacceptable choices.

Under these circumstances, in a brainwashing, controlled environment, such
choice-making is not a "rational" experience. It does not involve the use
of man's creative mental powers; instead man is conditioned, like an animal,
to respond to the tension, by seeking release.

The key to the success of this brainwashing process is the regulation of both
the tension and the perceived choices. As long as both are controlled, then
the range of outcomes is also controlled. The victim is induced to walk down
one of several pathways acceptable for his  controllers.

The brainwashers call the tension-filled environment {social turbulence}. The
last decades have been full of such {social turbulence} -- economic collapse,
regional wars, population disasters, ecological and biological catastrophes.
{Social turbulence} creates crises in perceptions, causing people to lose
their bearings. Adrift and confused, people seek release from the tension,
following paths that appear to lead to a simpler, less tension-filled life.
There is no time in such a process for rational consideration of complicated
problems.

Television is the key vehicle for presenting both the tension and the
choices. It brings you the images of the tension, and serves up simple
answers. Television, in its world of semi-reality, of illusion, of escape
from reality, {is itself the single most important release from our
tension-wracked existence.} Eight hours a day, every day, through its
programming, you are being programmed.

If you doubt me, think about one important choice that you have made recently
that was not in some way influenced by something that you have seen on
television. I bet you can't think of one. That's how controlled you are.


Who's Doing It

But don't take my word for it. Ten years ago we spoke to a man from a think
tank called the Futures Group in Connecticut. Hal Becker had spent more than
20 years of his life manipulating the minds of the leaders of our society.
Listen to what he said:

    "I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want
    him to. Just let me control television. Americans are wired into their
    television sets. Over the last 30 years, they have come to look at their
    television sets and the images on the screen as reality. You put
    something on television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the
    television set contradicts the images, people start changing the world to
    make it more like the images and sounds of their television. Because its
    influence is so great, so pervasive, it has become part of our lives. You
    lose your sense of what is being done to you, but your mind is being
    shaped and moulded."

    "Your mind is being shaped and moulded." If that doesn't sound like
    brainwashing, I don't know what is. Becker speaks with the elan of a
    network of brainwashers who have been programming your lives, especially
    since the advent of television as a "mass medium" in the late 1940s and
    early 1950s. This network numbers several tens of thousands worldwide.
    Occasionally one appears on the nightly news to tell you what {you} are
    thinking, by reporting the latest "opinion polls." But for the most part,
    they work behind the scenes, speaking to themselves and writing papers
    for their own internal distribution.

And though they work for many diverse groups, these brainwashers are united
by a common world view and common method. It is the world view of a small
elite, whose financial and political power rests in institutions that pass
this power on from generation to generation. They view the common folk like
yourself as little better than beasts of burden to be controlled and
manipulated by a semi-feudal international oligarchy, whose wealth, power and
bloodlines entitle them to rule.

One of the oligarchy's institutions for manipulation of populations is
located in a suburb of London called Tavistock. The Tavistock Institute for
Human Relations, which also has a branch in Sussex, England, is the
"mother" for much of this extended network, of which Becker is a member.
They are the specialists in {both} hard and soft brainwashing.

The Tavistock Institute is the psychological warfare arm of the British Royal
household. The oligarchs behind Tavistock, and similar outfits in the United
States and elsewhere, are determined that you should be a television addict,
sucking up a daily dose of brainwashing from the "tube;" that is how they
control you.

Like his fellow brainwashers, Becker prides himself in knowing the minds of
his victims. He calls them "saps." Man, he told an interviewer, should be
called "homo the sap."

"Soft" brainwashing by television works through power of suggestion.
Television watching creates a state of drugged-like oblivion to outside
reality. The mind, its perceptions dulled by habituated viewing, is ready to
accept any new illusion of reality as presented on the tube. The mind, in its
drugged-like stupor of television watching, is prepared to accept that the
images that television {suggests} as reality {are} reality. It will then
struggle to form fit a contradictory reality into television image, just as
Becker claims.

Another Tavistock brainwasher, Fred Emery, who studied television for 25
years, confirms this. The television signal itself, he found, puts the viewer
in this state of drugged-like oblivion. Emery writes: "Television as a media
consists of a constant visual signal of 50 half-frames per second. Our
hypotheses regarding this essential nature of the medium itself are:

    "1) The constant visual stimulus fixates the viewer and causes the
    habituation of response. The prefrontal and association areas of the
    cortex are effectively dominated by the signal, the screen.

    "2) The left cortical hemisphere -- the center of visual and analytical
    calculating processes -- is effectively reduced in its functioning to
    tracking changing images on the screen.

    "3) Therefore, provided, the viewer keeps looking, he is unlikely to
    reflect on what he is doing and what he is viewing. That is, he will be
    aware, but unaware of his awareness....

"In other words, television can be seen partly as the technological analogue
of the hypnotist."

The key to making the brainwashing work is the {repetition of suggestion}
over time. With people watching the tube for 6 to 8 hours a day, there is
plenty of time for such repeated suggestion.


Some Examples

Let's look at an example to make things a bit clearer. Think back about 20
years ago. Think about what you thought about certain issues of the day.
Think about those same issues today; notice how you seemed to change {your}
mind about them, to become more tolerant of things you opposed vehemently
before. It's your television watching that changed your mind, or to use
Becker's terms, "shaped your perceptions."

Twenty years ago, most people thought that the lunacy that is now called
environmentalism, the idea that animals and plants should be protected on an
equal basis with human life, was screwy. It went against the basic concept of
Christian civilization that man is a higher species than and distinct from
the animals, and that it is man, by virtue of his being made in the image of
the living God, whose life is sacred. That was 20 years ago. But now, many
people, maybe even you, seem to think otherwise; there are even laws that say
so.

This contrary, anti-human view of man being no more than equal to animals and
plants was inserted into our consciousness by the suggestion of television.
Environmental lunacy was scripted into network television shows, into
televised movies, and into the news. It started slowly, but picked up steam.
Environmental spokesmen were increasingly seen in the favorable glow of
television. Those who opposed this view were shown in an unfavorable way. It
was done over time, with repetition. If you weren't completely won over, you
were made tolerant of the views of environmental lunatics whose statements
were morally and scientifically unsound.

Let's take a more recent example -- the war against Iraq. That was a war made
for television. In fact, it was a war {organized} through television. Think
back a year: How were Americans prepared for the eventual slaughter of Iraqi
women and children? Images on the screen: Saddam Hussein, on one side,
Hitler on the other. The images repeated in newscasts, backed up by scenes of
alleged atrocities in Kuwait. Then the war itself -- the video-game like images
of "smart" weapons killing Iraqi targets.

Finally, the American military commander-in-chief Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf,
conducting a final press briefing that was consciously orchestrated to
resemble the winning Superbowl coach describing his victory.

Those were the images that overwhelmed our population. Only now, months
later, do we find out that the images had nothing to do with reality. The
Iraqi "atrocities" in Kuwait and elsewhere were exaggerated. Our "smart"
weapons like thefamous Patriot anti-missile system didn't really work. Oh,
and the casualty figures -- it seems that we murdered far more women and
children than we did soldiers. Hardly a "glorious victory." But while it
might have made a difference if people knew this while the war was being
planned or in progress, polls show that Americans no longer find the war or
any stories about it "interesting."

Looking at the question more broadly, where did your children get most of
their values, if not from what they saw on television? Parents might
counteract the influence of the infernal box, but they could not overcome it.
How could they, if they themselves have been brainwashed by the same box and
if their children spend more time with it than them? Studies show that most
of television programming is geared to a less than 5th grade comprehension
level; parents, like you, are themselves being remade in the infantile images
of the television screen. All of society becomes more infantile, more easily
controllable.

As Emery explains:

    "We are proposing that television as a simple constant and repetitive and
    ambiguous visual stimulus, gradually closes down the central nervous
    system of man."

Becker holds a similar view of the effect of television on American's ability
to think:

    "Americans don't really think -- they have opinions and feelings.
    Television creates the opinion and then validates it."

Nowhere is this clearer than with politics. Television tells Americans what
to think about politicians, restricting choices to those acceptable to the
oligarchs whose financial power controls networks and major cable channels.
It tells people what has been said and what is "important." Everything else
is filtered out. You are told who can win and who can't. And few people have
the urge to look behind the images in the screen, to seek content and truth
in ideas and look for a high quality of leadership.

Such an important matter as choosing a president becomes the same as choosing
a box of laundry detergent -- a set of possibilities, whose limits are
determined, by the images on the screen. You are given the appearance of
freedom of choice, but that you have neither freedom nor real choice. That is
how the brainwashing works.

"Are they brainwashed by the tube," said Becker to the interviewer. "It is
really more than that. I think that people have lost the ability to relate
the images of their own lives without television intervening to tell them
what it means. That is what we really mean when we say that we have a wired
society."


Turn It Off!

That was ten years ago. It has gotten far worse since then. In coming issues,
we will show you the brainwashers' vision of a hell on earth and how
television is being used to get us there; we will discuss television
programming, revealing how it has helped produce what is called a "paradigm"
shift in values, creating an immoral society; we will explain how the news is
presented and how its presentation has been used to destroy the English
language; we will discuss the mass entertainment media, showing who controls
it and how; we will also deal with America's addiction to spectator sports
and show how that too has helped make you passive and stupid; and finally, we
will show where we are headed, if we can't break our addiction to the tube.

Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche has said that America needs
a year of "cold turkey" from television if we are to survive as a nation. So,
after what I just told you, what do say, buddy? Do you want to stay stupid
and let your country go to hell in a basket? Why don't you just walk over to
the set and turn it off. That's right, completely off. Go on, you can do it.
Now isn't that better? Don't you feel a little better already? You've just
taken the first step in deprogramming yourself. It wasn't that hard, was it?
Until we speak again, try to keep it off. Now that will be a bit harder.


                       The Making of a Fascist Society

So, how are you doing? I hope you still have that television set turned off.
If you don't, you'd better get up and turn it off now, before we go any
further -- You'll need to be able to concentrate on what I am telling you.

Most Americans think they have a pretty good idea of what fascism is all
about. They've seen the pictures, in the movies and on television, of Nazi
Germany in the 1930s. The marching jackbooted troops. The huge rallies, with
all the flags. The speeches by Hitler, to the cheering approval of enormous
crowds of people, who raise their arms in salute at the beckoning of their
Fu@auhrer. Also the pictures of the Nazi thugs breaking windows, the Gestapo
and SS troops beating someone, maybe a Jew. Then there are the other images --
the scenes after the death camps were opened to Allied troops, the piles of
bodies, the bones, the hair, the huge mounds of eyeglasses -- and the ovens.

A generation of Americans went to war to defeat that horror; many gave their
lives so that such inhumanity might never walk this Earth again. We Americans
would never tolerate what happened in Nazi Germany, you say; we'd never let
Hitler get that far, and we'd never look the other way in indifference while
millions of our fellow men were slaughtered. No sir, not us.

Not us? Think back to a little more than a year ago. Think back to those
great parades of troops and equipment celebrating the "glorious" victory of
our troops in Operation Desert Storm. There were millions of people,
throughout the nation, cheering raising their arms and voices in salute. And
there were a hundred million more people watching the celebration on
television sets throughout the land. In fact, if you think back, these
celebrations, especially the huge ones in New York and Washington, were
{organized} by television, with local and national newscasts providing
"advance" advertising for the "largest patriotic celebrations in history," as
they were called.

And it was the television set that told you {what} you were celebrating, or
why Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was as great a hero as George Washington or
Ulysses S. Grant. This had been preceded by similar "patriotic" coverage on
the war itself, before, during, and after the hostilities. You never
questioned any of it, and you chose to participate in the celebration, either
directly or indirectly.

Only now do you find that you were celebrating the {slaughter} of more than
100,000 innocent civilians -- women and children, in large part, and the
maiming of tens of thousands more innocents. The approximate one month of
hostilities was one of the most savage and intense slaughters of innocents in
the history of warfare. And for whom did we fight? Our "victory" placed a
despotic ruler, a brutal and fabulously rich ruling family, back on their
feudal throne. This is what you celebrated.

There were no Nazi thugs to terrorize you into going along with it all. You
became part of a mob, a fascist mob organized by television. {You and your
fellow citizens, brainwashed by television, already live in and tolerate a
fascist society.}

Let's state our point another way -- The advent and mass dissemination of
television technology has rendered the Nazi model for a fascist society
obsolete; it has provided a better, more subtle, and more powerful means of
social control than the organized terror of the Nazi state.

To understand why this is so, we must take a look at that Nazi state, and the
fascist society it organized.


The Fascist Concept of Man

The Nazi state was created by the same oligarchical financial and political
interests who today control what we call the mass media and television.
Forget about whatever stories you've seen on television about how Hitler came
to power -- his path to power was cleared by the same oligarchs who employ the
the brainwashers that program you through television. Over a period of years,
following the First World War, Germany was brutalized by the economic policy
of this international elite. Hitler's Nazis were funded and promoted as a
political option, and then steered into power in 1932-33.

Once in power, the Nazis maintained their hold through the use of terror as
part of mass brainwashing. In many ways it were proper to view the Nazi
period as an {experiment} in methods of mass brainwashing and social control.
At the root of this experiment was the desire to create a New World Order
based on reversing a fundamental premise of Judeo-Christian civilization --
that man is created as a higher and distinct species from animals, created in
the image of the living God and by divine grace, imparted the divine spark of
reason. This is what makes man human -- his divinely given power of reason.
This view of man, the view of the Renaissance, holds that all men are created
{equal} in the eyes of the Creator. Society, organized according to such
principles, must enable man to seek the Truth as his highest goal, and
thereby {perfect} his existence and that of future generations, in accordance
with Natural Law.

Such a worldview cannot allow for the existence of an oligarchy who views
itself, by birthright and worldly power, as more equal than other men. Such
oligarchs, and creatures like their coterie of brainwashers, hold a contrary
worldview: Man is an animal, a degraded beast, whose worst impulses must be
repressed by the state. Laws are created to {control} these human animals and
to allow for the continued existence of the social order. Men, in turn, make
a {social contract} to allow themselves to be governed by such laws, which
are mutable, since they are government by neither Natural Law nor truth. This
is the view of the so-called Enlightenment, and in its extreme form, the
fascist state.

The question of the concept of man -- as a creative, reasoning human being
made in the image of the living God, or as a degraded beast, an animal --
defines all other cultural questions. It is the moral -- or immoral --
underpinning of all societies. For mass brainwashing to work, it must attack
the Renaissance view of man, for no person with such a self-conception can be
brainwashed. Large numbers of people must be induced to give up beliefs that
are the heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization; to do that, religious
institutions, such as the Christian Churches, which defend the sanctity of
human life, must be undermined and ultimately destroyed. This explains the
peculiar fascination of all brainwashers with Gnostic heresy, Satanism, or
what they call "the varieties of religious experience."

Such concepts as the sanctity and dignity of human life and the
perfectability of man, and the principle of progress of human knowledge, the
ideas of the Renaissance, have been transmitted from generation to
generation. They are deeply imbedded in the human personality, and are the
invariant axioms of our culture. To remove them, requires the equivalent of
psychological shock therapy. When they are removed, we remove what makes man
human, what separates him from the beast -- {We have made man bestial.}


Freudian Mass Brainwashing

The Nazi experiment was aimed at doing that. How did it work? Well now we'll
say something that might shock some people -- Nazi Germany was an experiment in
{Freudian mass psychology.}

That is not to say that Sigmund Freud, the inventor of psychoanalysis, was
himself a Nazi; he wasn't a practicing one. But he {shared} the belief of the
Nazis and their sponsors that man was an animal, first and foremost. In
several locations, Freud makes the case that it is the primitve, animal
characteristics of man that are at the center of his emotional life. His life
is a conflict between an animal seeking {pleasure} and gratification, and a
reality that says that this cannot always be so; thought emerges as the
individual tries to balance between the pleasure and reality principles.

Freud saw his work as continuation of that of Charles Darwin, who had
"removed man from his throne at the center of the universe," and placed him
squarely in the animal kingdom. Darwin saw nothing unique in man, nothing
that gave him right to dominion over the Earth, other than sheer power to
dominate other species. All that made man what he truly was, was not the work
of a God, but of profane, clashing, and blind forces, claimed Darwin; Freud
emphatically agreed with the work of "the great Darwin."

This belief that man is nothing more than a degraded beast is at the core of
the Freudian system. It is fundamental to Freud's ordering of mental states
that he must deny the perfectability of man, that there can be no absolute
truths: man can never overcome his flaws. Psychoanalysis doesn't cure so much
as it "enlightens," makes an individual aware of his flaws and neuroses, to
learn to live with them, and therefore cope with their debilitating
symptomatic effects.

For Freud, man is in a constant state of war with himself, with an infantile
"it" (the id) at war with "a little me" or "I" (the ego); this "I" is only
slightly less animalistic than the total animal, the "it." Society exerts
control over this degraded beast, this animal, through the "over I,"
misreferred to in English as the "superego." The "over I," which Freud
identifies as moral conscience, bids only that the "it" and the "I" control
themselves in the form of a social contract with the rest of society.

Freud states that the "over I" often gets in the way of the legitimate needs
of the "I" and the "it." It therefore becomes the source of neurosis, through
repression of especially the sexual needs of the "id" and the "I." What Freud
calls the moral conscience of society is a source of pain, not pleasure, for
the individual.

The sources of human creativity, what distiguishes man from the animal, for
Freud comes from {sublimated} sexual drives of the "it" and the "I" -- The most
creative people are either practicing or latent homosexuals. This absurd
theory Freud attempted to "prove" in his famous essay on Leonardo da Vinci,
generalizing later to say that all people who follow what they perceive to be
moral conscience, are driven toward neurosis. There is no paradise beyond an
earthly paradise, Freud says, and all who believe otherwise suffer from a
delusional fantasy.

Freud's hatred of all religion, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, is
central to his system. Religion is the great illusion that his psychology
must strive to remove from man, since religion tells man that he is more than
a beast and that he lives for higher purpose than the socially regulated
seeking of pleasure.

Man is not made in the image of the living God, says Freud; man has made God
in {his} image, for the purpose of easing the pain of his existence. Deriding
the great thinkers of the past, he says their defense of religious doctrine
is infantile folly:

    "We shall tell ourselves that it were very nice if there were a God who
    created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a
    moral order to the universe and an afterlife; but it is a striking fact
    that this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be. And it were more
    remarkable still if our wretched, ignorant and downtrodden ancestors had
    succeeded in solving these difficult riddles of the universe....

    "...|[Yet] you defend the religious illusion with all your might. If it
    becomes discredited -- and indeed the threat to it is great enough --
    then your world collapses. There is nothing left for you but despair of
    everything, of civilization, of the future of mankind. From that bondage,
    I am, we are free. Since we are prepared to renounce a good part of our
    infantile wishes, we can bear it if a few of our expectations turn out to
    be illusions" {(The Future of an Illusion).}

The Freudian system is thus a perfect tool for brainwashing, since it negates
the moral underpinnings of our civilization, telling us that they are
infantile illusion. Without that moral underpinning, man has no moorings and
is susceptible to the brainwashers' "suggestion." All Freudian psychology is
a form of brainwashing to one extent or another, because to agree with its
premises, one must agree that man is a beast who must deny the existence of
universal law and God, the Creator.

Freudian psychology, as preached by either Freud and his followers, or by
neo-Freudians like Carl Jung, became the rage in the 1920s. It was promoted
in the popular culture through the mass media of its day, newspaper and
magazine articles. Its morally insane system of "id," "ego," and "superego"
became part of the popular culture, as did its belief that creativity stems
from sexual drives.


Mass Psychology

In 1921, before the Nazis had themselves been promoted into a mass
phenomenon, Freud published one of the seminal works in his system, {Mass
Psychology and the Analysis of the I.} Like the works of Fred Emery quoted
earlier, and other brainwashers, this work is at once an analysis of a social
phenomenon, and at the same time a "cookbook" on how, through mass
psychology, to create such a phenomenon -- in this case a mass fascist
movement.

Freud uses as a starting point the work of the French psychologist Gustav
LeBon, his infamous {The Psychology of the Crowd.} It is LeBon's main thesis
that as part of a mass or crowd, man regresses to a {primitive} mental state.
A person who may be otherwise highly cultured and moral is capable of acting
like a barbarian, is prone to acts of unspeakable violence and inhumanity,
and loses his critical faculties in a large mass of people.

People in a crowd lose their inhibitions and moral standards, and become
highly emotional, says LeBon. This emotionalism, this irrationality, lends
itself to the power of {suggestion,} through which the behavior of an
individual can be determined by his perceptions and the actions of others
around him.

LeBon describes this as a return to man's primitive nature. Like Freud, at
the center of his belief is the assertion that man is merely a higher animal,
whose animal traits are controlled by social norms and the structure of
society. Place this animal in a mass of similar animals, and his human
identity is crushed -- He ceases to think as a human and becomes caught up in
instinctive animal-like activity. Man, says LeBon, has returned to his
animal roots.

But while he has become at once more primitive, more animal-like and
infantile, mass man, the man in the crowd, also has a heightened sense of
power, while his individual responsibility for action -- a key factor in all
moral judgment -- diminishes.

Sound familiar? LeBon is describing the behavior of all masses of people
organized around emotionalism and infantile activities, such as the crowds at
large spectator sporting events, at large rock concerts, at mass
demonstrations. It is the psychology of the unthinking {mob.} The masters of
people like LeBon, the people who control the brainwashers that program
television, have for centuries known that masses in mobs are easily
manipulated. From the days of ancient Rome, to the mobs of the French
Revolution and the Terror, the oligarchs have used {agents provocateurs} and
money to have such mobs do their bidding.

LeBon says that individuals in a mass seem to behave as if they are in a
state of hypnosis. But that is where his observations stop. Freud takes it a
step further: The most effectively controlled masses are those which are led,
by a leader. It is the leader who places the mass under an effective hypnotic
spell.

Masses of people, Freud says, can be deliberately induced to give up their
moral conscience -- the values that underpin all moral judgment. Deep within
man's unconscious, is his animal nature. Those urges are repressed by his
conscience, which is in turn molded by society. Freud calls this the "I
ideal" (the ego ideal), which he later develops into the concept of the "over
I" (the superego). The mass itself creates the preconditions for the
silencing of the voice of individual conscience; that voice silenced, all
that violates the standards of conscience, all the evil in man, can appear,
without restraint.

Freud is wrong that man is first and foremost an animal and that all that
society does is to repress his instinctual animal behavior. He has laid the
basis for a regressive, evil psychology, that can make man {more} of an
animal -- and hence more easily manipulated by a small ruling elite of
oligarchs.

"In my innnermost depth, I am really convinced that my dear fellow human
beings -- with few exceptions -- are rabble," Freud wrote to a colleague in
1929.

If you deny, as Freud does, that man's true identity lies not in his
individual mortal self, but in the moral acts of that individual, through his
powers of creative reason, that live beyond his life on Earth, then you take
away man's soul; then man is {reduced} to the animal-like, to be controlled
by the power and repressive actions of an oligarchical-controlled state.

"It is just as impossible to do without control of the masses by a minority
as it is to dispense with coercion in the work of civilization," Freud writes
in his 1927 attack on religion, {The Future of an Illusion.} "For the masses
are lazy and unintelligent."

Freud, before Hitler and his sponsors published {Mein Kampf,} described the
concept of the "Fu@auhrerprinzip," the leadership principle around which the
Nazi state was organized. In his {Mass Psychology,} Freud argues that any
mass, be it a nation, or a randomly created group, must have a leader,
someone who gives it its {I ideal} or values. The leader {becomes} the
individual member's common {I ideal} and takes over all his critical
faculties, just as the hypnotized individual surrenders his
self-determination to the hypnotizer. It is the leader, says Freud, who
provides the common bond for a mass of people; their common attachment to the
leader enables each member to identify with the other, giving form and
direction to the mass.

Freud says that the leader holds an attachment to his followers through what
he calls the {aim inhibited libido} -- a sexual attraction that is repressed
or desexualized. For this to function, however, the leader must remain aloof,
with no emotional attachments to anybody, so as create an almost god-like or
mystical quality. The leader must appear to be above the mass, yet part of
it; "he loves no one but himself or other people in so far as they can serve
his needs," writes Freud. In that way, the leader "loves everyone."

Man is most like an animal when he is young. The infantile mind, while still
different from the animal in its creative capacities, thinks more
instinctively, is more reactive, is more prone to suggestion. Freud's
"Fu@auhrer" becomes a vehicle to make the masses more infantile; they are
thus more easily controlled and manipulated. {They are rendered defenseless
against mass brainwashing.}

Think about what we have described about the leader. Now think about what you
know about the Nazi state and its Fu@auhrer. Even the movie images have told
you that Hitler organized his followers and the mass of Germans {almost
exactly as Freud had described,} with results Freud "predicted."

Was the Fu@auhrer a Freudian? It is known that Hitler read LeBon; it cannot
be established that he read Freud, especially {Mass Psychology.} But it is
clear that those who put Hitler in power and those who steered his movement
read Freud, as did most of the ruling elite of the day -- It was they who were
promoting the Freudian craze and its propagation throughout the world.

Some neo-Freudians did become overt supporters of the Nazis. Of them all, the
most important was the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, who had broken with
Freud over the latter's refusal to see value in gnostic mysticism and what he
called Freud's fixation on the sexual drive, the libido, as the root of all
neuroses. Ultimately, Jung came to see in Hitler and the Hitlerian state the
proof of his theories.

And, more, Jung saw in Hitler the apotheosis of Jung's own search for a kind
of pagan "communion" with the Beyond, a search that began in 1915, with
Jung's colossal nervous breakdown.

There is a strong connection between Jung's psychoanalytic theories, which
form one of the conceptual bases of "New Age" ideology today, and his Nazism
-- or, more precisely, his fascination with Hitler. For Jung was obsessed by
the notion that the deepest reality, the greatest truth, lay buried in the
unconscious, mystical, psychotic aspects of Man's mind, as opposed to the
outward, rational, scientific (Judeo-Christian) view of the world. That was
the basis for Jung's decades-long pilgrimage through himself, beginning with
his nervous collapse, to find stranger and more distant "truths."

And that was the basis for his attitude toward Hitler -- Hitler was the
prototype of Jungian man, who surrendered his reason to his unconscious, who
welcomed divine madness as Jung himself advised.

Thus, in 1934, Jung was writing of the "formidable phenomenon of National
Socialism," which the world beheld "wide-eyed with astonishment." Hitler, he
wrote, had "literally set all Germany on its feet." He saw this as the
rebirth of the ancient Germanic god Wotan, celebrating his resurrection in an
age when "the Christian God had proved too weak to save Christendom from
fratricidal slaughter.

"As an autonomous archetype Wotan produces effects in the collective life of
a people and thereby reveals his own nature," Jung raved in trying to explain
the "formidable phenomenon" of Hitlerism. This god of wind and rain had
transformed Germany, this wind that "bestoweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it
goeth... [it] seizes everything in its path and overthrows all that is not
firmly rooted. When the wind blows, it shakes everything without or within."

Earlier, in an essay written in 1932 (but only printed in 1934), Jung had
celebrated the "leader [Fuehrer] personality" as against the "ever-secondary,
lazy masses, who cannot take the least move in the absence of a demagogue."
When he printed the essay in 1934, he specified in a footnote: "Since this
sentence was first written, Germany, too, has found its Fuehrer."

In 1933, about three months after Hitler came to power, Jung, a Swiss
national, became a minor official of the Nazi state. Shortly after Hitler was
named chancellor of Germany, Ernst Kretschmer had resigned as president of
the German General Society for Psychotherapy. His successor was Jung, and
Jung's second in command at the society was Dr. M.H. Goering, cousin to
Hermann Goering.

Was Jung simply taking the post (as he later claimed) in order to save the
delicate plant of psychotherapy from utter extinction by the Nazis? Hardly.
His first editorial in {Zentralblatt}, the journal of the society, declared,
"In the interest of science, we can no longer ignore the palpable
differences, long known to persons of insight, between the Germanic and
Jewish psychologies. Psychology, more than any other science, contains a
personal factor, ignorance of which falsifies the results of theory and
practice."

The next year, in 1934 in {Zentralblatt}, he published a programmatic
denunciation of "subversive" Semitism. To the Aryan unconscious (the
collective, or racial, unconscious of the German people, as he phrased it),
Jung attributed "the potential energy and creative seeds of a future still
awaiting fulfillment, ... [of] the still youthful Germanic peoples."

All this was written in the first two years of the Nazi regime. Perhaps Jung
had not yet understood the nature of the beast, of the regime he served?

Not true. In 1938, fully five years after Hitler's accession to power, Jung
was able to write with wild enthusiasm of Hitler as a "visionary," an
historical phenomenon belonging to the type of the "truly inspired shaman or
medicine man," the loudspeaker of the German soul, whose power was "magical
rather than political," a "spiritual vessel."

In his interview with American newspaperman H.R. Knickerbocker in October
1938, a month after Hitler had extorted from the West the Munich Pact, Jung
said that "Hitler belongs in the category of the truly mystic medicine
man.... The outstanding characteristic of his physiognomy is its dreamy look.
I was especially struck by that when I saw pictures taken of him in the
Czechoslovakian crisis; there was in his eyes the look of a seer.... He is
the loudspeaker which magnifies the inaudible whispers of the German soul
until they can be heard by the German's conscious ear. He is the first man to
tell every German what he has been thinking and feeling all along in his
unconscious about German fate, especially since the defeat in the World War,
and the one characteristic which colors every German soul is the typically
German inferiority complex, the complex of the younger brother, of the one
who is always a bit late to the feast. Hitler's power is not political, it is
magic."

Hitler's secret was that he allowed himself to be moved by his own
unconscious, said Jung. He was like a man who listens intently to whispered
suggestions from a mysterious voice and "then acts upon them. In our case,
even if occasionally our unconscious does reach us through dreams, we have
too much rationality, too much cerebrum, to obey it -- but Hitler listens and
obeys. The true leader is always led." This, of course, is the significance
of Hitler's own, oft-quoted remark, "I go the way Providence dictates with
the confidence of a sleepwalker."

Jung predicted to Knickerbocker that England and France would not honor their
Munich guarantees to the Czechs, since no nation keeps its word. Then why,
Knickerbocker asked, expect Hitler to keep his word? Hitler was different,
Jung insisted. "Because Hitler is the nation." This was exactly what Nazi
Deputy Fuehrer Rudolf Hess used to scream at the Nazi Nuremberg rallies.

And still, after the war began, Jung remained an enthusiast. As France
surrendered to Germany in June 1940 -- the date, the summer solstice, did not
pass unnoticed by Jung and other Nazi mystics -- Jung cried ecstatically, "It
is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius!"

Even much later in the war, when Jung had come to realize that his future
required him to dissociate himself from Hitler's particular brand of magic,
Jung was still certain that Hitler represented Germany in the profoundest
possible, mythic and mystical way. In answer to queries from American agents
as to whether Hitler could be overthrown internal to Germany, Jung shook his
head impatiently. Never could Hitler be overthrown by other Germans; he was
Germany. He was the "collective [racial] unconscious of the German people."


Mass Media

The Nazis and their organized supporters represented only a {minority} of the
German population, even when in power. What about the rest of the people,
whom our television documentaries called the "good Germans," who acquiesced
to the Hitler state? How were they made to go along?

That was accomplished through mass terrorization, through both the actual use
of jackboot terror and the {implied threat} to use it. It is very possible
that the same powers which placed Hitler in power could have done so, by a
"putsch," without a popular election victory. I say that they {chose} not to
do it that way, because the psychological considerations required for the
Hitler state to take hold demanded that the initial choice of the Nazis
appear to be a free one. This heightened the anxiety of the "good Germans,"
since they appeared to have brought the terrible state of affairs on
themselves. As many Freudians and neo-Freudians who have analyzed the Nazi
experiment have remarked, this led the majority of Germans to doubt their own
judgment,  making them more susceptible to brainwashing.

The structure of the Nazi Party and the Fuehrer state provided organized
vehicles for Freudian mass brainwashing. But the principle vehicle was {mass
media}. In fact, the Nazis more or less invented {mass media} -- the means
for the universal or near universal dissemination of "information"
simultaneously, in this case controlled through the state.

There were three basic insitutions of mass media.

The {print media,} which featured the coordinated control of information
disseminated through the press; all information was created and passed
through the Information Ministry, under Josef Goebbels. The coverage was
orchestrated so as not to appear to be identical, with various papers given
particular aspects of a story. But the point is that all the news was managed
from the top, including even foreign coverage of German events. Nearly every
German could be reached with the message desired inthis fashion.

{Film} became a universal mass medium as well, with cinemas established in
every town, with feature films that carried brainwashing images of Nazi
culture. Such films were often carefully crafted to have the greatest
psychological effect, with the Leni Riefenstahl epics such as {Triumph of
Will} being the most notorious. Those films and newsreels carefully produced,
allowed audiences to become participants in the mass experience of rallies
and other events. They provided a bond, as we have described, between the
leader and masses and the individual in the mass and his neighbor in other
parts of Germany -- They provided a universal brainwashing experience, and were
consciously produced to create such a desired effect. Audiences in cinemas
routinely joined in Nazi anthems and salutes, at the instigation of the
images on the screen. In addition, the films provided the {feinbild} or the
pictures of the enemies against which the Nazis were to deploy their mobs. As
more than one brainwasher has commented, the Germans were the first to be
subjected to the overt use of film for propaganda and the experiment was an
enormous "success."

But the most universal of the mass media was {radio}. As soon as they came to
power, the Nazis ordered the production and mass dissemination of cheap radio
receivers. By the end of their first year in power, nearly every German
household had one; in addition, loudspeakers, hooked to radio receivers and
amplifiers, were installed in town squares and other locations throughout
Germany.

For the first time in history, an event could be heard by nearly every person
in a single country, as it was happening. This is the mass audience that
foreshadows our television experience. The concept behind it was the same as
we have described in discussing Freud's {Mass Psychology} -- individuals
participating in the mass phenomena are susceptible to suggestion, to losing
their moral conscience -- they become overwhelmed by the mass experience.

Coming across the radio, into millions of homes and thousands of plazas is
the voice of one man, the Fuehrer. That fact -- that all or nearly all
Germans were hearing his voice at the same moment -- gave an enhanced power
to the message; it created an air of "all powerfulness." Many commentators
have remarked about the hypnotic quality of Hitler's voice, how it seemed to
mesmerize his audience, whether live or on radio or seen in the film. The
neo-Freudians would remark that it was not only the quality of the voice, but
the sense on the part of the listener of being part of a mass experience,
that contributed to this effect.


Careful Orchestration

Hitler's speeches were some of the first mass media events in history. They
were as carefully prepared and orchestrated as any modern television event;
they are comparable to the kind of preparation and buildup, given a media
extravaganza such as the Superbowl. In fact, one might say that such people
who prepared such mass media events learned their lessons from the Nazis, as
we shall later explain.

The speeches were preceded by widespread advertising in the print media and
radio, with a buildup of anticipation and excitement. As the moment of the
speech approached, the announcers described the frenzy and excitement of the
crowd. Hitler's entrance into the hall was carefully described, also to build
tension and excitement. When the speech began, Hitler usually spoke in low
and mellow tones, easing his audience into his message. His sentences were
simple and usually short. Words were carefully chosen, so as not to be beyond
the simplest of listeners. His tone and excitement in voice rose as the
speech progressed, eventually shouting his message to his audience. It ended
with the crowd roaring its approval, all of which was broadcast without
comment. As the Fuehrer left the hall, the commentator would carefully
describe the scene, with the emphasis on what the crowd was doing.

But it did not come naturally for Hitler. He carefully rehearsed everything,
down to the most minute gestures and eye movements, using photographs to
modify his style for maximum effect. Like a television star, he went over
details of the staging of his entrances, the location of the podium, the
lighting, etc. with his "stage managers" such as Goebbels.

When brainwashers spoke to Germans after the war, as part of efforts to
"psychoanalyze" the Nazi experience, they found few remembered any specific
content in Hitler's speeches. Almost all could remember being part of the
experience, if they were in attendance, and most remembered the "excitement"
in listening to them on the radio. The words "hypnotic" and "mesmerizing"
were the most used to describe the Fuehrer's voice. Even some people who
professed to have disagreed with the Nazis grudgingly claimed that Hitler was
a "a spellbinding speaker."

The brainwashers concluded from all this that {mass media} events had caused
people to {suspend their belief in reality}, that they had in fact been
willing to accept uncritically things being said, which they might have
rejected, if they had heard them in another context.

Ironically, the Nazis were working on the next level of mass media technology
-- television -- when the war broke out. Had the war and its production
demands not intervened, it is fairly certain that by no later than the
mid-1940s every German would have had a television set!

The {mass media} hold of Hitler on the population continued through the end
of the war; other Nazi leaders, Goebbels in particular, were said to have had
a similar effect. But no one could overwhelm reality like the Fuehrer, or,
rather, {the Fuehrer's mass media events}. Only as the Nazi state collapsed
in military defeat and chaos, did this process break down.


A Society Driven Insane

This is a picture of a society, driven {deliberately insane}. It is all the
more cruel for this was done to a great people, chosen as victims because
they were great and the carriers of the traditions of the Renaissance through
such giants as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schiller, List, von Humboldt. An evil
science, Freudian social psychology, was deployed against them, by a sick
oligarchy.

During the war, Bruno Bettelheim, a neo-Freudian, published a psychological
analysis of the Nazi period at the behest of the network of brainwashers
associated with the Tavistock Institute. Himself a concentration camp inmate
in 1938-39, Bettelheim describes how under extreme doubt and terror, the
individual will regress to an increasingly more infantile state. In that
condition, the inmates of the camps started to mirror the personalities and
mannerisms of their oppressors, the SS guards. In a widely circulated version
of that work, {The Informed Heart}, he indicates that life outside the
concentration camps mirrored the psychological disintegration taking place
inside -- All German citizens were becoming more infantile, less able to act as
reasoning adults.

"While the good child may be seen and not heard," writes Bettelheim, "the
`good German' had to be unseen and also dumb .... It is one thing to behave
like a child because one is a child: dependent, lacking in foresight and
understanding, taken care of by bigger, older, and wiser adults, forced by
them to behave, but occasionally able to defy them and get away with it.
Most important of all, feeling certain that in time, as one would reach
adulthood oneself, all this would be righted. It is quite another thing to be
an adult and have to force oneself to assume childish behavior, and for all
time to come...."

"It was not just coercion by others into helpless dependency," continues
Bettelheim. "It was also the clean splitting of the personality. Man's
anxiety, his wish to protect life, forced him to relinquish what was
ultimately his best chance of survival -- his ability to react and make
appropriate decisions. But giving this up, he was no longer a man, but a
child. Knowing that for survival, he should decide and act, and trying to
survive by not reacting -- these in their combination overpowered the
individual to such a degree that he was eventually shorn of all self-respect
and all feelings ofindependence."

In this way the multi-level experiment in Freudian mass brainwashing worked
its evil on the German population. In the end, the Nazis, themselves a group
of gnostic psychotics, went predictably out of control and the experiment had
to be destroyed; in the interim the Freudian mobs unleashed by the process
had destroyed much of Europe. And when it was over, those who had imposed
this horror in the world, attempted through mass media to blame their
{victims} for the crimes committed. The Germans, whom the oligarchy through
their Nazi tools, had tortured in mass brainwashing were told that they were
{collectively guilty} for all that had happened. The oligarchy tried a
handful of the psychotic Nazis, and in so doing put the whole German nation,
one of the greatest peoples on the earth, wrongly in dock at Nuremberg. And
while they intoned that it must "never happen again," they and their
brainwashers were already studying where the experiment had gone wrong. They
were preparing to do far worse, using a newly developed tool -- television --
as their more advanced mass brainwashing mechanism to organize a new form of
fascist state without the Nazi superstructure.

That's all for now. We'll pick up this thread of a fascist state without the
Nazi superstructure in the next part of this series, and show you the kind of
society that your brainwashers plan for you. But for the moment, I want you
to think back to the two images with which we started this section -- the Nazi
state, and in particular, the Nazi rallies, with the frenzied crowds,
cheering their Fuehrer, and the millions more listening, glued to their
radios. Now reflect on what we have told you about this, how they were really
carefully stage-managed {mass media events}.

Now think about the "Desert Storm" rallies, and the similarities between the
two events -- at their roots both are {organized, mass media brainwashing
events}.

Do you realize that you have been manipulated? You don't, do you? That is how
well the more than 40-year brainwashing of the American population by
television has worked.

{I am indebted to Molly Hammett Kronberg for the section on Jungian
psychology and Hitler, and for discussion on the Nazi movement overall.}


                        The Clockwork Orange Society

I'm back again. I won't even ask you this time whether the television set is
turned off. By now, I hope, you realize that it is impossible to think about
any important subject as long as it is on. But in case {someone else} has
turned the set on, I'll give you a chance to either turn it off or to go to
another room before we begin.

The people who had put the Nazis in power never gave up on the idea of mass
psychological brainwashing as a means to maintain the power of the
oligarchical elite. They only grudgingly acknowledged that the Nazi model of
social control, with its requirement for total regimentation, could not have
universal application. The question confronting the brainwashers at such
places as the Tavistock Institute outside London was how to create a Nazi
state in the United States without its now socially unacceptable state terror
apparatus.

Americans returned home from fighting a war in which they had defeated a
monstrous evil at great human sacrifice. Those involved in the war effort
were thus focussed on the {higher purpose} in life, the kind of moral outlook
that leads an individual to be willing to sacrifice his life, if necessary,
to make the world a better place to live in for someone who might come after
him, while giving renewed meaning to achievements of past generations. The
war effort led to a burst of {cultural optimism} in the population, that made
it seem that we could do great things for all mankind.

Now, look around at this miserable nation of ours; it is hard to believe that
it is the same place as 40 or 50 years ago. For most people, there is little
or no purpose to life, except to survive to the next day. Our people have a
deep-seated {cultural pessimism}, and are cynical about nearly everything.

Now, think hard -- over the last 40 years, while our moral outlook has
collapsed, what became a constant, ever-present part of your life. That's
right, {television}, that box in your living room. That realization is
necessary to understand what I am about to tell you.


The New `Leader'

The evil Sigmund Freud, in his work {Mass Psychology and the Analysis of the
I}, said that an individual's moral inhibitions and outlook can be broken
down as part of a mass or crowd. According to Freud, people in crowds or
masses behave as if they are hypnotized -- A person becomes more infantile, and
hence more like an animal under such circumstances, and loses the power to
reason critically. By using the power of mass suggestion, a new outlook,
based on different ideals can then be substituted for values a person had
previously held.

Freud says that each mass has a leader, who serves the function of hypnotist.
It is to the leader that the individuals in the crowd surrender their ideals,
and it is from the leader that they receive their new values. It is at the
will and word of the leader, that the mass or mob can be deployed.

Freud claimed that the leader principle worked as a brainwashing tool because
of some innate need of man to be led; this merely betrayed his own
oligarchical outlook. He believed that man was merely a two-legged animal,
whose basic animalism could be induced to come to the fore in mass
situations.

Freud is wrong -- Man is not an animal; however, he can, under conditions of
mass psychosis, through brainwashing techniques of the type described, be
made to {act as if he were an animal}. The key to mass brainwashing is to
create the kinds of {organized, controlled environments} in which {tension}
and {stress} can be applied to break down morally informed judgment, thereby
making an individual more susceptible to {suggestion}. Such {controlled
environments} are organized so as to appeal to base emotionalism, sensuality,
and even eroticism -- "feelings" that make man "one with animals" -- and not
to man's higher reasoning capabilities which truly distinguishe him from the
beast. It is this fact, and not merely the size of an event, that makes the
brainwashing possible.

For the brainwashers, what was required for a new system of mass social
control was a means to organize a {mass appeal to emotionalism}; the more
overpowering and all encompassing that appeal, the better. The more infantile
the population could be made, the less their resistance to suggestion and
manipulation.

In television, they found the tool to make that constant appeal to
infantilism, organized on a mass basis. It had the potential to reach into
{every} home, to reach {every} citizen with a set of messages and
suggestions. It also had the ability through the control and dissemination
of information, to create large {controlled environments} by creating your
perceptions of events. {Television is the new "leader," the technolgical
equivalent of Hitler}.

Writing in 1972 with Eric Trist, formerly of the Wharton School and now of
the University of Toronto and the leading Tavistock brainwasher in the United
States, Fred Emery says:

    "We are suggesting that television evokes a basic assumption of
    {dependency}. It must evoke (this) because it is essentially an
    emotional and irrational activity.... Television is the non-stop leader
    who provides nourishment and protection."

Emery and Trist report that the population has never been told this about
television and writing for a handful of fellow brainwashers they are now
about to let this secret out: "... the questioning and confrontation of
television has been put aside in order to maintain its role as the {leader}
in the dependent mode."

They note that {all} television has a dissociative effect on mental
capabilities, making people less able to think rationally. Harkening back to
the studies of the Hitler experiment, they find that this confirms the thesis
that "the leader should be `mad' or a `genius,' yet all the same people feel
compelled to believe that he is a dependable leader."

Emery and Trist, after looking at over 20 years of television brainwashing,
comment; "In other words, television can be partly seen as a technological
analyst of the hypnotist."

The more you watch, the more susceptible you become to suggestions from your
{leader}, the television. "... It turns you off [to] reality and time,"
Emery and Trist write, commenting that comprehension of time relationships
and reality are required for an individual to take reasoned, and purposeful
action.

In looking at the effects of habituated television watching, Emery and Trist
cite studies proving that it does neurological damage:

    "Our thesis is that television produces a quality and quantity of
    habituation that approximates the destruction of critical anatomical
    structures."

They report, however, that the damage is not irreversible. The neurological
problems can be cleared up within a few days of halting the six to eight
hours of daily viewing. The effects on the ability to reason and on moral
value structures are far more difficult to "clear up":

    "Man can (therefore) be seduced from purposeful functioning in such a way
    that he is unable to become aware of his deficit."


Social Turbulence

Now, we are ready to look at what the brainwashers and the oligarchs who have
deployed them have in store for you.

Many neo-Freudians have criticized Freud for presenting too biologically
oriented a system. They say that Freud failed to understand how much of a
role the {social environment} plays in shaping the personality of the
individual. A new social psychology must place an emphasis on the role of
tension-filled environments in shaping the personality or the "ego,"
producing regression to more infantile, or "id-like" personalities.

According the view of personality held by Tavistock's Emery and Trist, the
{social environment} is either {stable}, at which point, people are more or
less able to "cope" with what is happening to them, or it is {turbulent}, at
which point people either take actions to relieve the tension, or they adapt
to accept the tension-filled environment. If the {turbulence} does not cease,
or if it intensifies, then, at a certain point, people cease being able to
adapt in a positive way. At that point, Emery and Trist say, people become
{maladaptive} -- they choose a response to tension that degrades their lives.
They start to {repress reality}, denying its existence, and constructing
increasingly more infantile fantasies that enable them to cope. All the
while, their lives are becoming increasingly worse, when measured by value
structures of a short time before; to avoid this contradiction, people, under
conditions of {increasing social turbulence}, change their values, yielding
to new {degraded} values, values that are less human and more animal-like.

Sound like a bunch of gobbledegook? Well in a certain sense it is -- Morally
reasoning individuals, acultured by 2,000 years of Christian civilization, do
not think in such ways. They would reject barbaric choices, the so-called
critical choices, where none are good. They would seek Truth, and by seeking
Truth, find ways out of the brainwashers' mind trap.

Forty years ago, our responses to problems, and our moral outlook were
different. You would have probably rejected the kinds of critical choices you
are offered today. But that was {before television} -- Forty years of
television have eroded your ability to make moral choices, have steered you
into critical choices. You have followed your {leader}, television, down a
path to Hell.


Looking into Hell

Twenty years ago, the brainwashers, Emery and Trist, laid out some scenarios
for the future based on a {permanent condition of social turbulence}. There
might be brief periods of respite, but, according to them, the world would
become increasinly more chaotic and violent.

In the hands of those with the power to make policy -- to create the {social
turbulence} -- what they have written is a cookbook recipe for a desired
"future." It were proper to look at what they produced, back in 1972, as the
psychological warfare underpinning, the mass brainwashing concept, behind the
political doctrines of such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations
and the Trilateral Commission. It for such people that they were written.

Their forecast -- a period of continuous turbulence, especially economic
turbulence leading to economic decline -- had its political corollary in the
CFR's {Project 1980s} reports drafted in the mid-1970s. There, we find
reference to plans for the "controlled disintegration" of the American
economy.

In 1972, twenty years of television-watching in the United States and most of
the West had left populations with three basic {maladaptive} scenarios for
dealing with the tension.

One scenario is called {superficiality}. It is a form of psychological
retreat, an attempt to simplify choices. Tension, say Emery and Trist, makes
man desire to break free of the emotional values formerly placed on choices.
A person reduces the "value of his intentions, lowering the emotional
investment in the ends being pursued, whether they be personally or socially
shared ends.... This strategy can only be pursued by denying the deeper roots
of humanity that bind ... people together on a personal level by denying
their individual psyche."

Emery and Trist, writing in the Vietnam era, point to drug-soaked rebellion
of the "flower children" against society as an example of how this scenario
functions. Fighting an increasingly senseless and brutal war, the older
generation begins to ultimately accept the moral decadence of the drug
culture of its children, rather than seek conflict. Society as a whole
accepts a {lower moral standard}, posited as a higher value.

Citing the Frankfurt School philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, popularized by the
1960s counterculture, Emery and Trist say that under such conditions choice
becomes meaningless. What is important is "the moment," and "the momentary
experience becomes all," they state.

Quoting from Marcuse in his {One Dimensional Man}, Emery and Trist say that
modern society is thus confronted with "the rational character of its
irrationality."

The organized societal response to this process is best identified by Aldous
Huxley's {Brave New World}, the drug-controlled society, in which there are
{no} individual moral choices. They identify the 1960s counterculture as
"pioneers" for this scenario.

The second scenario involves the {segmentation} of society into smaller
parts, of a size that one might be more easily able to cope. "There is an
enhancement of in-group and out-group prejudices as people seek to simplify
their choices," say Emery and Trist. "The natural line of social divisions
have emerged to become barricades."

In this scenario, it is every group -- ethnic, racial, sexual -- against the
other. Nations break apart into regional groups, those smaller areas in turn
fissure into even smaller areas, along ethnic or other lines. It is an
incredibly violent scenario, but a violence associated with a purposefulness
of sorts, in individual defense of each ethnic or other group.

The organized social response to such a psychological and political
disintegration is the Orwellian fascist state, modelled on George Orwell's
book {1984}. In the book, individuals turn to "Big Brother" to regulate their
lives and conflicts among various castes within society. A continuous
conflict among three superpowers, writes Orwell, is "waged by each ruling
group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or
prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society
intact..."

While noting that the Orwellian scenario is not acceptable in its fully
regimented form, any more than Nazism could now be replicated in its exact
form, Emery and Trist state that there are nonetheless obvious parallels in
the "Cold War" to the Orwellian "war of each against all"; they comment
elsewhere that, should the Cold War collapse, the ability to control a
segmentation scenario on a societal scale would also collapse.

The third scenario is most intense, involving a withdrawl and retreat into
"private world and  a withdrawl from social bonds that might entail being
drawn into the affairs of others." Emery and Trist caution that
{dissociation} is not the more assertive statement of "me first," of personal
selfishness that became the hallmark of the 1970s and 1980s. Fearing the
terror that surrounds him, the individual seeks to avoid all forms of danger
entirely. Individuals seek {invisibility}, to fade into their environments;
they see nothing and no one, so that no one might see them.

The brainwashers remark that {dissociation} has always been a response of
sorts to living in a city. People tend to "look the other way," at some of
what is going on, just as the person who rides the subway tries to "remain
invisible" although in a crowd.

Here we can see how Freud and others' predictions about the behavior of
crowds or masses of people is specific to only certain types of specially
organized experiences -- ones in which the mass is organized around appeals to
emotionalism, that lead to the regression of the individual to an infantile
state of mind, to an animal-like "freedom" of hedonistic expression. Emery
and Trist describe a level of {dissociation} so great that the individual is
reduced to an animal. He withdraws from the terror around him, and like an
animal "playing possum," tries to hide.

With individuals withdrawn into their fantasies, their minds numbed and
brainwashed by their televisions, the brainwashers "predict" that men will be
willing to accept "the perverse inhumanity of man to man that characterized
Nazism" -- not {the structure} of the Nazi state, but the {moral outlook of
Nazi society}.

Ultimately, the majority of people withdraws so far that they don't even
bother to go to their sporting events or rock concerts -- {they have such
experiences mediated through television}. It is the television that "gives
them solace," write the brainwashers.

To survive, such individuals require the comfort of a {new} religion; the old
religious forms, especially Western Christianity, demand that man be
responsible for his fellow humans. The new religious forms, will be a form a
{mystical anarchism}, a religious experience much likened to satanic practice
of the Nazis and the views of Carl Jung. Again, it is to be television that
provides the "social glue" that binds the minds of the population to their
new religious forms: It is television as the leader, in this case, the
{anti-Christ.}


A Clockwork Orange

The organized social response to {dissociation}, say Emery and Trist, is a
society described in the pages of Anthony Burgess's novel {A Clockwork
Orange}.

In the book, Burgess depicts a society gone controllably mad. A majority of
people are engaged in useless "schooling," a few engaged in mind-destroying
trivial labors, and somewhere, there are people running all this as if it
were an insane zoo.

Senseless violence is everywhere in the streets, committed by gangs of youth
who lust for blood. In a typical {Clockwork Orange} street scene, a gang of
drugged, outlandishly dressed teenagers viciously beats an old man. He had
it coming, said one of the gang members; everyone knows that if you go into
certain parts of town, you will be beaten and raped.

There is no politics to any of it -- Burgess made sure that his "hero," Alex,
repeatedly makes clear that he is {apolitical}. Alex speaks a language
invented by the linguist Burgess, appropriate to his infantilism; It is never
translated -- the reader is forced to "learn" what it means by description or
"word pictures."

Burgess provides no explanation about how society got this way; there is no
war or other social calamity referred to. "That's just the way things are,"
one character says.

{A Clockwork Orange} portrays a society dominated by infantile animal-like
rage. The {dissociated} adults cannot exert moral authority over their
children, because they are too involved with their own infantile fantasies,
brought to them through their television sets. Even as they watch the reports
of the daily mayhem, they convince themselves that it isn't {their kids} who
are doing this.

For Emery and Trist, Burgess's {Clockwork Orange} vision {is} the Nazi state
without the superstructure. It is organized disorder, without moral control.

It is the force of the mass communications media, the {power of television},
however, that is driving us toward the {Clockwork Orange society}. As we have
explained in previous sections, television, when watched in habituated, long
viewing induces {dissociation}. It also provides the tension and images of
violence required to create the form of social organization in {A Clockwork
Orange}. Under its ever-present eye, the {leader}, television, transforms
children into beasts like Alex and parents into impotent caretakers of
beasts.

Over time, one state of mental and social disintegration can transform itself
into another. Given the power of television over society, all states will
tend to become more {dissociative}, more like {A Clockwork Orange}. As the
Futures Group brainwasher Hal Becker put it back in 1981, "Orwell made a big
mistake in his {1984}. Big Brother doesn't need to watch you, as long as you
watch it."

That is enough for now. When we speak again, I will explain how the programs
you watch on television have been crafted to brainwash you.


The Programming of America by Television

Reflect on the following for a moment -- Suppose someone told you that they
wanted you to take a large dose of a mind-deadening drug, and that after you
took the drug, they were then going to suggest that you do things that
without taking the drug you would probably never conceive of doing. And, they
also told you that {you would not be held accountable for what you did, that
you would have no conscious memory of what took place.} Would you take it?

Definitely not, you say, no way.

Yet, for the last more than 40 years, the majority of Americans, like
yourself, have been taking a daily dose of a mind-deadening drug, one of the
most powerful ever invented -- {television}. With your mind in a deadened
state, things have been suggested to you that, were you alert and reasoning,
you would have rejected. And, {over time}, under the continual dosage of
this drug, you have followed the suggestions, changing the way you think
about yourself and the world around you. And, you never knew that this was
happening and you may even yet, despite all the things we have already shown
you, have trouble believing it. That is how complete this brainwashing
process is, how strong is its power over you.

People like Sigmund Freud, his direct followers in the psychoanalytic
movement, and the neo-Freudians that split from him, as well as all {social
pyschologists}, deny the existence of the universal truth that man is made in
the living image of God and is therefore distinct from the animal. They deny
that man has been endowed by his Creator with the Divine Spark of reason, and
that by the gift of reason, man can {consciously} perfect his knowledge. For
them, creativity is fundamentally an unknowable, mystical, concept, an act
linked to repression of carnal and sexual desires.

By denying these most fundamental of truths, they deny the existence of any
truth. They seek to impose on mankind a {paradigm shift that will wipe out
2,000 years of Christian civilization}, returning man to a bestial and
primitive social order.

Using television as their weapon, the brainwashers have launched a 40-year
assault on the universal truths of Western Christian civilization and on the
concept of universal truth itself. In place of morally informed reason, in
the absence of universal truth, they have raised the false god of {popular
opinion}. As we shall show, they have consciously targetted {the higher moral
values} of society, and even the idea that there could be a set of true moral
values, seeking to substitute {amorality} as the axiomatic assumption.


Reality as Opinion

Once the concept of universal truth is obliterated, reality can be redefined
by internal "perceptions" or "images" of that reality. Those perceptions and
images are then validated by {popular opinion}. Reality becomes a set of
conflicting opinions validated by a mass consensus.

Freud, in discussing this transformation in his 1921 {Mass Psychology},
identifies the process in masses of people as a loosening of the hold of what
he calls moral or social conscience (the "Over I" or "superego," as it is
mistranslated in English) over a person's more infantile and hence, more
animal-like nature (the I and It, or the "ego" and "id"). To use a term
developed by the neo-Freudians, the individual becomes more "other-directed,"
governed by the perceived opinions of others, and thus, more easily
manipulated.

Television brainwashing works through the manipulation of images and
perceptions to cause a {paradigm shift} in the "public mind." It does this
through what the television people appropriately call {programming,} the
content of which is shaped and fine-tuned by "social analysts."

Let's see how Walter Lippmann, one of the earliest practitioners and
theorists of the mass manipulation of opinion, describes the process.
Lippmann, trained by the British psychological warfare unit at Wellington
House during World War I and a follower of Freud, was to become regarded as
the most influential American social and political commentator of the first
half of the twentieth century.

In 1922, following the publication of Freud's {Mass Psychology}, Lippmann
authored a handbook on the manipulation of the public mind, titled {Public
Opinion}. In its introductory chapter, titled "The World Outside and the
Pictures in Our Heads," he describes the concept of public opinion:

    "Public opinion deals with indirect, unseen, and puzzling facts and there
    is nothing obvious about them. The situations to which public opinion
    refers are known only as opinions.... The pictures inside the heads of
    these human beings, the pictures of themselves, of others, of their
    needs, purposes and relationship, are their opinions. Those pictures
    which are acted on by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the
    name of groups, are Public Opinion with capital letters.... The picture
    inside so often misleads men in their dealings with the world outside."

While television might shift some opinions relatively quickly, a {paradigm
shift} involving the {axiomatic} assumptions that govern all individuals
thinking in a society does not occur overnight; it occurs over a long period
of time, in stages.

Think about a profile of the American population, correlating it to the
cumulative amount of television viewing.

First, you have a generation which was born before the advent of television,
the generation who fought in World War II; they had the strongest set of
moral values, since they were influenced by the war experience and their
parents' strong moral values. They were the most resistant to brainwashing.

Their children, the "baby boomers" of the 1947-55 period, were the special
targets of the brainwash programming, as we shall show. They have been
subjected to television brainwashing all their lives. All succeeding
generations have been totally immersed in the television brainwashing
experience.

Thus, you have an older generation which has been watching television since
approximately 1950, and successive generations who have been watching for
their entire lifetimes.

Now, you have parents who were themselves reared by television, raising
children, who were reared by television, who are now starting to have
children themselves -- three successive generations subjected to television
brainwashing, without any conscious memory of anything different.

With this profile in mind, focus on the following: The goal of television
programming is to make each succeeding generation more infantile, more
animal-like, more amoral, thereby {shifting} the value structure of the whole
society. By the end of the process, the parents of the "baby boomers" have
adopted all the fundamental, infantile assumptions of their children.


The Lost Generational War

The Tavistock brainwashers Fred Emery and Eric Trist, writing nearly 20 years
ago, identify the crucial period in this brainwashing process -- the point at
which the pre-television generation tried to raise their "baby boom" kids,
approximately 1949-69. They note the following scenario. Throughout the
period, children's television watching increased, especially as the number of
shows oriented to them increased; at the same time, adult watching increased.
Children, they say, learned from what they saw their parents doing -- It became
socially approved behavior to watch television.

But then something interesting happened -- The television, itself, took over as
a surrogate parent. Children watched to amuse themselves, and were encouraged
by parents to do so. They became habituated to watching.

The images presented on the screen were more real, more powerful than the
outside world. The messages presented in the shows became more important to
the children than what they were told by their live parents.

Children watched the same shows, often with their friends, and talked about
the shows, socializing the experience. Emery and Trist, citing the work of
others, report that television became the "Pied Piper" for the children, the
{leader} that they followed.

The whole process created an estrangement between child and parent, although
not necessarily apparent at first, creating a crisis in the fundamental unit
of social reproduction, the family. It was only as these baby boomer children
grew into adolescence in the 1960s that the conflict broke into the open.
Write Emery and Trist:

    "a generation of children grow up on a TV diet, and the more affluent get
    sets, then multiple sets, the more likely to use it as substitute for a
    presence with their children. The children grow to adolescence, spend
    less time viewing, but have a different world view. They challenge the
    world view of the parents, face to face...."

In previous generational challenges, Emery and Trist write, the disciplinary
authority of the adult society ultimately won over its young-adult values.
But this time, adult society had lost its ability to discipline; the adults
had been infantilized by their own television watching. The generational war
is lost, Emery and Trist write, as all society plunges to a new, {lower}
infantile level. The behavior of the children -- the drugs, the sex, the
anti-social behavior -- is excused or to use a brainwasher's word --
{rationalized}, with the help of the messages contained in television
programming.

Emery and Trist reach a startling  conclusion -- The generational war between
the so-called counterculture and the generation that fought World War II will
be the last such sharp confrontation of values. Under the influence of
television, each succeeding generational transfer of power will be smoother --
When the adults are infantile already, it is more easy to accept the
infantilism of their youth. The children, they state, may be violent, insane
and anti-social, but no one will assert that it isn't their right to be so!

To understand better how we got into this mess, we are going to have to go
back to the early period of television in the 1950s, and show how what you
watched as a child helped determine your values as an adult.

As we said, the "baby boom" generation was the first to be reared by the
television set. By 1952 there were already 30 million TV sets in America; by
the end of the decade the penetration in American homes was near universal.
This provided the basis for mass brainwashing, targetting especially the
children born since 1949.

It is important to understand that the brainwashers think in {long time
spans}. They know that it is impossible to effect any significant change in
social values over anything but time frames measured in several generations.
Hence, the messages presented in mass television programming in the 1950s,
which were planned to {play back} one and two decades hence. In the same way,
what you and your children are watching today, will shape the first part of
the next millennium.

While your brainwashers think in {long periods of time}, you are being
induced to think in shorter and shorter time frames. Your attention span is
shrinking almost daily. For example, the average half-hour television show is
broken into at least four segments, with usually the longest running no more
than five to six minutes, with the remaining portions occupied by
commercials, theme, and credits. Television news presents items in 30 second
bites, with slightly longer feature pieces. The very nature of the majority
of your television viewing makes it impossible to consider difficult
concepts, especially developments over long periods of time.


Cultural Warfare

Your brainwashers themselves actually fall into two major categories. They
both have the same world view -- the concept of man as a beast, to be
controlled and manipulated like an animal -- but there is a division of
responsibility between them. There are the people like Emery and Trist and
others at places like Tavistock, who create and analyze mechanisms for
brainwashing, who study the effects of this brainwashing with what are called
{profiles}, and who make recommendations on how to do it better. They work as
social psychologists, and in similar professions.

Then, there are the people who create the {idea content} of the brainwashing.
They operate on the culture or {paradigm}, as we have explained -- the sets
of axioms that govern the way we think. These are the {cultural warfare}
experts, who create the value systems which are in turn imposed on the
society by the brainwashing mechanisms, such as television.

In the late 1930s and during the war, operatives of the Frankfurt School were
involved in major studies of mass radio programming, and their effects on the
population. Their work, with Tavistock-linked personnel, in what was known as
the Princeton "Radio Project" provided important conceptual material for
later, mass television brainwashing.

One of the key early pioneers in television brainwashing techniques was
Theodor Adorno, a Frankfurt School operative and a former member of the
"Radio Project." Adorno shared the bestial outlook of the neo-Freudians,
developing, along with others associated with the Frankfurt School network, a
perverse theory on the use of mass communications technology for mass
brainwashing. Given the appropriate message content, said Adorno, media such
as television and radio, could be used to make people "forcibly retarded." An
adult personality could be reduced, through interaction with mass media, to a
more primitive, childish or infantile state.

In a 1938 report, Adorno compares the retardation capability of existing
media. Radio has one level of effect, but sound film is an even more powerful
"retardant," Adorno indicates. Television is yet another level more powerful,
said Adorno in 1944:

    "Television aims at the synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only
    because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its
    consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the
    impoverishment of asethetic matter so drastically...."

In the minds of Adorno and his "fellow travelers," the power to control the
new medium meant the power to determine and control the values of society:

    "Television is a medium of undreamed of psychological control," Adorno
    wrote in 1956.

That same year, Adorno wrote an essay titled "Television and the Patterns of
Mass Culture" that elaborated on the brainwashing techniques that could be
employed with television. It was intended as a cookbook and discussion guide
for people involved with the programming. For people like ourselves, intended
television brainwash victims, it provides insight into how the messages in
the programming can be "decoded."

Outlining his study, Adorno writes, "[We will] investigate systematically
socio-psychological stimuli typical of televised material on both the
descriptive and psychodynamic levels, to analyze their presuppositions, as
well as their total pattern, and to evaluate the effect they are likely to
produce. This procedure may ultimately bring forth a number of
recommendations on how to deal with the these stimuli to produce the most
desirable effect...."

Adorno states that all television programming contains an {overt} message as
defined by plot, characters, etc. in the images presented and a {hidden}
message that is less obvious, and is defined by the larger intent of those
presenting the images. These {hidden messages} are the brainwashing content,
while the {overt} message -- the plot, etc. -- is the {carrier} of that
brainwash content.

The {hidden message} operates on the mind so as to cause {value conflict}
over a period of time. As we have stated before, the conflict will not
surface immediately, but occurs over generational time spans. The {hidden
message} in a show may not surface for 10-20 years as a change in attitudes
of the majority of the population, but Adorno asserts that {it will
ultimately surface.} This is the concept of {playback} to which we have
referred in other sections of this report.


Those `Wholesome' Shows

To make his point, Adorno unmasks the {hidden message} of a number of popular
shows of the early television period.

{Our Miss Brooks}, a popular situation comedy (sitcom), pitted a trained
professional, a school teacher, against her boss, the principal. Most of the
humor, according to Adorno, was derived from situations in which the
underpaid teacher tried to hustle a meal from her friends.

Adorno "decodes" the {hidden message} as follows:

    "If you are humorous, good-natured, quick-witted, and charming as she
    [Miss Brooks] is, do not worry about being paid a starvation wage. You
    can cope with your frustration in a humorous way and your superior wit
    and cleverness put you not only above material privations, but also above
    the rest of mankind."

This {message} will be called forth years hence, as the economy collapses in
the form of a "cynical anti-materialism." It came forth with a vengeance
among the 1960s "lost generation," and the first wave of the
"counterculture."

Generalizing from this, Adorno points out that it is {social tension and
stress} that call forth the television images of {pyschodynamic stereotypes},
the role models and images from the early television viewing. The more
confusing life becomes, the "more people cling desperately to cliche@aas to
bring order to the otherwise un-understandable," Adorno says.

Another "decoding" by Adorno emphasizes this point. Remember the show, {My
Little Margie}? The heroine of this sitcom was a pretty girl who played
"merry pranks" on her father, who is portrayed as well-meaning but stupid.

Adorno says that the {hidden message} is the image of an aggressive female
sucessfully dominating and manipulating the male father-figure. He "predicts"
that years later, that young girls will increasingly mirror this image of the
"bitch-heroine." Little Margie is the role model image for the feminist
movement of the 1960s and 1970s that took off as the {My Little Margie'}s
viewers grew up.

The messages need not be contained within a single show; they could be
transmitted through a series of images contained as primary or secondary
features within {several shows}. For example, Adorno indicates that several
shows featured characters who were artistic, sensitive, and effeminate males.
Such images cohered with Freudian notions that artistic creativity stemmed
from either a repressed or actual homosexual passion. These effeminate,
sensitive males usually come up against the other more, aggressive male
"macho" images, such as cowboys, who are uncreative.

Recognizing the psychological power in the {hidden image}, Adorno predicts
that the "creative sissy" will find an "important" place in society. Such
images are {playing back} today in the spread of homosexuality throughout
society, and in all creative arts.


Television's Killing of God

One of the fundamental relationships that defines our civilization is that of
man to God. That relationship is mediated through organized religion. It is
religion that teaches the values and {axioms} of western Christian
civilization, which creates in the individual the capacity for moral judgment
that must  inform our reasoning processes.

As we have explained in another section of this report, the evil Sigmund
Freud, whose mass psychology became the basis for theories of mass
brainwashing, hated all religious belief, precisely because it told man that
he was endowed with divine powers to perfect his existence; according to
Freud, this belief, the root of our moral conscience, brought man into
conflict with his more infantile desires, thus causing neuroses.

Freud's system and its variants in social psychology must deny the
perfectability of the soul, as described by Dante as the passage of man from
the Inferno, through Purgatory, to Paradise; man, the two-legged animal, must
not aspire to be any more than he is, a beast, at war with himself, whose
base emotions must be repressed and controlled.

In the early 1950s, the majority of Americans still actively worshiped God in
churches and synagogues. The practice of religious belief was an {axiomatic
assumption} of American life, even if Americans did not always act according
to those beliefs. Television could not {actively and openly} attack this; to
do that would bring down the wrath of an angry nation on the new medium, and
lose its potential hold over the population.

So the programmers took another tact -- {Television shows made organized
religious belief, invisible, made it disappear from the screen.} Studies of
the content of television shows in the 1950s show almost no references to
church-going or religious activities.

Think about such shows as {Leave It to Beaver} or {Father Knows Best}. Do you
ever remember those families going to church or discussing religious beliefs?
Do you even know what faith those families were? You don't because they never
told you -- They never discussed such matters.

Most importantly, when these families had problems, did they ever turn to
their church or their religious leaders as resources to help solve them?
Never. They were all worked out within the family -- in the absence of
organized religion or religious beliefs. The family and its values were thus
{secularized} and what were once called moral and religious values became
known as {family values} -- a secular belief structure that has nothing to do
with fundamental values of western Christian civilization.

This was the {hidden message} of those so-called wholesome family shows of
the 1950s, the ones that some Moral Majority-types and people like Tipper
Gore now hold up as examples of a golden era of television!

The {playback} came in the late 1960s, with the nation convulsed in
generational battles over values, triggered by the Vietnam conflict.
Tavistock brainwasher Fred Emery noted at the time that, unlike previous
periods of social chaos, in the late 1960s no one was turning to organized
religion to help find a way out, to seek more fundamental values that could
bind together society and troubled families alike. Instead, he describes the
rise, especially among the television-weaned baby boomers of a {mystical
anarchism}, that rejected all organized religion as false and "sought a new
definition for God." This is the "New Age," the "Age of Aquarius," preached
by Frankfurt School gurus like Herbert Marcuse.

More recent surveys taken by Tavistock's population profilers show that fewer
people than ever before say that they hold {strong religious beliefs} of any
kind. A standard answer has a person saying that he was brought up
religiously, "but no longer practices any organized religion."


We're All Animals

Now, let us turn our attention to how the programmers created an identity
between man and the animal.

One of the earliest forms of children's programming was cartoon shows; often
those shows had human hosts, such as {Bozo}, or {Terrytoon Circus's} Claude
Kirshner. But the majority of the content of the half-hour shows was the five
to six minute cartoons. Much was made in those early days about how silly and
innocuous the cartoons were, with some parents' groups complaining that there
should be more "content" in children's programming.

But they weren't innocuous. Almost every cartoon portrayed {animals} acting
as if they were human beings. Studies of children who had a daily, steady
diet of television cartoons show that the kids lost their ability to see the
difference between most animals and human life -- The animal kingdom appeared
to mirror human society. The children identified with certain animals as
"heroes" and feared others as dangerous "bad guys."

The same kind of cartoon fare had been available to Saturday matinee and
other movie audiences. But children went to the movies at most once or twice
a week, for an hour or two. During the first 10 years of television, children
aged 2 to 10 watched more hours of cartoons than they spent doing any other
activity. They received more than an hour and a half a day worth of cartoon
brainwashing.

Toward the end of THE decade, the cartoon shows started to mirror adult
television -- {Yogi Bear} and other Hanna-Barbera features were put in the
weekly series format, to create a regular, habituated audience. As some of
the programmers predicted, this format also drew adult audiences to the
cartoon series.


That Lousy Mouse

The most powerful of the children's shows were produced by Walt Disney
Studios, which had years of experience in producing a mass brainwashing
product directed at children. Walt Disney and his brother Roy were both
involved in the production of propaganda films during World War II, overseen
by the Tavistock-dominated Committee for Morale. His studio was the first to
produce feature-length cartoons that incorporated human and animal
characters; Disney recognized that the cartoon, with its color and
larger-than-life imagery, was the perfect vehicle for carrying "messages" to
children. His films, such as {Sleeping Beauty} and {Snow White}, were all
aimed at becoming universal experiences for generations of children and their
parents, containing {moral messages} that would stay with a child through
most of his or her life.

Thus, it was not surprising that the most popular children's show of the
first television decade was the "Mickey Mouse Club", which mixed cartoon,
movie and live interaction between human and animal characters.

The "Mickey Mouse Club" was {an experiment in mass brainwashing of children
through television}. Around the show was built an actual club organization,
which by the end of the decade had more members than the Boy Scouts and Girl
Scouts combined. Along with membership came a club magazine and other items,
which, in turn, suggested other group activities, which usually meant the
purchase of some Disney-licensed toys and paraphernalia.

Each child at home was "indoctrinated" in a membership ritual, with prompting
from the television, and was urged to sing-along with songs, with words
flashed on the screen, and chant things as instructed by their television
group leader. They did so while wearing their "mouse ears," which were
designed to make them identify with an animal figure, Mickey Mouse.

At the end of each show, there was a sermon by the "group leader," a young
adult male, whose preaching was reinforced by statements from the "live"
Mouseketeers in the studio, each of whom was known only by his or her first
name. The sermon usually spoke of the need to honor parents and other family
members, and to do "good" things for little creatures and other little
children. All of this was done while children at home and on the stage wore
their ears and gave their "club salute."

There had been other children's clubs before, around radio shows such as
"Captain Midnight," and around television figures like Roy Rogers or "Howdy
Doody," but nothing on the scale of Disney's Mickey Mouse Club, and nothing
organized around identification with an animal. American children had been
given a new pagan-like religion, and its god was a mouse!

The parents saw nothing wrong in this. The mouse, through his surrogate, his
human spokesman on the show, Jimmy, supported "American values." Children
were being "taught" to respect their parents, to be "patriotic" and to act
well-behaved. The parents were happy to let a mouse,or rather television,
through a mouse, give those values to a generation of children.

Reflect for a moment on a different time and a different place. There was
another generation of children whose values were given to them in an
organized form from someone other than their parents. The {Hitler Youth} of
Nazi Germany. They too had their rituals, their uniforms and symbols, and
their songs. They too had their leaders, who preached sermons. And they too
were "taught" to be "patriotic" and respect their parents, and to always be
polite and well-behaved. Remember what we said -- the Nazi state and values
without the Nazi baggage. Mickey Mouse, the Fu@auhrer? Makes you think for a
moment, doesn't it?


Those Murderous Animals

One of the "values," that was inserted into the various serial adventures
within the "Mickey Mouse Club's" format was the need to protect "little
creatures" and "nature" against greedy man, who would destroy them to make
money. Similar themes were contained in the prime time "Walt Disney Presents"
series.

Meanwhile, other more "standard" format shows, such as "Lassie} and "Rin Tin
Tin} created further identification between children and the animals. In
these shows, the animal was the "hero," who often defeated bad people,
sometimes without the help of any human intervention. In each case, the shows
featured a young boy or girl, who was protected by the animal (in the two
cases cited, dogs). As later brainwashers' studies found, this made the
images on the screen easier for the children viewers to identify with.

All of this identification with the animal, and the blurring of the
distinction between what is human and what is animal, {played back} a
generation later in the lunacy of the environmental movement.

Now, it's 1990. Those nice stories about "cute little animals" have turned a
bit gruesome. The average nature show, whether it be on cable, on the
networks, or on public television, shows animals killing each other and
copulating. Some of the Moral Majority-types are a little squeamish about the
copulation, but they apparently find little wrong with the violence.

The new shows have the blessing and the guidance of various psychologists,
who have profiled children's responses to the animal gore and sex. They
openly state that the shows provide lessons for children about {human
behavior}, since the animals merely reflect the darker side of man's own
nature. Eli Rubinstein, a psychologist working on the American Psychological
Association's task force on television and society, claims the violent nature
documentaries "puts human behavior in context." He says that parents should
watch such shows with kids so that they can use them constructively to
"reinforce positive human behavior."

Such shows are especially good at explaining to children why it is bad to
create large populations. The children can see that unregulated population
growth leads to death and suffering, these brainwashers say.

Thus, the next generation of children are to be told that they are to mimic
"good" animal behavior and avoid the more nasty stuff. We don't want too many
children, now, do we? And you tolerate this brainwashing and may even
participate in it, as the psychologists "recommend." This is where those
cartoons and Mickey Mouse have led us.

Next time you're around an environmentalist over 35 years of age, ask him if
he still has his "mouse ears."


And Justice For All

Now, let's take a look at another brainwashing message, {justice, as carried
out by law enforcement officers}, and see how television handled it. Here we
will see how the hidden message shifts to an increasingly more fascist
outlook.

In the first decade of television, the image of law enforcement was conveyed
in both the westerns and the so-called "cops and robbers" shows. Children
watched both, since they were on during prime time and were among the most
popular viewing for families.

Usually, the law enforcement officers were either the heroes, or major
secondary characters, who worked with the heroes to solve problems. The
sheriff or the detective or police officer was the "good" guy, who risked his
life to protect citizens from "bad" criminals.

The simple message delivered was "crime doesn't pay." What was crime or
criminal activity? Anything that violated the law. And what determined the
law? On what principles was a society governed by law founded? Certainly not
on the concepts of charity and justice contained in the Bible or on the
concepts of Natural Law embodied in our Constitution. At best, what was shown
was that the law was based on a {social contract} to control the worst
elements in society. At worst, it was shown to be based only on retributive
justice -- "an eye for an eye." As studies of the program content of such
shows as "Gunsmoke," "The Untouchables," or "Dragnet, show often such
"justice" was swift and final -- More often than not the "bad guy" wound up
dead, without any trial.

As television entered its second decade, the brainwashers altered the
programming content. With the baby boomers approaching adolescence, new shows
started portraying the {corruption} in society and the legal system. The
series "The Fugitive," for example, featured as a hero a man wrongly
convicted of murder, running from the law while trying to find the person who
framed him. Each episode showed the corruption in the society around him,
including corrupt lawyers and police officers. Other shows had plot lines
with the message that crime was a {sociological problem} and that {justice
could not be found inside the "system."}

Such images, imprinted on the minds of impressionable adolescents and
children growing up, {played back} during the "revolution" against the social
order in the late 1960s.

More recently, television provided new messages telling viewers that the
"system" had become so corrupt, that the corruption was everywhere -- Judges
were crooked, law enforcement officials were crooked, etc. The heroes of
shows are now people who operate outside any law, who bring people to justice
one way or another Rambo-style. A new fascist vigilantism is being organized
by such  shows as "Dark Justice" about a judge, who seeks to destroy people
whom he cannot convict in his courtroom. The brainwashing message --
Constitutional law is itself a means to protect only the criminals and must
be side-stepped to achieve "justice."

This message finds no contradiction in the images from 35 years ago that lie
in the recesses of the minds of the baby boomers. The westerns and "cops and
robbers" shows told you that justice is defined by the "eye for an eye"
dictum, and that most often it was found at the barrel of a gun.


The Sexual Revolution

Finally, let's turn our attention to one of the most discussed questions
about television programming -- the wiedspread sexual content of shows. A flip
through the dial makes it obvious that there is plenty of every kind of sex
one could imagine on the tube, and what isn't shown explicitly in network
prime time, is implied in dialogue. But it wasn't always that way. Again, we
will see how the images have shifted, to an increasingly debased level.

Let's go back to the 1950s again, when the brainwashing of the baby boomers
started. In the early television shows, there was no depiction of any sexual
activity and almost no discussion of the matter. Those early shows supposedly
featured "wholesome" family situations, at least if you believe what some of
today's television's critics now tell us. But the brainwashing message was
more subtle. It didn't rely on visual image or dialogue.

It is important that we make some distinctions about "love" and "sex." The
very fact that people focus on "sex" or "sexual activity" already reflects a
debasement of fundamental human emotions into their most carnal. We must draw
a distinction between what is commonly called "sex" or "love," and the
concept of Christian love, known as {agape@am}. Man, as distinct from the
beast, can experience love, in its most profound sense, as separated from
instinctual cravings of animals, and to experience such love is joyful.

There is no separation of the mind from such emotion, no split between
emotion and reason, in this most fundamental sense of the concept of love or
agape@am. It is this concept of love, as in man's love of God, that is the
fundamental emotion, that truly makes man human. To say that all human
society is fundamentally based on man's love of God and his fellow man is not
incorrect.

To reduce love to simple emotion, and to further reduce it to a sexual
attraction, is a degradation of man. The Freudian paradigm and all its
derivatives deny the existence of a love that is anything different than
carnal or romantic. Any other kind of love is defined as {neurotic,} the
product of a denial of man's basic {animal} instincts. In the Freudian
system, agape@am has been replaced by eros, whose carnal cravings must
determine all human relationships.

There is no better example of agape@am than the love and joy that a parent
feels in seeing his or her child develop into a reasoning, human being. The
tears of joy that come to parents' eyes when they see a child understand
something for the first time are indicative of a profound emotional
experience. This {fundamental} emotional experience puts man in touch with
his human identity.

The goal of the brainwashers was to destroy agape@am, using television as
their weapon. Over a period of several generations, television would steer
man away from agape@am, and place him under the thrall of eros.

As we have stated, the earliest television was in no way sexually explicit or
even implicit -- The prevailing morality within the society, though weakened by
hedonistic pursuits, would still not tolerate that. Instead, what was
presented were simple {romantic} notions or no notions of love at all.
Further, studies done during this early period revealed that early television
reinforced infantile concepts about "boy meets girl" and "infatuation,"
which, in turn, reinforced "common knowledge" among children and adolescents
about human relationships. The Frankfurt School crowd realized that by
presenting no {positive} concept of loving, they were helping to "wipe the
slate clean," leaving the door open for more debased images at a later point.

But there was another flank to the attack on agape@am, one with a more
{hidden} message. Emery and others studying early television found that such
shows as "Father Knows Best," "Ozzie and Harriet}, and "Leave It to Beaver,"
had a secondary effect on the children viewing them. The fictional parents
were portrayed as "perfect," without flaws.

No real world situations were actually solved so perfectly. Tension was thus
created between the {image} of the "perfect parents" that appeared on the
screen and the {real} parents who lived in the children's homes -- The latter
could never measure up to the former.

Meanwhile, the parents, who watched these shows with their children, were
being shown television images of kids who were nothing like the real thing --
They were too "good," too well-behaved, too respectful. When they tried to
measure their own kids against the tube's images of children, they found
their own wanting.

The brainwashers noted that this was the first generation whose images of
parents and children were coming into conflict with reality. An obvious
conclusion can be drawn -- the early television programming message {played
back} in the generational war of the late 1960s, when the tension exploded
into anger and rage.

As the baby boomers reached adolescence, they were bombarded with new, more
degraded images of "love," and "love-making," which were to prepare the way
for the next phases of the "sexual revolution." Only ten years earlier, the
images and situations of "Love, American Style" or "MASH" would have been
unthinkable to put on television.

A new image started to enter the scene -- the shattering of the nuclear family,
the fundamental unit by which society is reproduced. In the early 1970s,
shows featuring unwed mothers, extramarital affairs, adultery, people "living
together" out of wedlock were widespread. Sex and sexual references were
everywhere on prime time.

A study was done comparing a week of prime time shows during 1975, 1977, and
1978, which shows how fast this {carnalization of America} was spreading:

    "[C]ontextually implied intercourse increased from no weekly occurrences
    in 1975 to 15 in 1977 and 24 in 1978; sexual innuendoes increased in
    frequency from about one reference per hour in 1975 to 7 in 1977 to 11 in
    1978. Most dramatically, verbal references to intercourse increased from
    2 occurrences in 1975 to 6 references in 1977 to 53[!] in 1978...."

It isn't just the amount of sex being shown and referred to on television,
but the {messages} that accompany it. For example, in the early period of
television, which we will define for our purposes as prior to the 1969
season, a study done by a research team and published in the excellent source
book {Watching America}, showed that 38 percent of shows "presented
extramarital affairs as wrong. The proportion dropped to 7 percent after
1970. Before 1970 none of the shows ever portrayed recreational sex as
acceptable without qualification. In prime time's passionate world of the
1970s and 1980s, 41 percent of the shows viewed portrayed recreational sex as
acceptable without qualification, and 33 percent made no moral judgement."

The same book notes:

    "On the TV screen, sex is usually without consequence, without worry and
    with rarely a bad experience."

The images of the 1970s are {playing back} with a vengeance in the 1980s and
1990s. There is an important point to be made here. While changes in values
do not occur overnight, they are occurring at an increasingly rapid pace.
This has to do with the cumulative effect of television brainwashing on an
increasingly amoral and immoral population. {As morality collapses and breaks
down, there is less resistance to suggestion in the individual.}

The authors of {Watching America} sum up television's view of eros, and what
the message is that television delivers to its brainwash victims:

    "Today television is both willing to talk about sex and tell the truth
    about it as the Hollywood community sees the truth. That truth is
    roughly, that sex is important, it needs to be dealt with, in all its
    diverse expressions, and those who would suppress it from popular
    entertainment are doing the mass audience a disservice. Indeed the real
    villains on programs that deal with sexual issues are ... the Moral
    Majoritarians who would deny romance its natural physical expression,
    restrict free expression and much-needed information, or condemn
    `deviant' social victims like gays and prostitutes who are no different
    than the rest of us except in one minor regard -- their sex lives. As for
    extramarital sex, it's a fact of life, which popular entertainment would
    be foolish to ignore or treat moralistically according to outmoded
    standards."

They note that television, with its power, need not be direct in its
advocacy:

    "As a leading form of mass entertainment television rarely mounts the
    barricades. Instead it breaks down barriers one by one, gradually
    extending the limits of social acceptability."

How well this brainwashing has worked is reflected in some new reports from
the Census Bureau, based on 1990 data.

@sb|some 61 percent of all adults are wed, compared with 72 percent in 1970.

@sb|In 1970, 85 percent of all children under the age of 18 lived with two
parents; now only 72 percent do. Divorce caused 37 percent of the
single-parent homes. In 33 percent of the single-parent homes, the parent has
{never} married.

In a reflection of the infantilism that now grips society, these reports also
show that a larger number of youth aged 20-30 continue to live at home with
their parents than at any time in recent history, be they single or married
and {regardless of economic circumstances}.


Brainwashing by Remote Control

In the early days of television, the Hollywood-based programmers were
{directly} influenced by Frankfurt School operatives. Now, most of the
people in charge of programming, both in writing and producing shows and
determining which of those produced make it on the air, are in the
approximate 35- to 45-year-old age range. In other words, the programmers
themselves have been brainwashed by 40 years of television programming! To
use a television metaphor, {the brainwashing is now taking place on remote
control}.

This is confirmed by a profile made by the authors of {Watching America}.
Their survey of a random sampling of the top 350 people involved in
television programming reveals the debased moral value structure that now
determines what you watch:

    * some 73 percent of this crowd comes from either the Boston-Washington
    corridor or California.

    * Although 93 percent had a religious upbringing (59 percent were
    Jewish), 45 percent claimed no relgious affiliation or belief in God;
    those who said that they had retained some religious faith, said that
    their religious affiliations were nominal; 93 percent said they seldom or
    never attended religious services.

    * some 75 percent described themselves as "left of center" politically
    and "liberal." These "liberals," however, are strong believers in "free
    enterprise," and almost all support the "free market system of
    economics."

    * some 43 percent think that the American system of government and the
    Constitution need a "complete restructuring."

    * some 91 percent are in favor of unrestricted rights to abortion; 80
    percent believe that there is nothing wrong or abnormal about
    homosexuality, with 86 percent supporting the rights of homosexuals to
    teach in public schools. More than 83 percent think that extramarital
    affairs are okay, while 51 percent do not think that there is anything
    wrong with adultery.

In addition, nearly all support a radical environmentalist agenda to one
degree or another. No question was asked about whether they believed that man
was a beast, but their other answers reveal that their answer would have been
a resounding "yes."

Finally, asked which groups should influence American society the most, they
listed consumer groups and intellectuals at the top and religion at the
bottom. Two-thirds believed that it was their role to program television
entertainment to promote "their" social agenda.

Think back a moment to those figures from the Census Bureau on the American
family, which showed in statistical form the collapse of the nuclear family.
Can't you see the correlation between those figures and the degenerate values
of the television programmers?


Remote Control

Let's go back to the {remote control} concept for a moment. Back in the
early days of television, you had what you could appropriately call some
"hands on" brainwashing -- you had that crew from the Frankfurt School
operating out of Hollywood, designing the programmed brainwashing messages.
But such people as Theodor Adorno realized that this tight control would not
always be necessary to accomplish the task. The brainwashing messages of the
1950s and 1960s were conditioning responses in a new generation of
programmers who would start having impact on programming content in the 1970s
and 1980s.

The operative concept is similar to what Adorno describes with his "forced
retardation." You create a society based on the infantilism of the majority
of its members; that society bombarded with television, becomes increasingly
more infantile, more {dissociative}, as we learned from Emery and and his
fellow Tavistockian Eric Trist. Under such conditions, the so-called creative
individuals, operating within the infantile geometry of the society as a
whole, produce new ideas that further feed the infantile, carnal impulses of
the individual. This in turn plunges the society to a new, {lower} level of
thinking -- People become more stupid, led by their stupid "creative leaders."

The oligarchical elite, through their control over the television and cable
networks, as well as the Hollywood studios, and the advertising funding
conduits, keep this entire crew of "creative" people in a {controlled
environment}. It is in that {indirect} way that they exert a veto authority
over what is being broadcast.

The New York-Hollywood social community of "creative" people functions in
what the brainwashers call a {leaderless group} -- They are unaware of the real
outside forces that control them, especially unaware of their own
brainwashing by 30-40 years television viewing. They believe themselves free
to create, but they can lawfully only produce banality.

Ultimately, these creators of our television programming turn to their own
brainwashed experience and values for their "creative inspiration." One
producer was asked by an interviewer how he determined what was in his shows.
"I think of the audience constantly," he replied. But when asked to elaborate
on how he knows what would appeal to them, he replied, "I think of myself as
the audience. If it pleases me -- I always think that it is going to please
the audience."

The authors of {Watching America}, who interviewed numerous producers, agreed
with the conclusion, "What you see on any television show reflects the morals
and conscience of the people on those shows who have influence."


The Invisible Government

The power that such people have over our minds and the way they function as a
"leaderless group" was understood by the original theorists of mass
brainwashing. Eduard Bernays, Freud's nephew, who was trained with Walter
Lippmann at the Wellington House psychological warfare unit in World War I,
wrote in a 1928 book {Propaganda}:

    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits of
    the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who
    manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible
    government which is the true ruling power in our country.

    "We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes are formed, our ideas
    suggested largely by men we have never heard of.... Our invisible
    governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow
    members of the inner cabinet.

    "Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains
    a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere
    of politics or business, in our social conduct or ethical thinking, we
    are dominated by a relatively small number of persons ... who understand
    the mental processes and social practices of the masses. It is they who
    pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness the social
    forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world."

{An invisible government} acting through the power of the television
brainwashing medium to control our world! Sounds fantastic, but after what we
have shown you, it is impossible to deny. It is important to keep that in
mind -- Somebody is responsible for what is happening to you, for how your
morals and society have degenerated. {And they planned it to be that way!}


Decoding Some Messages

Now we are ready to apply what we have learned. It's time to take a look at a
few more recent shows to see if we can discover how you are being
brainwashed. We'll see if we can uncover the "hidden messages}.

Let's start with an easy one. Let's take one of the most popular children's
television show, the one that everyone says that your kid has to watch to
successfully adjust to society -- "Sesame Street." Did you ever really watch
it? Given what we have been talking about, what's the first thing that you
see -- The show is dominated by animal-like creatures with human
characteristics, the famous Muppets. It's symbols are "Big Bird" and "Miss
Piggy." A child relates to these puppets as real objects, thereby creating a
bond between the child and the beast-like creatures. The {hidden message} is
not all that different from some of the early children's programs we have
already discussed.

That would be bad enough, but, governed by a new bunch of programmers and
child psychologists, "Sesame Street" seeks directly to preach to the children
its brand of amorality. The Muppets talk openly about environmental
questions, while also infusing a heavy dose of "be good to Mother Earth" in
the "teaching" of the alphabet and reading skills. The show also is infused
with rock music, or "kid rock" as it is called. More recently, it has used
"rap music" as a "teaching device."

All of this is sold to people in an advertising package that tells parents
that "Sesame Street" is a "great teaching" institution. It has been
incorporated into the classroom experience for kids from pre-school to
day-care to public school. But studies demonstrate that the show does not
enhance learning; in many cases, it appears to inhibit their ability to
understand more complicated ideas. More importantly, the studies indicated
that the children appear "addicted" to the show, and by that "addiction" to
become addicted to television viewing in general.

As Neil Postman, a New York University professor, wrote in his book {Amusing
Ourselves to Death,} "If we are to blame `Sesame Street' for anything, it is
the pretense that it is an ally of the classroom.... `Sesame Street' does not
encourage children to love school or anything about school. It encourages
them to love television."

Some of "Sesame Street's" biggest defenders are those very same critics of
television from the so-called radical right. They defend it because it
doesn't show violence or sex, and upholds "family values." In the most recent
debate over funding for public television, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) rose to
defend "Big Bird" on the Senate floor -- "If anyone wants to know whether Jesse
Helms of North Carolina votes for Big Bird, I do. And I vote for `Sesame
Street}!'|"

The majority of America's brainwashed parents agree with Sen. Helms. They see
nothing wrong with the show because it "sounds" right to them -- it contains
the same cacaphony of ugly noise that permeates every aspect of their lives.
And, most importantly, it keeps those kids "occupied," as they sit staring at
the tube. They even find some of the little scenes mildly amusing -- as they
are intended to be by their producers, who claim that a good third of their
audience are adults. Together with their children they have made "Sesame
Street" goods and services a {$1 billion} industry, one that, unlike the rest
of the economy, is expanding each year!

And you don't even think it's odd that your three-year-old daughter wants to
grow up to be just like Miss Piggy! Look into those blank stares the next
time they watch -- See your child being brainwashed.

Okay, we'll try another one. Let's take one of those "deeper" shows, the ones
the so-called critics tell you are "socially relevant." How about "The Wonder
Years"}? Here we have a series about growing up in the 1960s, from the
perspective of an adolescent.

Does the show focus on any of the real horror of that period? Does it show
the chaos, the drugs, the destruction, the collapse of social values, that we
talked about? No siree. It was all a good time back then, or so we are told.
It was full of simple problems, like how to relate to the girl you had a
crush on or your sister's hippy life style or how to make your parents not
act so "square." And when some social issue enters into the show, it is
handled with the kind of sugary-sweet moralism that has more to do with the
current degraded moral values of its producers than it does with the confused
history of the 1960s.

"The Wonder Years" is a controlled {flashback} for baby boomers to what they
would {now} like to "think} the 1960s were like. By so doing, the producers
have put you in touch with your most infantile and banal emotions, and made
you feel nostalgic for them. The {hidden message} -- In these difficult times,
one had best cling to memories and values of one's infantile past.

The show bonds a 40 year-old infant to a romanticized view of his
adolescence, making him that much more infantile. It might even make him pull
out one of those old Jimi Hendrix albums.

"The Wonder Years" is part of a genre known as "nostalgia" shows and movies.
They made one for the 1950s adolescents, called "Happy Days" which aired in
the 1970s, and they will no doubt make one for the 1970s teenagers later this
decade.

Try to think of them in another way. Think of television as a big eraser,
wiping away your real memories of the past, the reality of the way things
really were. With "the slate now clean," the tube superimposes a twisted and
distorted view of that reality through an appeal, not to your mind, but to
your infantile emotions. If they can make a majority of people believe that
the 1960s were whatever they depict them on the screen, then television has
created a {new reality, a new history}.

We'll take one final example, one of the most popular shows -- "The Simpsons."
A cartoon series about a family with three kids, the older one being
especially obnoxious and manipulative. The parents are depicted as
self-centered and stupid, and extremely banal. The obnoxious kids, especially
Bart, are the heroes of the show, around whom the plot develops. This then is
the brainwashers' image for the family of the 1990s -- one dominated and
effectively run by obnoxious, almost devilish children, which causes some
conflict with the banal parents.

"The Simpsons" family life both mirrors and shapes perceptions of the real,
banalized life of families outside the tube -- The experience is mediated
through television, which explains what is happening to them. In a famous
episode, the father, Homer, sees a television report that an accident has
happened to him, which causes him and his family to try to find out whether
it did indeed happen; in the end, they bring their lives into conformity with
the screen's image. As Homer, says, "The answers to life's problems aren't at
the bottom of a bottle. They're on  TV."

The show is popular with all age groups, but has a cult following among
children and adolescents. Bart Simpson is the hero of their generation, whose
face appears on their tee-shirts, whose mannerisms and whose slang
expressions they have adopted as their own. But not just the kids; the whole
society has accepted Bart Simpson as a role model, so much so that he is used
by the government to preach an anti-drug message. President Bush quotes him.
So does Bill Clinton.

"The Simpsons" hidden message -- There exists no real moral or adult authority
in this world, save the television; in such a world, it is the children who
must assert themselves, assert their right to be infantile; parents are
powerless, save for occasional brute force, to do anything but assent. It is
the image of the {Clockwork Orange} society packaged in a more palatable
fashion; Bart Simpson is the brutal Alex's alterego.


It's Your Turn

Now, if you remember way back when we started this section on programming, I
said that I would ask you at some point to turn on your television sets.
Well, we've reached that point.

I want you to turn on your set during prime time for an experiment. I want
you to see if you can find the hidden messages in prime time series. Exclude
the news and newsmagazine shows; we'll be dealing with them in our next
section. But take some other series and see if you can pick up the
brainwashers' hidden message. Try this with a few shows.

Don't worry if you make some mistakes. Think about what we have learned in
our study of television so far and take a stab at it.

It's a form of therapy -- Once you realize that {you are being brainwashed},
your mind still has the power to discover the means by which it is being
accomplished. Use your mind and you have started to make yourself less
capable of being brainwashed. But be careful -- Don't leave that set on for
too long! Remember, watching it for any length of time -- for a few hours --
will make you stupid. So shut it off after trying your hand at a bit of
{deprogramming}.

When we talk again, we'll explain how television news and opinion polling
prevent you from understanding the world.


                            Here Now the News....

I'm not even going to ask if the television set is turned off. I know that
it is -- I'd be very surprised if it were not, after what you have learned from
the preceding  sections of this report.

But I suppose that I should remind people who may not have followed all that
we have said or who are coming into this dialogue at this point, of the
ground rules. Since watching television limits your powers of comprehension,
we require that the set be turned off while you concentrate on what we are
saying. So, if there are any sets on out there, now is your chance to turn
them off.

Okay, we're ready to begin. In this section of our report, we are going to
explain how you are brainwashed and controlled by the {news} you watch on
television.


It's All the Same

"More Americans get their news from ABC News than any other source." So says
the trailer to the nightly news broadcast on that network. Let's modify the
statement a bit -- More Americans "get their news" from television news
broadcasts than any other source. That is the result of recent surveys, but
it has been true for almost three decades.

Of the {six to eight hours a day} Americans spend in front of their
television sets, one to two hours is spent watching news or news-related
programming. On average, most people watch at least one news broadcast in the
evening, either the national network news or local news, and then watch a
wrap-up news show in the later evening. A housewife will generally watch an
additional "early evening" news broadcast, occasionally leaving the news on
in the house continuously between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Viewership studies, as recent as spring 1991, show that if the television set
is on during dinner hours between 5 and 7 p.m., it is more than 80 percent
likely to be tuned into news programming.

Content analysis of the news broadcast during these hours, both national
network programs and local news, shows that, from channel to channel, the
principal stories covered -- the so-called "lead" and secondary "lead" items
are {identical} in all major aspects. Flipping the channel from one news
program to another, also shows that beyond these "lead" items, most other
news items reported are identical in major content, varying only in the order
of presentation. The text read by news anchors is also strikingly similar, as
are the picture images that accompany the text.

To the extent that there is any variation, it is in what are called news
features or human interest stories, and even there the difference in coverage
tends to be slight.

Even the breakdown of the time spent for each major category of story on the
network news is {identical} across the networks. A 30-minute nightly news
broadcast consists of 22 minutes of "news." Each network spends between six
and eight minutes on national news, four and seven minutes on international
news, seven to ten minutes on so-called special reports and one to two
minutes on so-called soft news about entertainment or media, etc. The
remaining eight minutes are commercials.

The compositional breakdown of all local news telecasts is similar.

No wonder few viewers could tell the difference between the {content} of the
different networks' and local stations' broadcasts. When asked in a recent
survey to cite a difference, most could only name the different "anchor"
people or sportscasters.

Focus on this for a moment -- Every night, at approximately the same time,
nearly every American between the ages of 10 and 80, watches the {same}
representation of what has taken place in the world that day.

Think back to what we described in an earlier section of this report about
Nazi Germany, about their propaganda machine. Now you can understand why
former CBS chairman, the late Bill Paley, once said that television created
the capability to "out-Goebbels, Goebbels."


The News, In Brief

And what is it that all of you see and hear, as you "get your news" each
evening? A {New York Times} piece on local television news begins with this
description:

    "Another night, another nightmare. The teenage killer gives way to the
    subway slasher. The face of the weeping mother dissolves into a closeup
    of a bloodstained shirt. House fires become `raging infernos.' Traffic
    snarls. Kids fall out of windows. Babies die in random shootings.
    Manhunts are commonplace.

    "She killed for love. Details at Six."

All "stories" are told in brief, most running no longer than 30 seconds. A
{long} story runs a minute. Voice over pictures. Short interviews, usually
only a few sentences. The average 30-minute segment may report as many as 40
items in this manner, in a seamless style, broken only by slightly longer
features, followed by a sports report and weather. Is that the world? Are the
images and pictures being presented {reality,} or only a distorted and edited
version of something that the news show {tells} you is reality? How would
you know?

Let's ask the question another way -- Given the way the news is presented, in
these short items, does your mind ever engage in deliberative thought about
any single item? Or, isn't it the case that you watch a news show, never
thinking about any item at all, merely taking in the "information."

This would explain the startling results of some studies done by brainwashers
to profile TV newscast audiences. They have found that the average viewer
cannot remember {facts} from any story presented, even only a few hours after
the broadcast. Instead, viewers remember only vague generalities about what
they saw, an impression about the way the world looks, according to the news
broadcast:

    "There were a lot of killings. The economy is doing badly and the
    President isn't doing anything about it. Donald Trump has a new
    girlfriend. And, oh yes, the Mets lost."

The items remembered relate to the {emotional connection} made by the
individual to the totality of what is being reported. For example, the
{fear} associated with the increase in crime, causes such stories to "pop
out." As the stories move from "hard" news to human interest, the tension
lessens and infantile emotional connections take over. Although, as we
stated, most people remember little about what they saw in general, they
remember relatively more about these human interest stories.

The brainwashers call this type of memory {selective retention}. They say
that television causes people to {suspend} their critical judgment
capabilities. Whether a person is watching news or regular programming, the
combination of sound and images places the individual in a dream-like state,
which limits cognitive powers. In that condition, a person can merely {react}
to whether what he sees and hears coheres with his opinion of what the world
is like.

These opinions created by television news have such power that they will
overwhelm a contrary reality. Think about that news broadcast cited. Most
likely the "crime" stories were about blacks killing blacks, or blacks
killing whites. In a controlled test, people were shown a story about a white
man threatening a black man with a razor. When asked to recall what they had
seen, a significant minority of the audience, both blacks and whites, of
varying ages, responded by saying that the {black man had the razor} and was
threatening the white person!

The ordering of stories on a news program helps {program} this process of
{selective perception}. The most tension-causing or fearful story of the day
is usually put first, followed by stories of decreasing tension. The
brainwashers say that this {encodes} those stories with an order of
importance. This is not to say that the programming is trying to make you
{think} about what you are viewing -- They are merely stimulating you enough to
{receive} the message being transmitted. In fact, by watching the news for
all these years, you have been conditioned to {expect} this type of ordering.
You don't have to judge what is important, it's the first few items they
report, isn't it? The rest is merely filler.

Now, let's go back to that report of what one viewer saw, in watching one to
two hours of news. Only four items are recalled, or more precisely {played
back}. The first item is about killings, a collage of reports about violence
in international affairs, with some national and local murder stories. That
is the principal image -- a violent and degraded society.

Then we have the next item about the state of the national economy and the
President -- This is the lead national news item, reduced to its simplest,
fear-ridden image. This is the secondary image coveyed in the overall
reporting, one that resonates with the fear of daily life.

Then "a big fire," which was probably a story with pictures, that was near
the lead of the local news.

Then a "human interest" or entertainment story about "the Donald," the soap
opera saga of Trump's affairs, which has been effectively serialized over a
period of months and years. The mere mention of such stories is usually
enough to cause most of the audience to remember something about them.

Finally, we have a sports score, indicating the viewer's obsession with a
local team.

What is the ordering principle? {Primary image}: degraded view of man as an
animal, killing, murdering, raping. Violence as a primary mode of existence.
{Secondary image}: economic collapse, fear and hopelessness, leading to a
sense of bewilderment. The other stories remembered deal with infantile
obsessions.

This, then is the {picture of man and his society} planted in the minds of
Americans watching the news on that given day. That is how the brainwashers
use the news -- not to inform, but to paint {a picture in the minds} of viewers
of reality, one that is neither questioned nor thought about, but is simply
there.


The Cult of Public Opinion

The brainwashers understand this concept of {painting pictures} in your
minds. They call it the making of {public opinion}.

In a previous section of our report, we referred to a quote from a book by
Walter Lippmann, the famous commentator. We explained that Lippmann had been
part of the World War I British psychological warfare unit at Wellington
House that studied the manipulation of "mass opinion." Lippmann was also an
admirer and student of Freud, and was especially struck by Freud's book,
{Mass Psychology}. For our present discussion, we draw renewed attention to
the following quote:

    "Public opinion deals with indirect unseen, puzzling facts and there is
    nothing obvious about them.... The pictures inside their heads of these
    human beings, the pictures of themselves, of their needs, purposes,
    relationships are their public opinions. These pictures are acted upon by
    groups of people, or by individuals, acting in the name of groups are
    Public Opinion, with capital letters...."

Lippmannn says many of these pictures are what he calls {stereotypes},
shared, common {perceptions} of the categories of things: "All blacks are
like ...; all Italians are like ...; etc." Such "stereotyping" is possible,
he says, because people seek simple explanations for complex problems,
because they prefer to see every individual as part of some social group or
mass. "Everyone knows that all Germans are like ..." Stereotyping, which
plays upon individual racial and other prejudices and is reinforced by the
media, becomes the principal way that the {image of man} is socially
communicated between groups of men within society.

Lippmann wrote this before the advent of television. His later work discusses
the potential for radio to place such {images inside people's minds}. But
television, with its ability to provide simultaneous audio and visual
messages, creates even more powerful and overwhelming {pictures} than radio.
And television, as we stated, has the capability to cause one to suspend
{critical judgment of reported information}.

Remember Hal Becker, the brainwasher from the Futures Group, who calls man
"homo the sap"? Becker contends that through the control of television news
programming, he can create {popular opinion} on a nightly basis; and through
the control of {popular opinion}, he can manipulate the way you think and act
about the world you live in. Listen to what he has to say about how easy it
is to {shape your opinions}:

    "Americans think they are governed by some bureaucrats in Washington who
    make laws and hand out money. How wrong they are. Americans are ruled by
    their prejudices and their prejudices are organized by public opinion....
    We think that we make up our minds about everything. We are so conceited.
    {Public opinion makes up our minds}. We do, generally, what we perceive
    public opinion says we should do. It works on our herd instinct, like we
    are frightened animals."

Before we discuss more about how this is done, we must examine what lies
behind Becker's arrogant assertion of how easy it is to manipulate you. To do
that, we must show you how closely you actually do act like the animals he
asserts you are.


Aborting the Search for Truth

All human progress is based on the search for eternal Truth. Man, as
distinct from the animal species, has been made in the image of his Creator,
the living God. He has been endowed by his Creator with the Divine Spark of
reason, which gives him the capacity to perfect his knowledge of the
universe. Man seeks Truth, and in his search to discover Truth, learns what
is eternal in the universe.

As man perfects his knowledge, he comes to understand some things that he
once believed to be true as no longer so. More importantly, he comes to
understand {the assumptions which underlie how he understands things to be
true} as no longer correct. Man, using his power of reasoned moral judgment,
willfully changes the assumptions which underlie the way in which he thinks.
In so doing, {man becomes increasingly more human}, more distinct from the
animal, which cannot reason.

Man, his judgment morally informed by the moral teachings of Judeo-Christian
religion, is compelled to seek Truth as his highest goal. By so doing,
religion gives man an identity that is beyond the sway of the {cult of public
opinion}. Man must act to do Good, as he understands Good in relation to
God's Word. He must answer only to his God and he must never bow to {public
opinion}.

The brainwashers and mind destroyers of the Tavistock Institute and the
Frankfurt School have concentrated so much of their firepower on destroying
man's relationship to his God, because by so doing, they destroy man's
capacity for morally informed judgment.

People like Hal Becker, Fred Emery, and Eric Trist, as well as the evil
Sigmund Freud, and all those who believe that men are no different than
animals, must deny the existence and relevance of a {higher Being}, to render
all men morally insane.

Freud despised organized religion, and especially the Catholic Church,
precisely because it gave man a {higher moral purpose}, because it reinforced
man's moral conscience by defining a relationship between man and his Creator
that was based on {universal truth}. Freud saw the Christian apostles, people
who refused to be swayed from God's work by the {popular opinion} of their
times, as {neurotics}; they were maladjusted people, who made up stories to
deceive others, he raved.

Freud and the others who have followed him, reduced religion to {ideology},
to one of many conflicting {opinions} about how the world works. Freud
claimed that it would ultimately pose no threat to his view of man, since,
robbed of his {higher moral purpose}, man would, as society became more
perverse and complex, see his religion as an ineffectual guide for his
existence -- it would become a {minority view, a minority opinion}.

Freud's successors, like Trist and Emery, also denied the existence of
universal Truth, and profanely asserted that they have the power to create
reality, or, more precisely, to impose {images of reality} on the sovereign
minds of individuals. To them, all man's thought is reduced to individual
{opinion}. The majority of those individual opinions become the {popular
opinion} which governs the way the "masses" are to act.

In this system, the most man can aspire to do is to know {true opinion}. This
is what he gets, for one to two hours each night, from television news.
Becker et al. see television, and especially the television news, as a god, a
creator of mass opinion. Emery and Trist have compared television viewing to
a religous experience, by  which man gets the "logos," the news.

Using the parameters of the same {Freudian mass psychology} that defined the
Nazi experiment in brainwashing, they understood the television viewing
experience as an externally organized {mass process}. People in such
circumstances, according to Freud, tend to identify their own thoughts and
desires with what they perceive to be the thoughts and desires of those
involved in the same process. In other words, their {identity} becomes
something shaped by what others think about them and what they think about
others. This is what the brainwashers call being {other-directed} -- a
constant and unending desire to act as you perceive others would want you to
act.

Television, with its overwhelming presence in your life, both {creates}
popular opinion and {simultaneously validates it.} It can do so because you
have become so {other-directed} that you have given up the search for Truth.

"If it's a fact, I'll believe it," says the man in a commercial for a popular
beer. He has been told that this beer is more popular than another leading
brand. "Hey, I saw it on television," he says. "It must be so."

{It must be so}. Why? Because I saw it on television. How could the images
and sounds of the television news lie? They are right there, right in your
living room. As Becker says, "the world is in that box. And it's there every
night." Well, it is really there a lot more than that -- six to eight hours a
day.

This is a power that the Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels could only
dream of, could only imagine. Now, it is in the hands of your brainwashers.
And still most of you watch, and more importantly, in the case of the news,
accept what is represented as {reality, your reality}.


What Do You Know, Really?

Let's have you pull your head out of the tube and the pictures placed there
by it. Now, let's think about the news programming from a different
perspective, to show you how totally you are brainwashed.

On June 9, 1992 Lyndon LaRouche won the Democratic presidential primary in
North Dakota. Did you hear that reported on network news or the national
sections of your local news? Not a word, right? Surely, it's a "newsworthy
story," when a man running for the White House from a federal prison cell
where he is a political prisoner, wins a primary of a major party, even if it
is in a small state and it is at the end of the primary season, with the
nominations supposedly locked up.

But LaRouche wasn't supposed to win that primary. Therefore, television news,
across the nation, was not to report it, let alone feature it. It fell
outside what they had been telling you was the {public opinion} of the way
the campaign was going. So, unless you are a reader of this newspaper, or
caught the chance item in a newspaper wire story, you probably never heard
about this. {The television news smothered reality}.

The next day, with the television news still not {validating} the LaRouche
win by reporting it, there was some frantic scrambling to actually {erase}
the results. By moving some votes here and there, new results were announced
that had LaRouche finishing second, to Ross Perot; still an impressive
showing for LaRouche, but with Perot winning, something that more fit the
then-current television images of the election campaign.

The point being made here is that the news program doesn't simply brainwash
you by what it {chooses} to report, albeit distorted in content and with an
implied "message," as we have discussed. As your chosen {most important
source of news}, it limits your understanding of the world by what it chooses
{not to report and to ignore.}

We'll try another image -- Imagine putting your head in a bag and then having
the world described to you by someone telling you what {he or she }sees.
That's how the news operates, and you tolerate it and think it tells you the
"truth." So do your neighbors, because they think that you do.

So, if you didn't see it on the television news it didn't happen. And if it
{did} happen and it wasn't on the television news, then it really {wasn't}
important anyway. Sounds pretty infantile and stupid, doesn't it?

Let's go back for a moment to the coverage of the state of the economy.
There's a point to be made about the {limits} of the power of television to
annul reality. Television news coverage may alter your perception of
{reality} but it cannot, as the arrogant Hal Becker of the Futures Group
asserts, {change reality}. If something happened in this world, simply
because television didn't report it doesn't mean that it {didn't happen}.

If television news failed to report that an avalanche was descending on your
town, it wouldn't stop you from being buried by that avalanche. You might get
pretty angry if something happened to you that you could have done something
about, had you only known about it. Similarly, you'd get pretty angry if you
actually caught the television news lying to you, telling you something that
you had first-hand knowledge was false.

That is precisely what was happening with the economy. The television news,
for a period of several years, told you that the American economy was in good
shape. That seemed to cohere with what most people were experiencing -- That
was the majority {opinion} of what was happening in the economy.

But the collapse of the economy is not a matter of perception. It can be
calculated by examining the collapse of physical output of our factories,
farms, and mines, the collapse of the infrastructure, services and technology
required to support them. The American economy, according to these standards
of measurement, has been in a state of collapse since approximately 1972.

Wait a minute, you say, that's impossible, no one ever told me that. Well,
that's true -- {the television news never reported the facts to you in that
way}. Instead, they presented reports of distorted and "massaged" government
economic indicators that purported to show the exact opposite.

About three years ago, reality started to assert itself, hitting with the
force of an avalanche of bad news -- Banks were collapsing, layoffs started to
mount, and the real estate market started to collapse. The television news
was still not reporting the true extent of the economic collapse.

As the economic downslide picked up steam, as more of you were buried under
your own economic bad news, the people who control the television news had a
choice. Either the coverage had to shift to be more in line with current
popular perceptions of reality, or they would face a loss of their
credibility. It was only at this point that coverage started to change.
Those reports have picked up in intensity of image in the last several
months, but they still do not say that the economy is in a depression.

Recall what the man who watched the news remembered: "The economy is doing
badly and George Bush isn't doing anything about it." The television news
created that {thought image}, which is a more or less accurate, if limited,
perception of reality. Starting about 18 months ago, the nightly news started
aggressively {linking} the images of economic collapse -- layoffs, bank
closings, real estate collapse, municipal crisis -- with the policies of the
Bush administration and with George Bush directly.

Think back, to about a month or two after the end of the war with Iraq. From
that point on, the image of Bush, the new Herbert Hoover, was linked with the
economic collapse. If you remember what we said earlier, television news
reporting relies not on making you {think} about what is happening, but on
giving you an emotion-laden image of reality that serves to{ prevent} you
from thinking. Bush now serves as the {hate object} to some people, the cause
of their problems, the {hapless fool} to others; in either case, he becomes a
{cause} for the economic collapse.

All of this is necessary to continue to keep you under {control}, to prevent
you from actually thinking about what is happening to you.

How did your brainwashers know when to shift gears? They followed the {poll}
results. You told them that the economy was making you feel uneasy.


For Whom the Polls Toll

Your brainwashers have been profiling the American population for nearly 70
years. {Public opinion polls} have been probing every aspect of your life,
all your tastes and desires, to get {a picture of the pictures inside your
mind.}

The origins of public opinion polling lie in the mass manipulation of public
opinion studied during World War I at Wellington House by the group that
included Walter Lippmann and Eduard Bernays, Freud's nephew. The polls had
two purposes. First, they provided a detailed profile of the prejudices of a
target population; those prejudices, as Lippmann and Bernays both explained,
become the basis for mass brainwashing campaigns. Second, the results of the
carefully constructed polls, fed back to the population through the mass
media, provide the basis for shaping {opinion}.

{Creative thinking} defies measurement in quantifiable terms. It is
impossible to come up with a statistical correlation that would tell somebody
whether one creative idea is better or more appropriate than another, whether
it should be accepted by others as useful, important, or true.

{Opinions}, however, can be easily counted. You can ask a group of people how
they {feel} about something, or whether they think that such and such a
statement is {true}. You tabulate the numbers, and come up with a count. So
many {agree}, another number {disagrees}. The larger number becomes the
{consensus}, which represents the {majority opinion}.

But no matter how many people agree with something, {it doesn't make it
true}.

A poll taken in the first millennium would have certainly found the majority
opinion, the {consensus}, to be that the Earth was the center of the
universe. A poll taken today, under the influence of perverse Freudian and
other outlooks, might find that man is no different than the beast or even
that he is the most destructive of all beasts. Neither result has anything to
do with Truth, in the sense that we have discussed Truth.

People like Lippmann and Bernays, the pollsters such as George Gallup and Lou
Harris, and others who have followed them, have abandoned Truth as a
criterion for judgment. If one denies Universal Truth, as we have explained
they do, the concept of truth itself becomes meaningless. If there is nothing
that is eternal, nothing that is universal, then there is only what is
perceived to be true today. There is only {true opinion}.

Emery and Trist, reflecting the thinking behind the polls that governs their
design, claim that over the last 50 years, American society has been bound
together by the concept that "we all behave according to the consensus."
Americans, they claim, are so {other directed} that they wouldn't dare break
this {social contract}. They must do what others perceive that they should
do; to do otherwise would cause psychological pain. We seek the comfort of
the consensus, they say, "because it gives meaning to our lives." We can only
measure how we are doing against what we are told are {norms}, and those
{norms} are derived, they say, primarily from {poll results}.


Rigging Results

"If you want the American people to believe something, then all you have to
do is get a poll taken that says that it is so and get it publicized,
preferably on television." The speaker is Hal Becker of the Futures Group.

Becker went on to say that he and any other brainwashers could design a poll
so that it would show any result that he wanted. It is all in how the
questions are asked, he said.

Is he correct or does he exaggerate? Is it really that simple to create
opinion? Let's try a test. We'll take our own little poll among you readers.
I say that the majority of your fellow Americans are brainwashed by
television. Do you agree? Well, after reading this series, I should hope that
I have presented sufficient argument to convince you of this point. But what
if you hadn't been reading these articles? What if someone on the street or
on the subway were to have come up to you and asked that question, without
your ever having seen my articles? What would your response have been then?
You would probably have answered that you didn't agree. Why? Because it is
{your perception}, validated by the opinions of others, that Americans are
not brainwashed by television.

Now, let's change the polling question slightly. You are {told} -- {According
to a recent poll, 85 percent of all Americans think that television is their
most valuable source of accurate news. Do you agree?} Remember -- you haven't
read my articles. What would you answer? You'd probably say that you agree,
without too much hesitation.

Why did you answer that way? First, the way the question was posed -- You were
given {poll results} that {guided} your answer. You were told that 85 percent
of your neighbors held the opinion that "television was their most accurate
source of news." The poll question, the poll itself, was merely asking you to
step in line behind an existing consensus. This is called the {bandwagon
effect} and is one of the most common of pollsters' tricks. With the question
posed that way, it is hardly likely that you even thought at all about the
{content} of the proposition -- whether television news is accurate or even the
most accurate source of news.

And, I am certain that  you would never question whether the poll results were
{rigged.} That would happen only if the content of the question were at very
sharp odds with your perception of {popular opinion}. The presentation of the
poll results defining that consensus would tend to prevent that from
occurring.

So, I think that you can see how easily pollsters can {trick} you into
validating what might be completely spurious propositions. Becker wasn't
really being overly boastful, was he?

Over the years, since Bernays and Lippmann, there have been changes in the
{techologies}, both in polling and in the transmission of results. However,
the {basic method}, as defined by {Freudian mass psychology}, remains the
same -- to appeal to the most infantile and therefore most animal-like in man,
to therefore bypass or abort creative reasoning powers, informed by moral
judgment.

Polling questions, starting back in the 1920s, were designed to seek not what
a person thought about something, but what were his {feelings}; such
questions in fact bypass thought and are designed to spur an unreasoned,
unthoughtful response -- True opinion is thus a {feeling state}.

This fits directly the profile of the American: "Keep it simple," he says,
"my time is short." Complicated issues are reduced to simple sets of choices,
often "critical choices," in which neither choice is really acceptable. By
rigging the choices, the results are easily predetermined.

Let's look at an example of how polls were used in concert with the
television news, to alter the way Americans thought about the space program.
First, I'll give you a little background that has not been reported on
television.

In the mid-1960s, Tavistock, under a grant from NASA, undertook a study of
the effect of the space program on the American population. To their dismay,
the survey showed the space program had produced an extraordinary number of
scientists and engineers, who were in turn reproducing their positive
outlook, their {cultural optimism}, among wider sections of the population.
The surveys, among a wide cross-section of the population, discovered that
the success of the space program had produced a renewed faith in the power of
science to solve problems, a view of society that saw no limits to either
growth or prospects for expanding human dominion over nature.

Such views were {contrary} to those of the oligarchical elite that dominates
our society and which employs the brainwashers like those taking this survey.
They would not tolerate an American society whose {moral outlook} was bound
up in the idea of scientific progress, with this idea of progress and hope
reaching all layers of society, from the skilled workforce, to the clerks, to
the housewives, to young school children. {It threatened to undo 20 years of
television brainwashing, because any society whose values are shaped by moral
human progress cannot be easily manipulated}.

There is evidence to show that this report, called the Rappoport Report,
after its Tavistock author, provided the basis for the decision to dismantle
the space program by the early 1970s. This decision was followed by a
step-up in polling activity directed toward that end.

It was necessary to provide you with this information to help you rethink
what you know happened in the period under discussion. It is important that
you understand that there is an "invisible government," as Bernays called it
in a previously cited quote, that operates to shape your {opinions} through
television and other media, and through the control and shaping of {popular
opinion} is destroying our nation and more than 2,000 years of western
Christian civilization.

Now, I want you to think back to 1969, to the days immediately after
Americans walked on the Moon, as millions watched them do it on Earth. Your
immediate response to that event was a great burst of pride in your nation,
but even more importantly a joy in the accomplishment of man in taking a bold
step into the universe. It reinforced your belief in the power of human
creativity to solve fundamental problems of science, and gave you confidence
that the future for men, all men, was indeed a bright one. You were
{optimistic}.

But all that was to be changed. Shortly, that Moon landing was to be eclipsed
in the media by a highly publicized satanic orgy of the counterculture known
as Woodstock; still later, there were the violent protests against the war in
Vietnam. But try to focus on the weeks immediately following the lunar
landing. The first Harris and Gallup polls started telling people that in the
opinion of {their neighbors}, the space program had now served its purpose.
It was branded as {non-essential}, with a very large budget, while {more
useful} and {less esoteric} programs on Earth required funding; these poll
results, widely reported at the time on television, were backed up by news
stories of poverty and chaos at home and the images of the counterculture,
whose spokesmen at Woodstock demanded an "end to wasting money" on the space
program, even as the dust of the Moon walk was settling.

The pollsters phrased their question in the following manner -- Landing on the
Moon was a tremendous scientific achievement. But many scientists say that
everything that man did on the Moon could be better done by machines. Given
the huge budget deficits and the need to spend money on programs here on
Earth to help needy people, do you feel that the space program is essential
or non-essential in its present form?

A strange way to put the question, but the {only} way they could put it to
get the results they desired. Had the American population been asked, back in
1969, whether {they supported the American space program}, they would have
answered, in overwhelming numbers, "Yes!"

Instead, a majority of confused Americans, agreeing with the first statement
about the glorious scientific achievment, not sure about the second, since
"some scientists" appeared to question the value of manned space flight, and
{feeling guilty} about the third, saw reason to {agree} that the space
program {might} be non-essential.

Other polls questioned whether Americans were giving scientists too much
control over their lives. Such polls attempted to play off the well-known,
irrational, profiled fear Americans have of "eggheads"; scientists who ran
the space program were being lumped with the rightfully hated liberal
intellectuals.

As the results were {played back} over a period of years on television
newscasts, Americans were conditioned to accept deep cuts in the space
program, first administered in 1970-71 -- even though the majority of
Americans did not believe such cuts desirable when the process started!


Instant Opinion

By now, each network news organization has its own polling operation, or one
linked to a newspaper, such as the {New York Times} or {Washington Post}, or
to one of the national polling operations, such as Gallup or Harris. They
are able to provide almost instant responses to breaking news developments,
letting each of you know what the {majority opinion} is about what they are
reporting. In that way, you are being told what {your appropriate opinion}
should be about an event or statement.

Think about any recent news event. Take the Democratic or Republican
conventions, for example. As you watched, you were given the results of a
network news poll that told you how Americans thought about what was
happening.

Now, remember what your response was to all of this. You listened to
Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention and weren't impressed. Yet, the
news commentators, armed with poll results, told you that Americans thought
differently. You started to rethink what you had just heard -- You're not
different than you neighbors; your {opinion} must be wrong. By the end of the
evening, you started to think that maybe the speech was much better than you
thought. Nothing had changed -- except that you were being moved into line
behind {popular opinion}. The next morning, when someone asked you what you
thought about Clinton's speech, you {reported back} what the poll results had
told you the night before.

And who determined this so-called {popular opinion}? The poll results, in
general, are based on {very small numbers of people} who are supposed to
reflect a cross-section of a target population. The total number of
respondents to the polls on the Clinton speech, for example, numbered less
than 1,000.

Think about your response to the speech again. Clinton didn't say anything --
That was your first impression. But the pollsters didn't ask people whether
he said anything of importance or even anything at all. They asked whether
the people {felt} that it would help his campaign, a question that had
nothing to do specifically with what he said.

These results were in turn reported on television as {meaning} that in the
{opinion} of the majority of Americans, Clinton gave a "good speech."

These same polls show that Americans have a fascination with the numerical
presentation of facts in polls. The polls results, as reported on the nightly
news, are said to be among the most popular segments of the show, and the
ones that people are most able to repeat in detail approximating what is
reported.

This brings us to the final point we want to make about polling. In some of
the first major national polling work done by the Tavistock crowd in the
1930s and early 1940s, they discovered that our {other-directed} citizens,
who determined their opinions about something based upon {counting} the
opinions of the friends, were more susceptible to believing something as true
if it were presented as a {statistical} fact.

The poll results are presented like ball game scores -- There are winners and
losers, with the scores telling who won and who lost. More recent studies of
the response of people to polls confirm this -- To the extent that questions
are asked and posed in a way that shows somebody or something "winning" or
"losing," viewers tend to pay more attention to the results and to have a
higher retention of the reported outcomes.

A poll was taken near Columbus Circle in New York City recently. The
pollster, clipboard in hand, was seen approaching something on roller blades,
with a Sony Discman plugged into his ears. The pollster tried to ask his
questions, but it was obvious that he was not being heard. Finally, the
pollster stuck his clipboard in front of the strange thing's face, and it
nodded, and thrusting out its hand, finger extended, pointed to his choices
on the clipboard. The pollster smiled, as the person skated off, his head
bobbing to the beat of the music echoing through his head cavity. The
pollster went on to his next respondent, someone lying on a park bench.

A recent CBS News-{New York Times} poll shows that most Americans will accept
the reduction of the world's population by one billion people, reports Dan
Rather on the Evening News. And "that's the way it is." Or is it?

Now we are ready to talk about the news programming itself, to show you how
it is designed to brainwash you. Remember that we said the average American
now watches one to two hours of news programming each night. That programming
breaks down into three categories, and a supplemental category. @sb|Each
network has its main nightly news broadcast, in prime time, usually around
dinner hour, for approximately 30 minutes -- NBC's nightly news with Tom
Brokaw, ABC's with Peter Jennings, and CBS's with Dan Rather. These news
shows are supplemented by local news, which runs one to two hours over the
course of an evening, usually divided between a dinner time broadcast and a
late evening "wrap up" show. Such shows may repeat items from the network
nightly news, but also include local stories and features, as well as sports
and weather.

@sb|In addition, there are news feature and interview shows broadcast at
various times during the week. We should include in this category shows such
as {Meet the Press}, ABC's {Nightline}, {Face the Nation} and similar shows
in a basic interview format. The {McNeil/Lehrer Newshour} on PBS falls into
this category, even though each show has a five to eight minute news summary;
the basic format of the show is interview and feature. @sb|A third category
of show is the "news magazine," which features sensationalist stories of the
kinds found in supermarket tabloids, with a healthy dose of titilation and
bizarre subject matter. CBS's {60 Minutes} falls into this category, despite
the fact that it sticks mostly to "hard news." All the other news magazine
shows, such as ABC's {Prime Time Live}, more accurately fit the previous
description.

@sb|Finally, this programming is supplemented by network news features and
coverage of "news events," such as the political party conventions.

In all, approximately 10-15 percent of all network television broadcasting is
occupied with the "news," as we have described it. That percentage has grown
over the last 40 years. However, while some of the news magazine shows,
including {60 Minutes}, may grab large viewerships with their muckraking
stories, studies show that Americans don't consider them a {reliable} source
of news. That is because the shows appear to be {advocating} something, or as
your neighbor might put it, "they have an axe to grind." Such shows are
judged as {entertainment}. Therefore, it should be no surprise that {60
Minutes} was once the top-rated show on all television.


The Bland `Truth'

It is the network and local news shows that Americans turn to, to find out
the "way it is," as longtime CBS anchorman, Walter Cronkite used to say. Such
shows, for the most part, display little in open advocacy of any {apparent}
point of view. According to nearly every study done on the subject in the
last 20 years, Americans in overwhelming numbers believe that they are being
told "the truth" by Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings, and local anchors around
the country. In fact, they believe this so strongly, that they rarely
question the content of news shows, rarely think that the news is distorted
or slanted, and believe that they can distinguish between editorial content
and news reporting easily enough so as to not feel that they are being
"secretly" preached to.

These survey results reflect the success of the news format as brainwashing.
As with other television programming we have discussed, the design of the
format, which includes both the organization of material and the {language}
used to describe that material, is the product of years of study of
techniques of {mass persuasion} through the use of communications media.
Let's try to make some general observations about your nightly news
telecasts. Think for a moment about what they have in common. Well, they
each have what is called an {anchor person} who reads most of the news, and
introduces the other reporters and stories. Those stories, both the ones he
reads and the others he introduces, are all short, with most being under a
minute and many under 30 seconds. A clip of a newsmaker speaking, for
example, is never more than a few seconds long. Even when interviewed by a
news reporter, what is shown is always a few short sentences. Now what about
the {language} in the newscasts? Other than the names of individuals or
places that might at first seem unfamiliar, do you ever have any trouble
understanding what is being said, as you might for example, in a classroom
lecture or even when reading a newspaper article? Not really -- The language is
extremely simple and direct.

And finally, consider the editing of the show -- Is it ever apparent to you
that someone is controlling what you are seeing and hearing, that it is being
edited, scripted, and directed, as if it were a movie, or another television
show? The newscast, despite its disjointed content, appears to you to be
{seamless}, a natural flow of information.

Now, we'll show each of these features of format -- the anchor person, the
short content and simple language, and the seamless editing -- comes from the
study of {your profiled weaknesses} and are designed to play into them. Back
during World War II, a group of Tavistock-linked brainwashers, called the
Committee for National Morale, worked on profiling the American population.
Among the things they analyzed was the War Bond sales drive, trying to
discover what persuaded people to buy bonds.

Although the bonds were pushed by well-known celebrities, they found that
celebrity alone was not sufficient motivation to persuade people to buy.
Their polls showed that people had to sense that they were {not being
preached to}, that the person asking them to buy bonds had to have {no
apparent or obvious motive} other than his or her desire to do something good
for the country.

This principle of {dispassionate, but sincere persuasion} was studied more
extensively after the war. Irving Janis, who had worked on a study overseen
by Tavistock's Brig. Gen. John Rawlings Rees that profiled the responses of
the Japanese and German populations to allied strategic bombing, the
so-called Strategic Bombing Survey, helped produce a book, {Commmunication
and Persuasion}, published in 1953, as television news broadcasting was
getting underway. Examining survey data from before and after the war, the
book concludes that the presentation of a message, to be effective, must be
done by {a person whose prestige cannot be challenged}. The {Communicator} of
opinion must give the appearance of {expertness} and {confidence}.

Most important, said Janis and his fellow editors, the {Communicator} must
never give the impression that it is his intention to persuade others to his
point of view. Quoting other brainwashers, he wrote that the best delivery of
opinion is in a {casual} and {nonpurposive} manner. This lowers the
resistance of a listener or viewer, who would otherwise put up mental
defenses once he knows a person is trying to "convince him" of something. To
effectively communicate {opinion}, says Janis, the audience must be
predisposed to accept those {opinions} as cohering with their {expectations}.
Such effective communication does not challenge someone to think, as much as
it {persuades} one to accept the viewpoint of the {Communicator} as {his
own}. He further found that people were more apt to accept a message if it
were presented in an atmosphere of heightened tension, in which the tension
level was both {raised} and then {lowered} by the communication -- if the
message presented conclusions that appeared to lower the levels of anxiety
associated with what was being reported. In that way the Communicator becomes
the person who "makes what is confusing clear, who gives order to chaos."

Even the communication of {negative} news or opinions will not harm the
relationship between the Communicator and his audience. If there is a
positive bond between the two, Janis says that the audience will tend {to
dissociate} the source from the bad news he reports.

These observations have their foundation in {Freudian mass psychology}. The
relationship established between the {Communicator} and his audience is an
infantile emotional bond, in much the same way that a child relies on its
parents for its judgment of what is correct in the outside world. As long as
the  realtionship is kept on this infantile level, a Freudian or a
neo-Freudian would observe, it will not involve a challenge to what is being
presented.

What Janis discussed, as well as what was discovered in the earlier World War
II studies, was incorporated into the formats of early television news
broadcasts.

The {Communicator} became the {news anchor}, a person whose delivery of the
news was to be reassuring and dispassionate, and who was, at least in those
early broadcasts, someone who never offered his own viewpoint. Surveys of
viewers of those early news shows most often used the word "trustworthy" to
describe the {news anchor}. Others found the male anchor to be a "fatherlike"
figure, or even a "grandfatherlike" figure; that latter term was frequently
associated with CBS's Walter Cronkite in his later years.

In recent years there have been some attempts to vary this style. Local
news, for example, tends now to feature multiple anchors, who chat with each
other, and tell jokes. But even this has precedent, in the popular
{Huntley-Brinkley Report} on NBC in the late 1950s and early 1960s, which
became the first highly rated nightly news broadcast.

Dan Rather, CBS-TV's replacement for "Grandfather" Walter, almost lost his
job when surveys showed that audiences found him too hysterical and
"preachy." He came across as {too intense,} with people saying that they
didn't trust him. Network officials told him to "ease up," or he would lose
his multimillion dollar contract, at which point he started wearing sweaters
under his suit jacket.


The Origin of `News Speak'

"We try to keep it real simple," said a local news producer of the language
used in newscasts. "They want the news, not Shakespeare."

News scriptwriters are told to load their sentences with nouns, to limit
themselves to simple verbs, and to stay away from "florid" modifiers. The
standard sentence form is the simple declarative statement.

"Dog bites man," says the producer, "Details at Six." Although the words used
in the news broadcast have some {nominal} resemblance to the English
language, what you hear on the nightly news is certainly not the beautiful
English of Shakespeare, Shelley, or Milton, nor even the English of our
Founding Fathers or Lincoln. It is a simplified language, which conveys
greatly simplified messages.

It is through language that man communicates the ideas and principles of his
culture from one generation to the next. In many respects, man himself is
defined by the {quality of his language}, for it is the means by which the
product of his creative reason, that which distiguishes him from the animal,
is communicated and translated into effective action, on both an individual
and societal level. It is through the proper use of language that man
transforms his universe, coming to know what is Truth and then acting on that
Truth according to man's free will. In that way man willfully changes his
world, in accordance with laws of his Creator.

Man requires a complex language, which can convey all the aspects of the
Creation, all of man's understanding of universal law. To have anything
less, is to make man less than man, limiting his capacity {to know} and {to
understand}.

The language of television news is a degraded language. It is {nominalist},
stressing the naming of things, because it seeks to render one passive, a
{receptor}, the mechanical term Emery and the other brainwashers use to refer
to the television viewer. There is no creative thought going on, no attempt
to engage the mind, merely to {imprint an image in a person's brain}.
Language, properly used, can give man an understanding of thought-objects
which reflect human knowledge of reality. Television news, using its
simplified language, {names} things, and tells you that such {things}, are in
fact all there is to reality. There is no ordering principle, no concept
beyond the images and words. This simplified language of television news has
its roots in linguistic work during World War

Prior to the war, British linguist C.K. Ogden had created an artficial
language from the English language. He called it "Basic English," and many
British intellectuals, including many writers, found it to be nonsensical.

Ogden proposed that classic literature, such as Shakespeare, Keats, and
Shelley, could be "translated" into the new language, stating that the
majority of people could not comprehend them in their present, complicated
form. His opponents argued correctly that such an effort would trivialize the
greatest expression of English language culture.

While this debate raged in intellectual circles, people at the highest levels
of the British oligarchy saw the potential brainwashing value in what Ogden
had done. He had collapsed the entire English language into a total of 850
words. By using "Basic," coupled with the mass media, a large number  of
people could be given a {simple message} without {complicated thoughts} or
thought-objects, getting in the way. Basic, its enthusiasts proclaimed, could
therefore create a simplified reality -- It was like placing a mental
straightjacket on human creative potential.

When the war began, Tavistock-linked people involved with the Ministry of
Information, which controlled all broadcasting and news dissemination,
decided to try some experiments on the effectiveness of the simplified
language. The BBC was asked on an experimental basis to produce some
newscasts in Basic, mostly for overseas consumption. The results of this
experiment were to be carefully monitored.

Those involved quickly discovered, that, with some modification, the language
was ideal to present a censored, edited version of the news. Since it lent
itself to simple, declarative statements, those statements seemed to have the
character of {fact}, even though the information being reported was heavily
censored or even "propaganda." Those involved with the experiments and
reports requested only that Basic vocabulary be expanded to include certain
"news terms" that were required to provide context for a story:

    "wire service reports," "according to reliable sources," "a close
    source," etc., as well as various "news names and places."

These experiments were run in a number of foreign sections of the BBC,
including the Indian Section, which included among its operatives {1984}
author George Orwell and his close friend, Guy Burgess, who was later to be
involved in Britain's biggest postwar Soviet spy scandal.

In September 1943, the "Basic experiment" was placed on the highest priority
in the war cabinet by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In a speech at
Harvard, Churchill publicly announced his total conversion to the language,
stating that it should become the {lingua franc} for the Allied war effort.
"Such plans (as for the use and introduction of Basic) offer far better
prizes than taking away other people's provinces or lands, or in grinding
them down in exploitation," Churchill told his Harvard audience. "The empires
of the future will be the Empires of the Mind."

Churchill ordered that a War Cabinet Committee be set up to monitor ongoing
experiments and to discuss ways to force the new language on an unwilling
population. The War Cabinet Committee's report stressed the importance of the
use of {mass communications media}, in particular the BBC and BBC news. Among
the recommendations in the report was that a substantial portion of BBC
overseas output be translated into Basic and that regular lessons should be
given over the air.

In the end, those involved directly with the Basic project found it
impossible to strictly adhere to the 850 word vocabulary. They maintained
that it had to be updated with words and expressions that reflected current
usage. Memoranda from the Ministry of Information discuss the need to keep
language "fresh," to make people listening to reports connect. Above all, it
must not sound too stilted.

Although Churchill never abandoned his public advocacy of Basic, studies of
the British population revealed that people resented being {told} how they
should speak. It is, they found, far more effective to alter people's use of
language by example, or, even more important, to continue to use the concept
of a {reduced vocabulary language} in mass media, such as radio, without
making a fuss about it.

The Basic craze tended to die out, at least publicly, quickly after the war.
It appears, however, that those involved in control of mass media news
dissemination took to heart the studies that found that one could sell the
concept of a greatly reduced vocabulary without the rigid and sometimes
stilted form of Basic. Radio newscasts, which had been made up of long
descriptive commentaries before the war, took on the shorter formats that are
featured today. The long sentences, with literary overtones, gave way to
shorter, more direct sentences and simple vocabulary.


Keep It Real Simple

From the very beginning, television news adopted this linguistic style --
simple direct sentences, with a very, very limited vocabulary. This fit the
new medium perfectly, since it had something that radio didn't -- actual
visual images. Its producers demanded that news reporters and ultimately
anchor people let the visual images tell the stories. "We don't want to
overwhelm those images, do we?" said one of the producers. "We have to let
them grab people."

The simplistic {verbal} language of television is mirrored in the newspapers.
To the extent that people still read, the average person can comprehend at no
more than a sixth to eighth grade level. Excepting papers like the {The New
York Times} or even {The Washington Post}, which still try to pitch to the
ruling elites, the average newspaper contains the same simplistic vocabulary
and sentence structure as the television newscast. If you don't believe me,
grab a copy of {USA Today} and look for yourself. This then is {News speak}.
It's become so pervasive that when someone seems to break out of the mould,
when they speak about newsworthy matters in a manner befitting their
importance, using a more literate language and sentence structure, the
majority of you out there tend to "turn off."

"We're trying to make sure that people who watch the {Simpsons} understand
what we are saying, while people who watch {Masterpiece Theater} (on PBS --
ed.) are not too horribly offended," said a news producer. "We strike a
middle ground, but we err on the side of the {Simpsons}."

Let's turn our attention to the {format} of your nightly news show. It starts
with a graphic and theme introduction, much like any television series.

That might not seem like an important point, but it is. The news program is
treated like any regular {recurring} television program. It is as if you are
being presented with a {serial} installment of the way the world is each day.
There are recurring characters, such as the President or other "newsmakers,"
there are "good guys" and "bad guys," and there are recurring subplots --
what's the latest with that sensational murder trial? What are the new
developments from the civil war in the former Yugoslavia? What about the
economy?

In other words, you are conditioned to watch the news, just like you watch
any television series. You look for the same kind of psychological {cues} --
familiar characters, recurring subplots -- to tell what is happening. In the
end, it all blurs into a {picture in your head} of "the way the world is." It
isn't the whole picture or even close -- A few generalized comments and images,
of lead stories, and little else.

This concept of showing the news as serialization dates back to the early
movie newsreels. If one wants to look for the real antecedent of the
television news program, it is those newsreels, with their short items, with
voiceovers. Starting in the late 1930s, the same brainwashers who were to
work on the design of television programming started profiling audience
responses to newsreel showings. They found that audiences remembered little
about the stories if they lacked a highly emotionally charged visual image,
no matter how many words were spent describing them.

Other studies were done of the {credibility} of a story. Not surprisingly,
they showed that associating a person like President Roosevelt with a story
tended to make that story more credible. What was surprising was that the
{added credibility} could be achieved by merely showing a picture of
Roosevelt with a given story, without either citing a quote from him or even
making passing reference to him in the context of the story. This concept
became known as {visual validation} -- An audience could be {led} to believe
something based on their preconceived notions of what is a credible source
and the visual image carried more weight than the verbal message.

In the previously cited study of {mass persuasion} techniques edited by the
Tavistock-linked brainwasher Irving Janis, Janis found that an opinion
should, whenever possible, be presented as quotation or citation from
authoritative sources, such as the government or other agencies which the
public holds in high esteem or regards as unimpeachable. Janis also discussed
the effect of {negation} of contrary opinion; this is done by {omission} --
i.e., simply ignoring other viewpoints -- or by using sources that have a
high degree of {negative} association with the public. The use of descriptive
adjectives that are negatives, if done in a {matter of fact} way, can achieve
the same effect.

Another way to accomplish the same end is to place a story about a person
whom you want associated with a psychological message near another story that
conveys that psychological message. Studies found that a news item about a
politician placed near a story about a murder, {cued} the audience to have
{negative associations} about the politician, regardless of the content of
the story about him.

All of these concepts have been incorporated into the {format} of television
news reporting. It is designed to place certain images in your head about the
world that may have absolutely nothing to do with how that world really is.


Finding an Audience

But before you could be brainwashed by television news, they had to get you
to watch it and watch it every evening. That last point is important. Studies
show that people who watch the news every night, tend to think of themselves
as less confused than those who don't. They seem to feel that they have a
"grip" on the world; This leads, the studies indicate, to a {passivity}, to a
willingness to accept the world "as it is," with all its problems.

People who don't watch the news, or who tend to get their news from other
sources, tend to question more about what they are being told. In part, that
is a function of the television medium itself -- As we have said, television,
in general, and the television news in particular, tends to cause one to
{suspend judgment}. Since there is little specific, detailed memory of what
you are being shown and told, it is hard to question it, or even reflect on
it, at a later point.

So the first job was to get an audience. That wasn't all that easy. The vast
majority of Americans read newspapers and listened to the radio for their
news. The new medium seemed only to replicate existing sources of news.

Most of all, the early newscasts were {boring}. They were approximately 15
minutes long. They mixed reportage of international, national, and local
events with weather and sports, and human interest stories.

The profilers probed the minds of those who did watch for an idea of what
"worked" and what didn't. They found that the weather and sports were items
about which viewers had the highest {expectation} that they were being told
the truth. The human interest story, meanwhile, was viewed as entertainment,
in which the question of truth was not important. Those items created a
{predisposition} to accept the other news items without question -- if only
they could get and hold an audience.

In those early years, the news show was mostly a "talking head," a news
anchor with a few graphic backdrops, usually the picture of a newsmaker being
referred to in a story. Occasionally, there was some filmed information, with
voiceover and an even more occasional remote. As such, the shows resembled a
radio news broadcast with pictures.

Had television news stayed at this level of technology the nightly news might
never have caught on. But, using poll information, the news producers
discovered that they {did} have something over the other media. They could,
through remote live coverage, bring people almost instantaneous coverage of
an event, as it was happening. This created a sense of excitement, especially
if the event covered involved famous people.

The national party conventions in 1952 were the first such events that gave
television a chance to show off. More than 50 million viewers saw the events
unfold before their eyes, with network news commentators explaining what was
happening. The events were handled as {serialized} spectacle -- it wasn't
that the audience really learned anything about what was happening as much as
they participated in a "television" experience. News was shown to be
{entertaining}. As a result, a new audience was created for network and local
news.

With its audience expanding, the controllers of network news saw a new power --
they could {create almost instant controversy} and then cover it as "news."

Both the live news event coverage and the confrontational "camera in your
face" style, initially popularized in newsreels of sensational trials,
created a bond between the audience and the new medium.

All the power of this early television "attack" journalism was deployed in
1954 against a set-up target, the red-baiting Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph
McCarthy. The news programmers brought the final assault on this wretched
fellow, the "Army-McCarthy hearings," {live}, to a large national audience,
glued to the soap operalike drama, in their living rooms or in the local bar.
But the television was not a passive spectator -- It jumped in on the winning
side, with interview and other shows aimed at castigating McCarthy. Leading
the charge was CBS "star" reporter, Edward R. Murrow, the most famous of
early television journalists and a direct product of the Frankfurt School
networks. Television, through its news broadcasts and commentators like
Murrow, boasted of its triumph and the service done the nation. They ignored
the fact that the new medium, like all other mass communications media, had
earlier helped to boost McCarthy's career, since, at that point, the powers
that controlled the networks found him a useful tool. They helped create the
{public opinion} that McCarthy was the leader of a glorious "anti-Communist
crusade." Now, having outlived his usefulness, he became television news'
first national "scalp." In the space of less than half a decade, the new
medium had been the most important factor in altering the national image of a
major political personage, and making television news a {national power}.

During this same period, other stylistic tricks were used to lock in the news
audience. One was the so-called "man-in-the-street interview." Here, someone
just like yourself was being asked to respond to a poll-type question about
an event of the day. That person's opinion was used as a yardstick for
{validating} your own opinions. But even more important, such interviews
helped reduce the apparent distance between the viewer and the news, by
bringing the viewer, as it were, "into the story." These stylistic tricks
changed the boring newscasts into something more immediate, more exciting.
Polls in the mid and late 1950s started showing a preference for television
news over any other form of news reportage.

As the audience expanded, the news coverage started having a major impact on
politics. If you weren't {seen} on the news, if you were politically
{invisible}, you didn't exist. In addition, if you {looked a certain way},
regardless of what you said or even what was said about you, your career was
affected -- People now expected their leaders to {look} a certain way and if
they didn't, their prestige dropped and so did their vote totals. By the
beginning of the 1960s, the news shows had increased to half-hours, while
there were more and more "live" remotes of breaking news. The national news
shows dropped weather and sports, except for breaking stories in those areas,
leaving such coverage to local news. Other than that, the format stayed
basically the same.

Most Americans were now watching at least one of the three major network
nightly news broadcasts, as well as one or more versions of local news.
Contemporary studies showed that people who were asked questions about
current events now more frequently answered that they had "heard about
something" on television. Few could answer questions about what it was they
heard, but {they knew that they had  seen it on the television news}. Most
Americans could name one or more of the network anchors, who had by then
become celebrities. In fact, more people could identify Walter Cronkite,
Howard K. Smith, and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley than they could their
congressman or senator!


News Junkies

The pollsters profiling audience response to news broadcasts no longer even
bothered to ask whether the viewer thought that what they were watching was
true or not. The issue of truth was in fact no issue at all. Television news
was creating {reality}, whether those images were {true or not mattered
little, because people believed them to be real and immediate.}

As the brainwasher Emery and others indicated, the more a person watches, the
less he really understands, the more he {accepts,} the more he becomes
{dissociated from his own thought processes}. By the mid 1960s, viewers
never questioned the validity of what they were watching. To do otherwise
would force them to {confront} the news, to think about what they were
viewing; they accepted what they saw as coherent with {popular opinion} and
therefore self-validating. But Emery and the other brainwashers {know} that
the "reality" conveyed by television news is {myth}. "Television is much
more magical than any other consumer product because it makes things normal,"
writes Emery of news and similar telecasts, "it packages and homogenizes
fragmentary aspects of reality. It constructs an acceptable reality (the
myth) out of largely unacceptable ingedients. To confront the myth would be
to admit that one was ineffective, isolated and incapable.... It (the
television image) {becomes} and {is} the truth."

Emery and others say that we have now become {information junkies}. We are
hooked on the images and sounds that we're told represent the reality outside
our living rooms. We drink it like alcohol, he says, comparing it to
drug-taking. We operate, he writes, from the basic assumption "that all we
need is information...." The news broadcasts {inform} but by the nature of
television viewing they can't educate or make people understand. Instead, the
medium {misinforms}, manipulating perceptions, to the point where people are
{incapable of reasoning about the world they live in}.

Looking at this through the brainwashers' prism of "information theory,"
people like Emery describe two kinds of information being presented -- {the
messages}, or what are called the {true information} and the {noise}, the
mental equivalent of static in radio broadcasts which tends to obscure or
mask the messages. >From a brainwasher's standpoint, the idea in presenting
a news show is to provide enough {noise} to prevent the viewer from thinking
about the {messages}.

Look at the {news entertainment shows}, the news magazines, as {noise} in
this context. Their sensationalist character and banal stories, presented
with movielike graphics, provide a sharp contrast to the more staid news
programs. The studies show that few people believe most or even any of the
stories on these shows, or believe that they are important to their lives.
They watch them for {excitement}, a degrading form of entertainment similar
to pornography.

Compared to the {noise}, the news programs are thought to be authoritative.
Their {message}, their presentation of a "daily slice of reality," is eagerly
{consumed} by the audience. It is never questioned.

Emery and others predicted this development in the 1970s, stating that the
nightly news could not afford to lower its image, to present advocacy or
sensationalist reportage, without lowering its general credibility. Under no
circumstances, would the powers that control the networks risk such a
development. They were right.

But even the {noise} carries a message. Think about any one of those tabloid
shows. The stories all revolve around sex and violence. Do the stories
presented challenge any image of society that you have from watching other
shows, or the news? The answer is no. Thus, they {reinforce} your opinion of
what the world looks like outside your living room. It is the same image that
you see on television. This fact, in part explains why when asked by
pollsters, people say that they have not been told anything that they didn't
already know by such shows as {Hard Copy} or {A Current Affair}.

Let's pull back a moment. The television news {shows} you that your fellow
man is nothing but a violent and degraded beast, murdering, raping, and
destructive. These images are intended to negate any higher moral sense of
man, that man is created in the image of God and that all life is sacred.

The violence in the news is not new. The early news shows always had a
certain section of crime reports. But starting in the 1960s, the violence
became more graphic and more shocking. Millions watched as Jack Ruby
murdered the assassin of John F. Kennedy in November, 1963, Lee Harvey
Oswald. Although he had no trial, and now evidence indicates that he may have
been framed, at the time polls showed overwhelming numbers of Americans felt
relieved by Oswald's murder.

Later that decade, we watched in color as blood poured from the head of
Robert Kennedy as he lay mortally wounded on a hotel kitchen floor in Los
Angeles. Again, polls taken immediately after event on June 6, 1968, showed
Americans wanted vengeance against the man soon arrested for the crime,
Sirhan Sirhan. Meanwhile, television news was bringing the bloody images of
the slaughter in Vietnam into the living rooms. Again, it wasn't the first
time that Americans had seen such images in the news. They had witnessed
them before in newsreels during World War II. But it was the first time that
you sat down and ate with your family, while watching young soldiers and
civilians die before your eyes.

Now, we'll jump ahead to 1992 in New York City, one of the most violent
cities in the country. The local news shows it in all its gory details. In
the case of the local news, especially, there is little {emotional}
distinction from the content of the most sleazy tabloids.

The news producers must "keep people happy," they say. They expect the
violence, sex, and sleaze, because {that is the world}. Behind the push for
such stories is a desire to keep them short and snappy, the kind that can
hold the attention of people weened on 40 years of television or kids who are
part of the "MTV generation." Make the stories simple -- violence and crime are
simple. "It is the murder du jour," says a former news producer. Every day,
the fourth network, Fox, long thought to be the leader in this "sleaze
journalism," has a half hour of news at 7 p.m., with 25 stories and three
commercial breaks. The top story, the closing of Alexander's Department
store, throwing 5,200 onto the unemployment lines, is long -- it runs 2 minutes
and 15 seconds. A drug bust in Newark runs 13 seconds. A feature on models
over 40 years old received about the same time as a report on an organized
crime trial. Sixteen pieces clocked in at under one minute. Then, came the
weather.

A Fox executive says that the newscast is trying to present "a comprehensive
view of what happened in the world." He approved an {11 second} item on
whether Boris Yeltsin might be an alcoholic. It's also important to have a
"good news" story, to keep people happy, he says. He adds a story about a boy
receiving a heart transplant; it runs for 41 seconds.

That's Fox. What about another network, say NBC? The 6 o'clock news on
WNBC-TV was advertised with a four-second lead in: "Waterguns lead to a
shooting in New York." The news began with a report on the actor Ben Vereen,
being hit by a truck in Malibu, followed by a short piece on the number of
children killed with guns. An update on a bus strike in Queens. Another
update on the soap operalike saga of Amy Fisher, a Long Island teenager who
is charged with the murder of her boyfriend's wife. The program closes with a
piece on a Long Island pet cemetery and a {live} report about bear attacks in
New Jersey.

Can anyone make any sense of such reporting? Does anyone even try?

"We run a ton of garbage," said senior WNBC-TV reporter Gabe Pressman. "The
whole thing is can we be more outrageous and sensationalist than the next
guy? Can we tease people into the 10 o'clock news?"

Is it really all that different on the nightly news? The blood and gore
shifts to foreign settings for a while. A minute with pictures on the
murderous civil war in Yugoslavia. A half-minute on a terrorist bombing in
Italy. A bank holdup kills four. A fire in Baltimore kills five children....

The stories are all short, presented in a matter of fact way. The world has
gone insane, but that is "the way it is," as "Grandfather" Walter used to
tell us every night. Now Dan Rather says the same. So does Brokaw. So does
Jennings. The muddle of so-called information explains nothing, teaches us
nothing. The more "staid" news networks, such as CNN, merely report more of
this muddle.

I want you to remember something that we discussed earlier. Recall the
description of the deranged society in the novel {A Clockwork Orange}. There
is unspeakable violence and perversion. {Nobody ever explains how things got
that way; no one ever asks why}. People turn on their television set each
night and watch who has been killed or raped on the news, and express thanks
that it is not them or a loved one. They imagine that it is not {their} kids
who are doing all these horrible things. It is a way of life, this
{Clockwork Orange} world. {"That's just the way it is,"} says one of the
violent young punks in the novel.


Man, the Enemy

Now, concentrate on this for a moment. In every war, there is an image of the
enemy, what the Germans call {Das Feindbild.} In World War II, it was Hitler
and Japan's Tojo; they were the vile enemy that had to be defeated. In the
Cold War, it was the Soviets and Stalin. In Vietnam, to the extent that an
image was created it was Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong.

For the last 30 years, you got those images of the enemy from watching the
television news. They were pictures painted in your head, the popular opinion
of what is to be dispised, feared, or hated. Look at the news today. Who is
the enemy? It is your fellow man. It is the {image of man} himself that
television news is making into {das Feindbild}, the source of destruction of
our society.

When you see the latest murder on the news, do you feel compassion for the
murderer, do you see him as a fellow human who has gone wrong and committed
an awful and sinful act? Or, do you merely associate with the image of the
violence, and as a result, feel rage and hate towards your fellow man,
especially if he is black or hispanic, because such people are what is {shown
to be} "murderers?" The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who believed man to be a
beast, had said that the terror of everyday life would ultimately force man
to give up the values of his religion and to see them as the cause of his
neurosis. The television news images, especially the violence, help create
the terror that the followers of Freud and others believe will drive man to
this end. Think for a moment -- Where is your sense of Christian love and
charity as you watch the news? It is driven farther and farther from your
{conscious} thoughts, as your rage and hatred of your fellow man is brought
to the surface. We are losing the battle for man's soul to an evil worse than
Hitler, the television set.


                The Making of Sports Into a Secular Religion

We're back again for another dialogue. I'm sure by now most of you know the
way this works -- since watching television lowers your capacity to reason, we
keep the set off while we have our discussion. So, if it's not already off,
as I hope it is, go over and turn it off.

In this section, we are going to discuss the way you are brainwashed by
spectator sports and the way television has facilitated that brainwashing. I
have a sense that what we are going to say might anger some of you, but bear
with me and see the argument through to the end.

We might as well get right to the point -- those of you who call yourselves
{fans} of one or more teams of any sport, be it baseball, football,
basketball, hockey or of players in more individualized games such as tennis
or golf, are {addicted to a mind-crippling infantilism that reduces your
power of creative reason.} And it is that power and {only} that power of
morally informed, creative reason that makes man different from the animal.

Let's make some preliminary observations to support our thesis.

As we have stated time and again in this series, man is created in the living
image of God and has been given by his Creator the Divine Spark of reason. It
is that quality, that Divine Spark, in each of us that makes us truly human.
Anything that reduces our capacity to reason makes us less human, more like
an animal.

Organized sports in this country, and especially professional and college
level sporting events, are {mass brainwashing experiences}, precisely along
the lines outlined by Gustav LeBon and Sigmund Freud in earlier parts of our
report. They cause the individual personality to regress to a more infantile,
more irrational state; while watching a sporting event, a person becomes part
of a mass of similarly addicted infants who fixate on events taking place
within the defined boundaries of a {playing field}, in a {game} whose rules
are arbitrarily defined.

Each sporting competition is a thinly disguised celebration of what your
brainwashers have called {instinctual human aggressiveness}, the same kind of
aggressiveness that people like Freud say {proves} that you are an {animal}
driven toward destruction. These aggressive, destructive drives, says Freud,
are {part of man's animal nature}. Sooner or later, man must succumb to the
power of such drives, Freud and neo-Freudians claim. The purpose of society,
according to Freud, is to regulate and control through various forms of
coercion, the outbursts of this innate bestiality against which the human
mind is ultimately powerless.

Christian civilization is premised on a contrary view of humanity. Man,
created in the image of his Creator, seeks to perfect his existence through
use of creative reason in search of Truth; that is the only acceptable
definition of perfection as a human process. Society is organized to provide
man the means by which to accomplish this task, nurturing those powers of
creative reason and affording the opportunity for man to act on that reason
in an effective manner.

To the extent that one needs a fit body to serve the power of reason,
exercise and sports can play a {limited} role in man's search for Truth. But
muscular activity can {never} be a substitute for nurturing one's creative
powers. Morally informed reason rules the body.

Modern sports, especially as organized as a mass spectator event, serve a
contrary purpose. Besides acting as {ritualized} celebrations of
aggressiveness, sports create an {illusion} of perfection, acted out within
the measured boundaries of the {playing field} and according to the arbitrary
rules of a {game}; perfection becomes something that is {counted}, a thing
which is measured, that has been severed from man's relation to Truth and to
his Creator.

Mass organized spectator sports, as presented and marketed through
television, thus work to undermine the most basic concepts of Christian
civilization. With their endless piles of statistics, with their arbitrary
rules, with their mass spectacle, with their celebration of power of muscles
and instinct over the human mind, and with their worship of heroic deeds in
the absence of reasoned activity, they create a form of {pagan ritual}, that
has become a {substitute religion} for most Americans.

So that's our thesis restated -- sports is {a mind-destroying pagan religion}.

I warned you that it might be hard for some people to swallow, since I know
how addicted many of you are to {your} sports. After all, if you are an
American, and especially an American male, you have been raised in a
{sports-dominated} culture. We're going to take a look at that. We'll first
examine the penetration of spectator sports into our culture, before
re-examining the psychological underpinnings of the mass brainwashing
operation.


The `Sporting' War

As we have said before, the most effective brainwashing of Americans is the
kind that they don't realize is happening, the so-called soft brainwashing.

I want you to think back to an image we referred to earlier. In February
1991, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf gave an internationally televised briefing on
the strategy and tactics of the ground war component of Operation Desert
Storm. At the time, the press compared the general to a {successful Superbowl
coach} giving a description of the {game plan} that had earned him victory.

Schwarzkopf had conceived the war {as if it were a football game} and had
redefined a classic military flanking maneuver in {football terms} as a Hail
Mary play. He had first explained what he was doing in those {football terms}
to his staff; he reiterated that explanation to the American people. He was
speaking a {language} -- the language of sports -- that {he knew} most
Americans would understand.

In fact, most of the war was presented to the American public as {if it were
a spectator sporting event}, complete with statistical analysis that measured
every aspect of the fighting -- the numbers of dead, the numbers of bombs
dropped, the numbers of bullets used. This was the {scorecard}, as the
Pentagon and other briefing officers called it, and as the press, and
especially the television news, reported it.

In the end, the American people followed General Schwarzkopf as he tallied up
the {score} -- according to the numbers, our side had {clearly won}, just as
the football team that scores more points wins its game. And just like with a
televised football game, the U.S. propagandists, including Schwarzkopf, tried
to keep Americans fixated on the events on the {playing field}, in this case
the ostensible battle between "coalition" and Iraqi armies.

Left off the {scorecards} were the horrific casualties to innocent Iraqi
women and children and the devastation to that nation's vital {civilian}
infrastructure. Such pictures have for the most part even today been kept
from the American people to preserve the image of the "clean war" fought
within the bounds of {good sportsmanship.}

How well did this presentation work? Think about your own responses to the
war and to the Schwarzkopf briefing. Didn't you find yourself {rooting} for
the {home team}, the Americans and their allies? And didn't you feel elated
when you were told and shown the results with maps and charts, in much the
same way that you might feel if your favorite team won a championship like
the Superbowl?

Around the country, in the same bars where the television sets feature Monday
Night Football or the Basketball Game of the Week, there were reported to be
raucous celebrations after the "victory" in the Gulf War, similar to what
occurs when the home team wins such televised games. "I feel like we've won
the Superbowl," one middle-age bargoer told a reporter that night. "No,
better, like we've won two Superbowls."

Remember our Hal Becker, the brainwasher from the Futures Group who
disdainfully calls all of you "homo the saps." Back in 1981, he commented on
the Vietnam War experience. America, he said, "wants a clear winner, like in
a football game. {Our mythology of sports} demands it. When we didn't get a
clear winner in Vietnam, support for the war fell apart.... We need to beat
up on someone. Then our {sports psyche} takes over and we understand what
happens. You win big and the score comes up on the evening news."

When a survey was taken after the war asking Americans to name a figure from
history to which they compared General Schwarzkopf, few people named military
leaders like General Dwight Eisenhower or General Douglas MacArthur. Instead,
{many people} named the late Green Bay Packer football coach, Vince Lombardi,
the winner of the first two Superbowls in 1967-68. Lombardi is, among other
things, famous for a quote that General Schwarzkopf admires: "Winning isn't
everything. It is the {only} thing."

The {sports psyche} that Becker refers to is imbedded deep within American
culture. It is why people understood what General Schwarzkopf was talking
about with his "Hail Mary Play" and it is why {he himself understood what he
was doing in that way.} It is reflected in that Lombardi quote about winning.
It should more appropriately be called the {jock persona}, a mythical mass
personality type, whose values are determined by the {lessons of the playing
fields}.


Our Sports Addiction

I want now to focus on the mass penetration of sports into our lives. And
here television has played a critical role. While our sports-dominated
culture did not begin with the television age some 40 years ago, it has been
{transformed} and {universalized} by television.

For one thing, the sheer amount of sports has expanded exponentially in that
period, as well as the ease with which one can {participate} in a spectator
sporting event.

Let's take a look at some basic numbers. Of the 6-8 hours each American
watches television a day, and the 42-56 hours he or she watches a week, it is
estimated that at least 6-8 hours involve sports programming. Obviously,
there are many people in the society who have less interest in televised
sports; women, for example, are more addicted to their soap operas than to
sports, so the average viewing figure is misleading. Among a sizeable segment
of the population, especially the male population, who are addicted to
sports, the number of hours a week devoted to sports viewing will average
well in excess of 16 hours. We'll put that another way. Among this segment of
the population, which is demographically teenaged to middle-aged males, a
person spends the equivalent of {one full waking day, every week} watching
sports.

But the addiction is even worse yet, because among that segment of the
population most addicted, the numbers can go even higher -- as much as 30
hours a week or even more could be spent in front of the tube watching your
favorite teams.

Sounds impossible? Think about this -- You are a fan of your local basketball
team and your local football team, and a fan of your local hockey team as
well. Each of the games of these teams is carried on either network or other
free television or on cable (most sports fans {must} have cable or satellite
dishes that have access to cable channels for this reason). Your football
team plays once a week during the season, in a game that lasts between 3-4
hours; your basketball team plays 3-4 games a week in games that average 2-3
hours; your hockey team plays a similar number of games averaging about 3
hours. The seasons themselves overlap. There will be some conflicts when
games on a given day either occur at the same time as each other, or overlap,
but it is easy to see that there are {at least} 20 hours of sports viewing
{easily} possible just in what we are discussing.

But if you are a {real fan}, then you can't miss the Monday Night Football
game, even if your team is not playing; and you might also want to watch an
"important" college football game on Saturday afternoon and maybe even the
second game of the professional football doubleheader on Sunday.

None of what I am describing is far-fetched for the "normal" sports addict.
And when you total it all up, you come to about {30 hours a week during the
seasons described spent in front of the television set watching sporting
events}. We are excluding from these figures a person who attends a sporting
event, since if he is in attendance he {probably} will not be watching the
game on television -- although there have been an increasing number who bring
their Sony "Watchman" television sets to games.

Eliminating also extremely popular sports like golf, tennis, wrestling, and
boxing, and concentrating on what are considered the major sports --
baseball, football, hockey, and basketball -- brainwashers profiling the
American population have found that there is what appears to be a
{universalized addiction} to all these sports. Most {fans} will watch all
the sports named, with the possible exception of hockey, which still lacks
franchises and therefore fans in many parts of the country. This
universalizing process is the result of a proliferation of teams fueled by
television revenues and a television-created mass audience.


Sports and TV

At the dawn of the television age in 1950, there was only one truly national
sport, baseball, which had a 152 game season, running from April to October,
when the World Series is played, for 20 teams divided into two leagues. The
National Football League had a schedule running from September to December,
with a single championship game. The National Basketball Association had many
fewer teams than it does today, playing a shorter season culminating in a
championship series, while the six-team National Hockey League, with teams
only in New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Montreal, and Toronto playing
from October to March in a 50-game season, culminating in the Stanley Cup
Playoffs.

Now, 40 years after the mass proliferation of television and 15 years after
the start of the mass penetration of pay cable networks, football and
basketball have joined baseball as truly national sports, with hockey
expanding its regional base.

There are now 28 baseball teams playing a 162-game season, extending from
April to October, with a spring training from February through April that
features some televised games; the season culminates in playoffs, which in
turn end in the World Series. The NFL now has 28 teams in two conferences
playing a 16-game schedule running from September through the end of December
when playoffs are held which end in the single-most viewed sporting event,
the Superbowl in late January. The NBA has 27 teams playing an 82-game
schedule, which runs from October to the beginning of April, with playoffs
that can run until May. The NHL now has 24 teams in an 82-game season running
from October to mid-April, with playoffs that can run until early June.

There is now a total, year-round brainwashing immersion of huge numbers of
Americans in televised spectator sports -- As the sports' leagues expand, as
the seasons enlarge, the addicted are becoming {more addicted} and the
television set is the major source for their {fix}.

Before television, the four mass spectator sports under discussion had a
total yearly attendence of 30 million (1950 figures, approximate). Now,
their total in-person attendance is more than tripple that figure.

However, well over {1 billion} people watch such events on television. The
television audience for the Superbowl {alone} is more than 100 million in the
United States and another more than 200 million worldwide! According to some
estimates, by the turn of the century, with the further penetration of
America by wired cable systems, viewership for major sporting events will
almost double. And remember, we haven't even included college football or
other popular sports in our figure!

We are not talking here about so many billion viewers who each watch a
single, different sporting event. We are talking about the {habituated
viewing} of several hundreds of events by a segment of the population that
numbers in the several {tens of millions} and the viewing of a hundred or so
events by another population segment double or triple that figure.


The Psychology of a Fanatic

As we learned in the previous sections of this report, the soft brainwashing
process that alters or creates social values relies on {habituated} viewing
habits. And this brings us to the first point of our thesis, which many of
you sports addicts may have challenged when we first offered it. Your
repeated habituated viewing of sports, especially televised sports, has
altered the way you think. In fact, the more you watch sports,  the less
capable you are of morally informed reasoning. You are losing your mind to
your {fanaticism}, to your addiction to sports.

{Sports are totally unimportant and meaningless activity for human existence.
Whether one team or another wins a particular game, whether it be a minor
league baseball game or the Superbowl, it is totally and absolutely
meaningless} for the present and future existence of human civilization on
this planet.

The problem is that most of you don't really believe this. Oh, you can accept
it in the {abstract}, all right. You know that whether the Redskins or the
Cowboys win won't make a bit of difference as to whether the depression is
ended. But sports are a part of your {private mental life}, they are like a
{personal possession} that has little objective real value, but to you has a
great deal of subjective, emotional value. And you really don't like someone
telling you what to do about these {personal parts} of your life. You sort of
resent it, don't you?

But now take a good look at yourself.

It's Sunday afternoon. You sit in front of the television set, your hands
sweating, as your favorite football team is locked in a tight game with their
bitter rival. The clock is ticking down. One more good play, and they'll be
in range of the winning field goal. The pass is completed. You thrust your
fist in the air, as the home stadium crowd roars its approval through the
television set's speakers.

Your hands are wet with sweat; the crowd is cheering. They line up for the
field goal. You can't sit still; you rise from the chair. Now, you can't even
watch and you look away from the screen. The kick is up. "It's ... it's
goooood," says the announcer and you jump up and down, as the fans in the
stands are shown celebrating. They've won, you think, and you {feel} great.

If the kick had missed its mark, and {your} team had lost, you would have
{felt} bad and dejected and so would all its other fans, both in the stadium
and watching on their television sets.

For the three or so hours of that game, the world outside the television set
{did not exist}. People were dying in Bosnia. Others were starving in
Africa. Within a few miles of the stadium, youth were destroying themselves
with drugs. The economy continued to go to hell. But for those three hours
and especially those last few moments, that world, {the world that matters},
did not exist.

{Emotionally} this game and all other games, to one degree or another, do
{mean} something to you. This is the infantile {emotionalism} that we are
talking about. It does not involve your reasoning capacity at all; it
bypasses it completely, putting you into a state of emotionalized fantasy,
disfiguring your creative reasoning power in much the same way as an intense
sexual fantasy.

If someone should try to deny you your {fix}, to turn off your 7-30 hours of
sports on television a week or reduce your viewing hours, you'd scream bloody
murder and maybe even physically assault whoever tried to enforce such an
unwanted change in your addictive behavior. That is how {addicted} you are to
your {emotional fix} on sports. And this is one of the ways in which you are
{brainwashed} by television.


                The Making of Sports Into a Secular Religion

The same theoretical outlook that was behind the mass brainwashing of Nazi
Germany is found in the mass crowd phenomenon of spectator sports. Sigmund
Freud's principal point in {Mass Psychology and the Study of the I} was that
masses of people can be organized around appeals to the emotions. Mass
rallies, for example, appeal not to reason, but to the emotions, for the
appeals to be successful. The most powerful such appeals are to the
{unconscious}, which has the power to dominate and throw aside reason.

"The mass has never thirsted for truth," he writes. "They demand illusions
and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence
over what is real; they are almost as strongly influenced by what is untrue
as what is true. They have an evident tendency not to distiguish between the
two."

Freud further states that under this condition, with man's reason dominated
by {emotionalism} and unable and {unwilling} to look for Truth, the
individual in a mass or crowd loses his moral conscience, or what Freud calls
his {ego ideal}. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the individual, the
evil Freud claims, since the moral conscience which he later named the {Over
I} or {superego}, causes man to "unnaturally" repress his basic animal
instincts; this, Freud claims, produces neuroses.

In a crowd organized around people's emotions, the individual will exhibit a
tendency to "let himself go," to free himself of all moral and social
inhibitions:

    "Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a
    barbarian -- that is a creature acting by instinct.... Nothing about it
    [how a person behaves under such crowd condition] is premeditated...."

    "It [a crowd] cannot tolerate any delay between its desires and the
    fulfillment of what it desires," writes Freud, stating that this is why
    the individual is so willing to let himself become a part of a powerful
    mass experience which can gratify those emotional desires.

Such crowds, observes Freud, have regressed to {the mental life of children}.
They operate, not according to reason, but according to irrational, emotional
desires. In this mindless, emotional state, individuals are easily
manipulated by leaders who can shift the values of the masses to coincide
with the crowd's infantile fantasies.

We'll take a look at a typical sports crowd.

{You're watching a professional hockey game. Sitting next to you are an
accountant and a school teacher, each in declining middle age. Below you is a
teenage couple; over to the side is a banker, and just behind you are a
couple of lawyers, with their young sons.

It's a close game. "Knock that bum down," screams the lawyer, "Don't let him
skate like that."

"Kill him," screams the lawyer's young son. "Put the body on him."

A fight breaks out on the ice between two players. The crowd rises, cheering
wildly as the home team player lands punch after punch, bloodying his
opponent. The lawyers cheer the loudest. The announcement of penalties is
greeted with more cheers for the home team combatant, as the referees escort
the players to the penalty boxes.

Finally, the action begins again. A home team player breaks in for a clear
shot on goal. The little black puck shoots into the net behind the opposing
goalie. A goal. Lights flash all around and pandemonium breaks out in the
crowd. The banker gets so excited that he spills his beer all over the
teenage couple. Everyone is laughing. Everyone is happy, as they celebrate
the home team's goal.}

Was there any difference in the behavior in that crowd of the adults and the
children? Not really. What has been described is a common example of the
{mass infantilism} that we have referred to.

Now think for a moment about the televised football game we described
earlier. The person described was not {in} a crowd per se, but was watching a
televised game in his living room. {Yet he displayed the same kind of
emotional responses as if he were present at the stadium}. This demonstrates
the power of televised sports to induce behavior in what the brainwashers
call an {extended crowd}.

In the television era, there are two audiences for every sporting event -- one
that is present at the event and one that is viewing the event, usually, as
it happens, on the television screen. The first audience is limited by the
size of the stadium, and even the largest stadiums are limited to well under
100,000 people. The television audience, especially for a major sporting
event like a football game, numbers in the millions.

The spectator in the stadium, as well as the viewer in the living room, are
linked by the common perception of the events on the {playing field}. They
are aware of each other's existence -- The fanatic at home hears the crowd
noise on the television set and sees shots of the packed stands. The fan in
the stands knows of the massive television viewership {through his own and
his fellow fans' habituated viewing habits.} "If I were home, I'd be
watching," he thinks. If he is at the game, he hopes to attract the attention
of the television camera crews, so that he might be seen by the fans at home.

The television brainwashers like Fred Emery of Tavistock have noted this
phenomena. Someone watching his favorite show is only {vaguely} aware that
others are watching as well, giving rise to a sense of isolation. The viewer
of a sporting event is {keenly} aware of the existence of others, the
brainwashers say, and therefore participates in a common, {mass experience of
enormous perceived importance}. The perception of importance is
self-validating -- If one million people are doing the same thing, at the same
time, it {must} be important.

Each sporting event, therefore, takes on a {psychological significance} to
the viewer. It becomes a common, emotional bond between him or herself and
{one million or more} other people. Some recent psychological surveys of
Americans between the ages 15 and 50 found that when they were asked to list
significant events that occurred within their lifetimes, an extremely large
number listed {sporting events}, and many listed several such events.

Similarly, among American males especially, this {co-participation} in
spectator sports, creates a sense of {identity} with fellow {fanatics}. A
Mets fan walking down the street seeing another person wearing a baseball cap
with a Mets logo develops a sense of {comradeship} with this unknown other.
He gives him a wave, and maybe a raised fist, signifying solidarity with "the
cause." The same person will routinely avert his eyes from the gaze of a
homeless person and even another person dressed the same as he. Thus, the
{mass spectator experience} extends beyond the timeframe of any single game
or even season, to become a part of the personality, a process of childlike
{identification} with objects and feeling states.

The point to be made here is that viewing spectator sports in a habituated
way, over an extended period of time, does alter a person's personality
because it causes him to respond to situations from an emotionally determined
set of reference points. As we said, it makes you stupid and more
animal-like.

This is not something that can be turned on or off like a television set.
Just as we have explained previously that the {hidden messages} of the
television stay with you even when the set is off, {playing back} even years
later, so does this pattern of {emotional, non-thinking response}, caused by
habituated viewing of sports, stay with you.


Playback

Now, think back to what we had said about the Gulf War and the briefing by
General Norman Schwarzkopf on how the plan of attack against Iraq secured
military victory. Try to remember {your response} to this briefing, that so
openly and consciously was made to resemble a football coach's victory press
conference. Didn't it call up the same kind of emotional response that you
had when {your} team won an important game? Didn't you want to raise your
fist in the air and say: "We really knocked the crap out of the Iraqis,
didn't we. We really took it to them." {This is your sports mentality playing
back, on cue}.

The people who organized that press conference {knew} that you had been
programmed to respond that way. By using the {language} of sports to describe
the war, they were triggering a {playback} of infantile emotions associated
with spectator sports, limiting your critical reasoning capacities.

A month earlier, the 1991 Superbowl between the New York Giants and Buffalo
Bills had featured a halftime spectacular, staged by Hollywood producers,
with the "nothing-should-be-spared" cooperation of the U.S. Department of
Defense, {celebrating the dedication} of the game to the war effort, then in
its savage aerial bombardment phase. With 80,000 people in the stands wearing
yellow ribbons for the troops standing and cheering, waves of military planes
flew over the Orange Bowl. More than {150 million} people in this country
watched the halftime extravaganza end with rock singer Whitney Houston
screeching her way through the National Anthem. (Her rendition, complete with
fireworks, was turned into a rock video and was soon the number one song in
sales in the United States.)

As several commentators noted, the Superbowl had been turned into {the
largest war rally in the history of the world}. It was the {spirit} of that
Superbowl {war rally}, that "coach" Schwarzkopf evoked, quite consciously,
with his briefing.


Be Like Mike

Let's shift focus slightly. {You and your son are watching a

close basketball game, in its final seconds. The clock ticks down, as Michael
Jordan, the superstar of the Chicago Bulls, takes the ball at midcourt.

"It's all down to one play," says the television announcer. "It's all up to
Michael. They're clearing out the lane for him."

Then the announcer is silent, as the clock ticks off the time in tenths of a
second. It's under ten seconds now. Jordan starts his move toward the basket.
Suddenly, near the foul line, he feints to his left, then twists around to
his right, launching himself into the air. Somehow, he is propelled through a
maze of arms, to the rim and he slams the ball through. The clock reads no
time left.

"He's done it," screams the announcer. "Or should I say, he's done it again!
Amaaazing!"}

Did you ever think about what goes on in your son's mind as he watches the
game? On the one hand, he is {fixated} on the screen, taking in the action as
it happens. But something else is going on as well -- He is fantasizing that he
could "Be Like Mike," as the ad for the sports drink says in its jingle, that
he could be famous and spectacular like Jordan or another athlete. He will
try to act out this fantasy, perhaps by trying to practice and copy some
"move" or mannerism of the superstar athlete, or under certain circumstances
by buying some product the athlete endorses. In such ways are sports {heroes}
copied by the young.

But what about you? How do you watch the same events? You're in middle age or
slightly younger. Superstardom has passed you by. In your heart of hearts,
you know that you can't really "Be Like Mike," in that 35 to 45 year old body
of yours. But the "dream" dies hard -- You still can connect with fantasies and
times of your youth, through the sports viewing experience. {You could have
been like Mike, if only things were different,} you fantasize.

{You have been "transported" to an infantile state, through associations and
identifications with experiences of youth}. This is made possible by the
now-universal mass culture of sports and especially television sports; you
remember some game that you may have seen or even played in, some experience
akin to what is taking place on the screen in front of you. It is this power
to make associations with an infantile, fantasized past, that is a key to
much of the power that spectator sports has over you. {It is a way to shut
off the reality of the current world, by calling forth a fantasy world in
which your infantile self participates}.

Often, the habituated viewing of spectator sports will have the effect of
creating a {false past} for the individual, in which he or she has so
strongly imagined some fantasy from his childhood, that he now believes it to
be true. Many males who never made it close to a football field will tell
their friends that they actually played for their schools.

The habituated viewing of spectator sports calls forth the most infantile
part of a person, and that infantilism often leads to a distortion of one's
true self and past, further crippling creative reason.

None of this started with television; it has been going on far longer than
that. But, as we have said before, the mass proliferation of sports through
television has universalized this {neurosis} throughout much of the adult
male population.


Brainwashing by Numbers

We have also noted that fanatics have their unique way to communicate with
each other. The {language} of sports, meaning the terms used to describe
various actions, rules, etc., of the major sports, have become a part  of
popular language. It is for this reason that the Schwarzkopf briefing could
be understood by those watching it.

A major portion of the {sports language} is {numbers} -- the endless amount
of statistical information used to quantify and therefore analyze the events
taking place on the {playing field}. These numbers are totally useless for
the conduct of human affairs on a day-to-day basis. They tell people nothing
about the real world or things that might truly matter in their daily lives.
Yet, it is a simple fact, that more people can tell you what the records of
the starting pitchers are in today's Yankee-Orioles baseball game, than where
the dollar closed in Tokyo.

My father once tried to impress on me the frivolity of sports "numbers." He
told me that when he was a young clerk in a shipping firm he was riding the
elevator with a friend. He and his friend were rattling off a comparison
between the batting averages of the then-Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants
starting teams, arguing furiously over the merits of the players.

Later that day, my father was called to the office of the president of the
company to bring some price quotes on brass valves. There was one missing.

"What's the price on this?" the president asked him.

"I don't know," my father replied. "I'll have to go look it up."

"I was on the elevator with you a little while ago," said the president,
quite angrily. "I'd have gotten an answer immediately if I asked you Willie
Mays' batting average. That you know by heart, but what I pay you to know you
have to look up!"

But aside from creating useless and meaningless clutter in the minds of
millions of sports fans, the statistical explosion around sports has had
another, more important mind-destroying effect. It has tended to cause people
to try to judge everything by numbers, by {counting} and in so doing, it has
made them more prone to brainwashing through {public opinion polls} of the
type we have discussed in previous sections of this report. The pollsters
themselves have noted this. They say that Americans have been conditioned by
sports statistics to accept the statistical results of polls as {inherently
true}.

It is easy to see why from a typical sports argument. "Listen," says one
fellow. "I say that Conseco isn't half the player that Cal Ripken is."

"Oh yeah?," says the other guy, "Well just look at his numbers. He has more
career home runs, more runs batted in...."

"Right, but Ripken has a higher lifetime batting average and he has played in
1,730 consecutive games," the first fellow answers. And so on.

These "debates" take place {millions} of times, every day. In each,
statistics are used as {accurate measurements}. They are accepted as {facts},
to be used in argument.

Poll results are presented in the same way. As a result of your brainwashing
by sports and sports statistics, you never bother to question whether such
results are fraudulent. "Hey, just show me the numbers," says the sports fan.
"If it's a statistic, it's a fact."

Such {statistical reasoning}, with everything placed into neatly, counted
categories, with "facts" represented as columns of counted objects, is
coherent with an {Aristotelian} representation of the universe. It leads to a
linear interpretation, to a fixed reality.

{Truth}, as we have been discussing Truth in this series, can {never be
defined from such arrays of statistically presented facts.} Truth is located
in the {process} of creative reason that determines the hypothesis governing
the means by which hypotheses {change.} The {Socratic method}, as practiced
by Plato and the great Christian thinkers, like St. Augustine, seeks Truth in
{what cannot be counted}, and in the rejection of a fixed, counted universe.
It is {a quality of mind}, the same quality of creative reason that allows
man to participate in God's creation and that distinguishes him from the
animal, that alone determines Truth.

Habituated sports viewing leads to a fixation on {numbers} and the
statistical representation of Truth. This fixation {neurotically} reduces the
ability of the mind to reason in the {Socratic} manner necessary to discover
Truth.


The Gambling Disease

The fixation of the sports fanatic on numbers also leads to another
addiction -- Gambling. Sports gambling, both legal and illegal through an
organized-crime controlled network of betting parlors, is a {multi-hundred
billion dollar annual business}. Like sports itself, it is controlled and
encouraged through the oligarchy's Dope, Inc., the international drug cartel
which uses the betting process to launder dope monies.

The sports fanatic turned serious bettor, begins to associate {only} with the
numerical content of the games, reduced to the so-called {odds}. According to
studies, they care little about actual teams and tend only to have a
"favorite" team if it wins money for them. To do so, to "win" money for the
bettor, the team {need not win} its games, only "beat the point spread," to
lose by fewer points than the odds had predicted.

In the end, the sports gambler gets his {fix} from the thrill of putting
himself at the {mercy of the gods of Fate}. He may pretend that there is
science to what he does, that there is a "system" by which one carefully
places his or her bets to beat the "odds." But any gambler knows that what
drives him to continue to bet is the sensation that when one has won, that he
has somehow defeated the gods of Fate.

Figures show that the number of people afflicted with the {sports gambling
neurosis}, a variant of the overall sports neurosis, is growing. While some
government officials profess concern about this, the fact is that it is the
government itself which is increasingly directly sponsoring the growth of
sports gambling. Several states, such as Washington, have now legalized
betting point spreads on football and other games; it is justified as a means
to generate revenue, with the argument being that if the state didn't tap the
gambling cash flow, the monies would simply be bet elsewhere.

Some preliminary studies have revealed, however, that well-advertised,
state-sponsored sports betting {encourages} gambling among people {who would
not have thought to bet otherwise}.


Learning to `Root'

This leads us back to a discussion of {who} is responsible for the growth of
the mind-destroying sports addiction in the United States and the role that
television has played in that process.

As we have shown, before the advent of television, there was only one truly
national sport, baseball, and its brainwashing effect on the population was
limited. Not surprisingly, it was found in that pre-television period that
sports fanaticism within a given population was dependent on the ability to
attend games, be they at a "major league" or "minor league" level. The
highest-penetration mass media of the time, radio, provided a means to
maintain fan interest when it was impossible to attend games, but the
effectiveness of that medium in promoting fanaticism depended upon the
{possibility} of attendance at games.

This brings us to an important observation about how the brainwashing process
works. The process by which someone becomes an obsessive sports fanatic is
culturally learned. You are taught by American culture how to {root}, how to
respond to the {cues} that bring forth the {emotional, infantile} responses
from the individual.

A few decades back, I was in attendance at a Mets game at the old Polo
Grounds in New York. By baseball standards, it was an "exciting" game, with
the cheering crowd very much "into" the events on the field.

I couldn't help notice one fellow in our section of the stands who seemed
quite "out of it." He sat in silence as fans all around him rose to cheer a
home run by the home team. At first, I thought he was rooting for the other
team. Then, I saw him sit in the same stoney silence when they, too, hit a
home run. I decided to ask him if something were wrong.

"I'm from England, you see," he said. "I thought if I read some books about
your baseball, I could follow what was happening. But I just can't get what
you chaps are all so thrilled about."

Such examples tend to disprove LeBon's contention that crowd behavior is
based on what he called {contagion}, or simple "copy cat" type responses to
what fellow crowd members were doing. Freud's observation that a crowd must
be {cued} to respond to events, or directed by a {leader} is more to the
point. The baseball crowd is {culturally led}, conditioned by a mass sports
culture to make the "proper" infantile emotional responses to the events on
the playing field.

The Englishman, whom I learned was quite a sports fanatic within his own
culture -- cricket and soccer were his obsessions -- was completely "lost,"
looking for {cues} in baseball.

The {intensity} of a person's connection to the sports experience -- {how
deeply you are addicted} -- has some relationship to a {visual} experience,
not just reading about them or listening to radio broadcasts. Stated another
way, {spectator sports must be watched to "hook" you}. The more you watch,
the more intensely you become hooked, the more infantile your potential
responses, and the more impaired your creative reasoning powers, for the
reasons previously discussed.

Television provides the perfect vehicle for the mass promotion of spectator
sports brainwashing. It fixates the mind on the images on the {playing
field}, totally immersing the brainwash victim in the sports experience. As
studies done by media analysts have shown, television recreates the
excitement of being at the event, while it is happening, establishing an
identity between all those who are watching and all those present in the
stands, in a way that even the most skilled radio sports announcers could
only approximate.

Think for a moment about how you learned to root for a sports team. Isn't it
true that your first memory of spectator sports is watching a game with your
father or brother? You learned that it was alright to respond emotionally to
what you saw at the stadium or on the screen. You followed the {infantile}
behavior of your elders in rooting for your team. Isn't it also true that
among your first discussions about seemingly adult events centered on the
exploits of one of those teams that your brothers, sisters, or parents were
interested in?

This pattern of behavior is true even for areas where in-person attendance is
not possible or only possible in a very limited way. It is true because of
the widespread availability of spectator sports on {television}.


Who Controls Your Pusher?

As we have shown elsewhere, everything that you see and have seen on
television is a result of decisions by a small elite. This elite controls
the major television networks, the cable channels and the major production
studios. This elite is in turn controlled, both directly and indirectly, by
oligarchical banking and financial interests centered in New York, London,
and similiar financial centers.

These are the people who deploy the brainwashers at such places as the
Tavistock Institute and the networks of the Frankfurt School. They were
patrons and promoters of such people as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, and were
ultimately responsible for putting Hitler into power. As we have shown, they
have promoted {television} as their principal means of mass-brainwashing
control.

It is this {oligarchical elite} who have sanctioned the massive proliferation
and promotion of spectator sports on television to brainwash you, in much the
same way that their factional ancestors used the {Roman spectacles}, with
their gladiator and other sports competitions, to control the masses. With
the approval of this elite, billions of dollars in television money was
channeled into the promotion and expansion of the National Football League
(NFL), the National  Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Hockey
League (NHL), as well as major league baseball.

Starting in the late 1940s and continuing through much of the 1950s, sports
programming on television represented the single largest block of any
programming type, enabling sports to achieve a saturation of the population
as had never occurred before in history.

The sports teams themselves, until the most recent period, were owned by
powerful families, many of whom had connections to either the {oligarchical
elite} itself or to organized crime networks, sanctioned and controlled by
this oligarchy and the organized crime-linked Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith (ADL). The Mara family -- which owns football's New York Giants -- and
the Yawkey family -- which owns baseball's Boston Red Sox -- are examples of
this. Sports teams were often passed on as possessions from one generation to
the next in these families, much as the oligarchs transfer their other
possessions.

In the beginning, much of the money came from brewery-linked interests, who
were in turn connected to criminal organizations during the Prohibition
period, such as the Rupert interests that formerly owned the New York
Yankees. Some of these "beer" connections remain today, for example between
the Busch family and baseball's St. Louis Cardinals.

In the more recent period, there has been a growing interlock with interests
associated with Dope, Inc. and its propaganda and defense arm, the networks
of the ADL. Often these interests are included within financial groupings
that own teams; for example, George Bush's family involvement in the Texas
Rangers baseball team. Occasionally, they appear undisguised, as in the form
of organized-crime-connected George Steinbrenner, the once and future owner
of the Yankees.


Overlap With Media Elites

There is now also a direct overlap between media and sports elites. One
example is television mogul Ted Turner, the owner of Cable News Network and
the Atlanta Braves. Another example is Time/Warner's ownership of Madison
Square Garden, along with the New York Rangers hockey team, the New York
Knicks basketball team, and the MSG sports cable network.

At the behest of the oligarchs who control our political establishment,
professional sports has been given important exemptions from anti-trust
provisions, enabling the major sports teams collectively to operate {as if
they were a trust}, in the worst robber-baron tradition of that term. Sports
team management rigs ticket prices, establishes television contracts, sets
salary and compensation rates, etc.

This has created a pool of {billions of dollars} for the massive promotion of
the nation's sports addiction; as is usually the case with mass addictions,
the {addicts} -- the sports fanatics themselves -- fund both the profit and
the expansion of their own addiction. At this point, sales within the U.S.
economy alone related to consumer {sports purchases} -- tickets, equipment,
cable services, literature, but excluding the costs of the salaries of
players, television contracts -- are estimated in the {several hundreds of
billions of dollars} annually.


Getting Your Daily Fix

If sports are a mind-destroying addiction, then television is your {main
pusher}. It is the principal means by which the majority of the nation's
sports addicts get their {daily fix}.

On any given day, no matter what the season, there will be approximately 30
million {different} sets tuned to sporting events, according to an industry
study. Obviously, on certain days, with "special" games like the World Series
or basketball playoffs, those numbers will double, triple, or even quadruple.
For an event like the Superbowl, the figure might go higher still.

While early television sports programming helped expand interest in mass
spectator sports, it also helped {hook} our population on habituated
television viewing. In the early 1950s, when Americans first bought
television sets in large numbers, more than half the purchasers listed
{sports programming} as their main reason for the purchase. That was not
surprising -- More than 30 percent of all people buying newspapers say that
they do so for the sports pages and well more than half say that they read
the sports pages first and longer than any other section of the paper.

The sports seasons are to be compared to a {serialized story}, whose
conclusion is unknown, lasting over a period of several months. Thus, each
sports contest has a {past}, a history that involves  the teams in the event
and their records and deeds prior to the game. It has a {present}, in the
events of the game itself. And, it has an {anticipated future}, the
implication being that even though the result of a particular contest might
be final, the outcome of the season, as a whole, remains in doubt.

When the season concludes, there is always next season: "Wait 'til next year"
is the refrain of the fans of losing teams. A variant of that for a person
who roots for {many} teams in the same area, is "Wait 'til {the} next
season," when he hopes that a team in another sport will do better than the
one that has just "failed" him.

In this way, the viewer is {programmed} to move from game to game, from
season to season, without leaving his couch. Sports contests, especially
major sports contests, are thus the perfect {soap opera television serial}
and as such encourage habituated viewing. It should not surprise anyone that
the brainwashers who profiled response to television knew this from their
earliest studies.

None of this would work if television couldn't bring the mass-brainwashing
experience to the subject in an effective way. The television camera limits
the field of view. It can create isolation from the common crowd experience
described by Freud and others in his mass psychology.

Early television, while capturing the excitement of seeing a sports event as
it was happening, often underplayed the sense that millions were watching as
the viewer was watching. In part, this was because of the limits of the new
technology -- The single camera tended to fixate on the prime point of action
in each game and the crowd miking was poor. In part, it was because early
announcers tended to chatter too much. Having come from a radio experience,
they described the events on the field, thus duplicating what the camera
could see.

Much of this has since been corrected, from the brainwashers' standpoint. New
camera technology has made available an explosion of {viewpoints} of each
game, with the development of slow-motion instant replay and multiple camera
angles. The first games featured a single camera; Now there might be as many
as 10-15 at a single football game for example. Crowd miking and modern sound
mixing bring the action closer to realism and directly into your living room.
And importantly, the improvement in the quality and size of the images on
your screen draws the mind deeper into the audiovisual event.

There are still some problems with announcers and commentators, who, from the
brainwashers' standpoint, don't know when to allow the images and sounds from
the {playing fields} to speak for themselves. The balance is still being
"fine tuned," so to speak. If the mix still offends the true sports fanatic,
there is always the mute button on the remote control.

Roone Arledge, the former head of ABC-TV Sports, and the man who developed
the format for "Monday Night Football," talks about sports programming
needing to capture the full sense of the "spectacle." The idea, he says, is
"not to bring the game to the viewer, but to bring the viewer to the game."
There are variations on that theme but the concept is the same -- You must
{grab the mind of the fan} and then hold it within the fantasy world being
projected on the screen. If successful, your efforts will succeed because the
{infantile emotional connection} to the event will be made by the viewer -- He
will get his {fix}.

By the way, Arledge no longer heads ABC Sports -- He now heads ABC News!


And Now to the Videotape

Before we move on to the last section of our report, we should make some
observations on the role of television news in promoting your sports
addiction.

The sports slot is usually the longest single slot in the local evening news
program. It features highlights of the local teams' games, as well as
highlights from other games of sports in season. According to profiling
information, the local sportscast is most often given as a reason for
watching a particular station's local news programming. Such surveys found
that viewers cared most strongly about how their sports news was reported.

In addition, while, as we have reported elsewhere, viewers had trouble
remembering details of news stories reported, studies have also shown that
most sports fans {will remember the major sports story of a given night}.
They will also remember the scores of their team's games.

In large part, this is because much of the language of sports is {numbers},
and the {scores} are the major content of sports news programming. Sports
addicts are like idiot savants; they have a surprising memory for otherwise
useless numbers. The more television gives them such numbers, the more they
will clutter their minds with them, and the less they will be able to
exercise their power of reason.

Instead, they will use them to communicate the next day with their fellow
brainwash victims:

    "Hey, did you see McGuire's 40th homer on the news last night? 475 feet
    over the left field wall. Some shot, huh?"

    "I know how to make everyone go crazy, completely nuts," the brainwasher
    Hal Becker said a while back. "Just have a phony highlight tape of a big
    football game. It's easy to do. Then run the wrong score. People will go
    crazy. They won't be able to figure out what happened. They need the
    television sports news to {confirm} the results of what they saw with
    their own eyes in the afternoon. If they don't match, they'll go into a
    loop."

Now we are ready to look at our national sports addiction -- an addiction
{pushed} through habituated television viewing -- from another vantage point.

Let's set the scene, again. It is the last game of the World

Series. The last inning, the last chance for the home team, {your team}, and
they trail by one lone run.

Two men out. Men on second and third. A two-strike count on the batter.
Another strike and it's all over. A hit will win the game. The camera brings
you a shot of the pitcher, as he gets ready for the pitch. Another camera
shoots the batter, as he cocks the bat, waiting. The score, a reminder of the
proximity to an outcome, flashes on the screen.

The palms of your hands are wet with tension. You think to yourself, "Come
on, you can do it. Just a hit. That's all we need."

The pitcher winds, and as he does {you cross your fingers and say a little
prayer}. The ball is delivered, and {you pray a little stronger, a little
harder} in that instant before it arrives at its destination.

Now let's freeze that for a moment.

Who, or better yet, {what} were you praying to? To God, the Divine Creator of
all the universe? Not really. A religious person would hardly think that God
should waste his time on such trivial matters. A less than religious person
would not think to ask for Divine intercession.

No, at that moment, in the bottom of the ninth, with two outs and two
strikes, you were probably asking for help from {the gods}, those mystical
forces who control the {Fates}, which we are told by those who study such
matters, play such an important role in sporting contests.

The sports fanatic believes in such things as the {Fates} and the control of
events by mystical forces outside the laws of the Universe. Sports and
sporting events, in the minds of these fanatics, exist, to use a sports term,
{out of bounds} of normal religion, and most decidedly {outside}
Christianity.

The religion of sports is a {mystical cult}, based on the infantile emotions.
It posits a universe outside that which is governed by the laws of the
Universe that can be known by the powers of creative reason. It is a cult
which has its {rituals and celebrations of that which can never be known}. It
teaches man that he is ultimately helpless against {the Fates}, the mystical
gods of {irrational emotions}.

Judeo-Christian civilization has taught us that man is made in the image of
his Creator and that what distinguishes him from the animal is his power of
creative reason. By that power, man can discover the laws of the universe and
participate in the Creation.

Most importantly, all men are created equal -- not in the corporeal sense
that their bodies are equal, but equal in the {potential of their creative
capacities} at birth. It is the responsibility of society to assure that each
individual is given the maximum opportunity to fulfill that creative
potential and thereby to contribute to mankind's search for perfection of its
knowledge.

The {pagan cult} of sports preaches the opposite -- Man is a two-legged animal,
whose reason must ultimately fail him before mystical gods of fate, and who
is driven by a brutish, animal-like aggressiveness. Such "men" are decidedly
unequal, with some men created more equal than others as evidenced by the
god-like athletes of the various playing fields.

While such views most clearly undermine Christian thinking, they are promoted
by many sports ideologues as the celebration of the highest good of human
culture -- an organized, ritualized competition, in which men submit to
arbitrary rules. This, we are told, represents the essence of human beauty
and ethical conduct. American sports, we are told, as represented by the
major spectator sports, are the best of American culture and contain all the
basic truths that America needs to impart from one generation to the next.

Such a sports ideologue is Michael Novak, a failed seminarian, who has become
a "theologian" within conservative American Catholic circles. Novak fashioned
himself into an apologist for the degenerate American conservative culture of
the Reagan-Bush years. Novak sees Anglo-American capitalism as the highest
form of Christian culture and sees sports as a necessary component of that
culture.

Given who Novak is, we shall argue that his thinking represents the outlook
of that pagan, oligarchical elite responsible for your sports addiction. When
he speaks of an {ethics} of sport, he is speaking of an Arisototelian ethics,
a mere set of arbitrary rules and codes. In his many writings, Novak alludes
several times to his affinity for the work of Aristotle. Novak's repeated
attacks on the concept of the {infinite} as being inferior to what he calls
the {ritual limits} of sports are a denial of the possibility of the
existence of universal truth.

Novak's views on these matters and his {image of man as an animal} are
identical to those of the evil brainwasher Sigmund Freud. Much of Novak's
theology of sports is derived from Freudian notions of repression and sex
drives.

Novak's moral outlook is the same as that of the Spartan state, which also
idealized and promoted sports and competition. His {mystical gnosticism} is
akin to the outlook of the {Nazi state}, put into power by the same oligarchy
that sponsors and promotes American sports, through its brainwashing tool,
television.

Novak's 1975 book {The Joy of Sports}, from which we will quote extensively,
therefore provides us with some insight into how your brainwashers and their
controllers view the effect of sports on your mind and society.


A Secular Religion

In this book, Novak lays out the thesis that American sports, especially
since its mass penetration into the population with the advent of television,
have become a {civil or secular religion}, holding sway over the masses:

    "In the study of civil religions, our thinkers have too much neglected
    sports.... Sports are a universal language binding our diverse nation,
    especially its men, together. Not all our citizens have the gift of
    faith. The religion, even so, is an ample one, and it allows great
    freedom for diverse interpretations, and mutual dissents. Our sports are
    liturgies -- but do not have dogmatic creeds. There is no long bill of
    doctrines to recite. We bring the hungers of our spirits, and many of
    them, not all, are filled -- filled with a beauty, excellence, and grace
    few other institutions now afford. Our sports need to be reformed --
    {Ecclesia semper reformanda}. Let not too much be claimed for them. But
    what they do so superbly needs our thanks, our watchfulness, our
    intellect, and our acerbic love."

    "The institutions of state generate a civil religion," writes Novak. "So
    do the institutions of sport. The ancient Olympic games used to be both
    festivals in honor of the gods and festivals in honor of the state -- and
    that has been the classical position of sports ever since. The ceremonies
    of sports overlap those of state on one side and those of the churches on
    the other.... Going to a stadium is half like going to a political rally,
    half like going to a church...."

But Novak is not saying that sports are mere {symbols} for religions. They
satisfy "religious needs" of the masses of the population, needs which he
claims the churches are unable to satisfy or at times even grasp:

    "I am saying that sports flow outward into action from a deep natural
    impulse that is radically religious -- an impulse of freedom, respect for
    ritual limits, a zest for symbolic meaning, and a longing for perfection.
    The athlete may of course be pagan, but sports are, as it were, natural
    religions...."

    "They do serve a religious function -- they feed a deep human hunger, place
    humans in touch with certain dimly perceived features of human life
    within the cosmos, and provide an experience of at least a pagan sense of
    godliness."

    "Among the godward signs in contemporary life, sports may be the single
    most powerful manifestation.... Sports drive one in some dark and generic
    sense `godward'...."

    "Sports are religious in the sense that they are organized institutions,
    disciplines, and liturgies; and also in that sense they teach religious
    qualities of heart and soul. In particular they recreate the symbols of
    the cosmic struggle, in which human survival and moral courage are not
    assured. To this extent, they are not mere games, diversions,
    pastimes.... To lose symbolizes death, and it certainly feels like dying,
    but it is not death.... If you give your heart to the ritual, its
    effects on your inner life can be far reaching."

Novak sees sporting contests as teaching man of the existence of death
through the concept of {losing}. In assigning such importance to death, Novak
is mirroring Freud, who argues in several locations that life is the struggle
between two opposing instincts, Eros, or the sexual drive for perpetuation of
the species, and Thanatos, or death, a drive toward man's own destruction.
The death instinct, claims Freud, is diverted from the individual toward the
external world, and manifests itself as human {aggressiveness and
destructiveness} -- two qualities of the {human animal} which Novak says
sports "joyfully" celebrate!


The New Priesthood

Arguing against a concept of sports as {mere} entertainment, Novak says that
the relationship between the individual fanatic and the athlete is
psychologically the same as that between a priest and his disciples. But the
priesthood being described is a {gnostic and pagan} priesthood, not that of
Christianity. The priests are elevated into a god status:

    "Athletes are not merely entertainers. Their role is far more than that.
    People identify with them in a much more priestly way. Athletes exemplify
    something of a deep meaning -- frightening meaning, even...."

    "Once an athlete accepts a uniform, he is in effect, donning priestly
    vestments. It is the function of the priests to offer sacrifices. As at
    the Christian Mass, in athletics the priest is also the victim -- he who
    offers and he who is offered is one in the same. Often the sacrifice is
    literal -- smashed knees, torn muscles, injury-abbreviated careers. He is
    no longer living his own life only. Others are living in him, by him,
    with him. They hate him, they love him, they berate him, they glory in
    him. He has given up his personal persona and assumed a liturgical
    persona. That is, he is now a representative of others. His actions are
    vicariously theirs. His sufferings and his triumphs, his cowardice and
    his courage, his good fortune and his ill fortune become theirs. If the
    Fates favor him, they also favor {them}. Hisdeeds become messages from
    the beyond, revelations of the favor of the gods...."

    "Being an active player is like living in the select circle of the gods,
    of the chosen ones who act out liturgically the anxieties of the human
    race and are sacrificed as ritual victims. The contests of sports ... are
    the eucharists."

Novak is describing {cult} practices, and he knows it:

    "A religion, first of all, is organized and structured. Culture is built
    on cult..."

Americans, Novak writes, have little connection to the Renaissance traditions
of European civilization and the values it places on man and the power of
creative reason. Turning our Revolution on its head and ignoring the
Declaration of Independence, he claims that America was born not in rebellion
against the British Empire, but against {the Renaissance tradition of man}.
As such we need a new ethos and have found it in sports:

    "The streets of America, unlike the streets of Europe, do not involve us
    in stories and anecdotes rich with a thousand years of human struggle.
    Sports are our chief civilizing agent. Sports are our most universal art
    form. Sports tutor us in the basic lived experiences of the humanist
    tradition."

Having broken with that Renaissance tradition of man created in the living
image of God, Novak says that sports present the true image of man -- an
aggressive beast, the most powerful and pernicious of animals.

    "The human animal is a warlike animal," he writes. "Conflict is as near
    to truth about human relations, even the most intimate, as any other
    feature. Sports dramatize conflict. They help us visualize it, imagine
    it, experience it....

    "Play [as in sports] is part of the human beast, our natural
    expressiveness. It flows from inner and perennial energies, and needs no
    justification...."

Football, for example, teaches reality in a way that no church or Renaissance
thought can, Novak claims. It shows us that "human life, in Hegel's phrase,
is a butcher's bench. Think what happened to the Son of God, the Prince of
Peace; what happened in the Holocaust; what has happened in recent wars,
revolutions, floods, and famines....

"What is human?" asks Novak. "What has human experience been in history? A
fully humanized world, gentle, sweet and equitable has never yet been seen on
this earth.... One of [football's] greatest satisfactions, indeed, is that it
violates the illusion of the enlightened educated person that violence has
been or will be exorcized from human life...."

Thus, Novak is telling us that sports teaches us that man cannot perfect his
existence beyond that which is most animal in him, that the best that can be
done is to celebrate his animal nature as his {Aristotelian true self}:

    "There is no use despising part of our natures. We are of earth, earthly;
    descended, so they say, from other hominids; linked by neurons and cells
    and organisms to the teeming chemical and biological life of this
    luxuriant planet. We are not pure minds, nor rational animals, nor
    separate individuals.... We are part of the earth. And sports makes
    visible to the human mind the great struggle of being and nonbeing that
    constitutes every living thing...."

Here, Novak displays a Freudian disdain for the Judeo-Christian concept of
{imago viva Dei}. Freud states in {Civilization and Its Discontents}, that
Christians, in particular, behave like "little children" who refuse to face a
harsh "reality," when "there is talk of the inborn human inclination to
`badness,' to aggressiveness and destructiveness, and so to cruelty as well.
God has made them in the image of His own perfection; nobody wants to be
reminded how hard it is to reconcile the undeniable existence of evil --
despite protestation of Christian doctrine -- with His all-powerfulness or
His all-goodness."


All Men Are Unequal

Since it teaches us that man is nothing more than an aggressive animal, Novak
claims that sports also {must} teach us to discard as meaningless the concept
of all men being created equal; it teaches the precise opposite, he claims.

The athlete, especially the professional, is clearly not the equal of the
average man -- He is a superman, a godlike figure, with qualities that the
average man can only dream about:

    "Life is not equal. God is no egalitarian. Prowess varies with every
    individual."

Aristotle, says Novak, teaches us to perceive value and beauty from this
inequality. On this basic and fundamental principle of {human inequality},
says the pagan Novak, all sports and all life are premised.

Men are not equal, according to Novak, nor are they capable of loving
humanity. Sports teaches, he says, that aggressiveness and the drive for
dominance are the most basic of animal-like human instincts. In life as in
sports, love, especially Christian love or {agape@ma}, hardly matters.
Certainly such a universal concept does not provide us with motivation to
live a certain kind of life, Novak claims.

"But we are not infinite... The human imagination, heart, memory, and
intelligence are finite. The nature of the human psyche is to proceed from
what is close to us outward; we cannot without self-deception begin by
embracing everything. To claim to love humanity is to carry a very large and
thin pane of glass toward a collision with someone you can't abide."

Here we find Novak in total agreement with Freud. In his {Civilization and
Its Discontents}, Freud argues that the concept of universal love, on which
Christianity is premised, causes a neurotic distortion of Eros, the libidinal
instinct of man. It does so because it is based on a false and deluded view
of one's fellow man:

    "A love that does not discriminate seems to me to forfeit a part of its
    own value, by doing injustice to its object; and secondly, not all men
    are worthy of love...."

It is wrong "to love thy neighbor as thyself," says Freud, unless there is
some purpose as defined by Eros, for this. "For my love is valued by all my
own people as a sign of my preferring them, and it is an injustice to them if
I put a stranger on a par with them. But if I am to love him (with this
universal love), merely because he, too, is an inhabitant of this earth, like
an insect, an earth worm or a grass-snake, then I fear that only a small
modicum of my love will fall his share -- not by any possibility, as much, as
by judgment of my reason, I am entitled to retain for myself. What is the
point of a precept [love thy neighbor] enunciated with so much solemnity if
its fulfilment cannot be recommended as reasonable?"

But it is the Christian command to "love thine enemies" which Freud finds
even more abhorrent to his brand of antihumanism. He recognizes that both
commands emanate from the same principle -- that man is more than an animal
and and that he is governed by universal laws more powerful than his
instincts. For those, like Novak, who attack this principle, Freud finds "the
element of truth behind all of this, which people are so ready to disavow, is
that men are not gentle creatures that want to be loved, and who at most can
defend themselves when they are attacked. They are, on the contrary,
creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful
share of aggressiveness.... Who in the face of all his experience of life
and history, will have the courage to assert this assertion? As a rule, this
cruel aggressiveness waits for some provocation or puts itself at the service
of some other purpose, whose goal might have been reached by milder methods.
In circumstances that are favorable to it, when the mental counter forces
which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself
spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towards
his own kind is something alien...."

As we have seen, this is precisely the view of Novak, who sees sports as
putting man into contact with his true, bestial nature. For Novak -- and for
his oligarchical masters, the same people who promoted Freud and put Hitler
into power -- in sports one finds {negation} of theprinciples of Western
Christian civilization and the {affirmation} of a pagan, gnostic religion
based on Freudian concepts of the inate destructiveness of the {human
animal}. To be a sports fanatic is to worship Novak's pagan gods of Fate and
to {celebrate} what is {inhuman}.


A Pagan Rite

The word {fan} is derived from {fanum}, which is Latin for a local temple. To
be a fan is, for Novak, to participate in a pagan rite of passage and
sacrifice. He sees the process of {rooting} as putting man in touch with
himself and his species, in a way that no religion can offer:

    "A human goal more accurate than enlightenment is `enhumanment.' Sports
    like baseball, basketball, and football are already practiced as
    expressed liturgies of such a goal. One religion's sins are another's
    glories. Some `enlightened' persons feel slightly guilty about their love
    for sports. It seems less rational, less universal, than their ideals;
    they feel a twinge of weakness. The `enhumaned' believe that man is a
    rooted beast, feet planted on one patch of soil, and that it is perfectly
    expressive of his nature to `root.' To be a fan is totally in keeping
    with being a man. To have particular loyalities is not to be deficient in
    universality, but to be faithful to the laws of human finitude."

Much of this is restatement of Freud's analysis of mass phenomena. Freud too
claims {rootedness} is a natural expression of man's basic aggressiveness. He
likens it to ethnocentricity and xenophobia, which he claims reflect an
instinctual identification with one's {own kind}. For Freud and Novak,
universal man, the man of the Renaissance, is a neurotic. Man is more
appropriately organized into animal-like formations, which act in their own,
narrowly defined interests, rather than for the "good of mankind." The
emotions of rooting coincide with the desire to be loved in a mass. The
psychosis produced, which Freud calls "the narcissism of minor differences,"
becomes at once an approved outlet for man's basic aggressiveness, which one
must be careful to regulate so as not to allow excesses in either the
individual or the mass. While he is making a more general point, the
applicability of such brainwashing formula to sports {rooting} is obvious.

Novak also "warns" that sports rooting can be carried to excess, which he
cautions against:

    "Of course, there are fanatic fans, fans who eat and sleep and drink
    (above all, drink) their sports. Their lives become defined by sports. So
    some politicians are devoured by politics, pedants by pedantry, pedarasts
    by pedarasty, drunks by drink, compulsive worshipers by worship,
    nymphomanics by phalluses and so forth. All good things have their
    perversions, good swollen into Good, idols into God. Every religion has
    its excess. Sports, as well."

(One wonders whether Novak thinks pederasty "good" if not overdone.)


Undermining the Church

Novak sees the {pagan, secular religion} of sports as enhancing the other
established churches, providing something that they do not. But a {pagan
religion}, whose teaching and practice is opposed to Christian doctrine, as
he describes sports, can {only undermine Christianity}.

To be sure, sports and religion in America are wedded together. Churches
sponsor sports teams, even offer organized prayers for the outcomes of
important games. Perhaps the most famous of all football teams, the "Fighting
Irish" of the University of Notre Dame have a loyal following in the scores
of millions around the country and have made millions for the university in
television monies each year. Novak himself commented that the most important
thing that the University of Notre Dame ever did, its most important
contribution to humanity, is "the {myth of Notre Dame football."}

The relationship between religion and mass spectator sports is that of a
victim and a disease. It is a failing of the church -- all churches -- that
they have not seen how sports has become a powerful counterpole to
Christianity, one whose dogma is irreconcilable with Christian teaching.

Through mass spectator sports, our population is being brainwashed that man
is an animal, that universal truth and love are meaningless concepts. A large
section of our population is reduced to a state of infantile emotional
obsession with the sports fantasy world, such that it is incapable of
comprehending profound ideas. Our churches do nothing to fight this. As
Novak says, churches have the "good sense" to have their Sunday sermons over
in time to allow people to get to their television sets for the afternoon
football games.

Some of you may argue with what we have just presented. I warned you that you
would find some reason to disagree. "I don't buy this stuff about an
addiction and sports being a pagan religion," I can hear some of you saying.
"I just watch it to be entertained."

You may {think} that is the case. As we have said repeatedly during this
series, the best brainwashing victims are those who most loudly claim that
they cannot be brainwashed.

Think back to that example of the ninth inning of the last World Series game.
The last at bat, two outs -- one strike and it's all over; a hit wins the game
for {your} team.

The pitcher winds and releases the ball towards the plate. The batter cocks
the bat. Your hands are wet with tension. You offer a silent prayer, thinking
to yourself -- {Please, just let him get a single. Please, that's all we need.
That's not too much to ask}.

To whom did you offer that prayer, if not to Novak's {gods of Fate}?

"Ya gotta believe," was the rallying cry of pitcher Tug McGraw as the 1973
New York Mets came from way back to win the National League pennant, only to
lose in the seventh game of the World Series. "Believe what?" he was asked.
"Just believe," he replied. "Believe in destiny, in Fate. Just believe,
without question, without thinking. Without any reason. To {will} victory.
That's the power, man. That's the force. That's our magic...."

Our boys were well prepared, "Coach" Schwarzkopf told us in the famous
briefing on the Gulf War. They had the best "gameplan" and they executed it
perfectly, he said, as we beamed our approval, as we sat glued to our
television sets.

Was it a just war? Did we fight for a morally defined principle? And what
about all those innocent women and children that were slaughtered in this
"best of all gameplans?"

"Who the hell cares," says the man watching the television set, his beer cans
piled at his feet. "We won, didn't we? That's all that counts. You know what
they say about winning...."

Our brainwashed people, their eyes buried in their television sets, know
little that cannot reduce to the rules of the {playing field}. As the
statesman and political prisoner Lyndon

H. LaRouche has warned, a people so debased is in danger of losing the moral
fitness survive.

The next time that you find yourself watching a sporting event on television,
and you get that sense of being totally caught up in the {game}, remember
what you have read here. When your hands start to sweat, when you find
yourself starting to pray to Novak's god of Fate, try to {pull yourself out
of it}. Go over and turn off that set. Believe me, you'll feel much better in
the long run going cold turkey on sports.

And if you live with a sports addict, show him this article. Don't give in
to his or her addiction. When you recognize the symptoms, go over and turn
that set off. Be prepared to duck a flying beer can or two. But at some
point, an {adult} must put his or her foot down.


The Cult of Physical Fitness

If sports, and especially spectator sports, have been turned into a pagan
religion, then a large number of our fellow citizens are members of a
{sub-cult}, the {cult of physical fitness}.

Let's be precise about what we are talking about. The human body requires a
certain amount of {exercise} to remain healthy. To the extent that one is
not hampered by illness, a {moderate} amount of daily exercise, in
consultation with one's physician, is both useful and necessary to keep the
body healthy and to deal with the stress of daily life. Such exercise is as
necessary for the young as it is for the old, but again, the operative
principal is the goal of maintaining a healthy and vigorous body. By so
doing, a person maintains his body in a state of readiness to act as directed
by morally informed reason. In that sense, to be physically fit, is never an
end in itself -- it is subordinated to reason, and the program for fitness is
so designed by reason.

A person who acts to keep his body as fit as is {reasonably possible}, who,
if his or her daily life does not contain sufficient exercise, designs a
{reasonable} exercise program, is clearly acting in his or her best interest.

>From this type of {reasonable} physical fitness goal we must distinguish the
current {obsessive neurosis} of many Americans with physical fitness. In
these neurotic cases, physical fitness becomes an end in itself, severed from
reason. One becomes {obsessed} with one's own body and the perception of that
body as a manifestation of one's {identity}.

While there are examples from history of physical fitness being used in cult
practices on a mass scale, such as in the Spartan state or more recently, in
the Nazi state, the current fitness craze dates back no more than 15-20
years. It is intrinsically linked to the degenerate moral outlook of the
so-called {Me-generation} of the 1970s, with its obsessive, infantile
fixation on the gratification of sexual desires.

The emergence of the "Me-generation" is the result of the brainwashing -- the
first "rinse cycle," if you will -- of the "baby boom generation" by
television, as we have described elsewhere in this series. The concepts of
morally defined right and wrong, the bedrock of western Christian
civilization, were given a modern "neo-Freudian" twist through television
programming and popular culture -- It told us that we must have no {guilt} or
{remorse} for our actions, even if they violated Christian morality. This
{moral imbecility} lit the fuse on an explosion of hedonism.

The erotic component of that hedonistic explosion, pushed, in part, through
the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s counterculture and its infusion in the
popular culture, led to a fixation on the body as an expression of one's
fundamental identity. Mass or popular culture had always ascribed a
disproportionate value to how one looked, but now Americans were told that
"image is everything." The drive for an improved personal appearance, and
enhanced carnal gratifications, pushed the Me-generation into their jogging
shoes, onto their bicycles, and into fitness and health clubs in record
numbers in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The key recruiter to the cult was television. From the 1970s through the
1980s, the fitness message was inserted into television programming. Stars of
shows, including the daytime soap operas, were shown at fitness clubs, or
jogging, or in some other form of exercise. There was a heavy sexual content
to the message -- Those exercising were usually dressed in revealing exercise
outfits, and clubs and other places were shown as a place to flirt and
attract members of the opposite sex.

The association between sex and exercise was made early on in the creation of
the craze with the promotion of the now-famous and enormously profitable Jane
Fonda "workout" videos. Fonda is credited with recruiting more males to the
fitness cult than any other person; marketing studies show that her videos,
as well as the other exercise videos which, like hers, feature women in
tight-fitting and revealing exercise clothes in various provocative
positions, sell in huge numbers to middle-aged men. As one reviewer
commented, such videos represent "socially acceptable pornography."

But more was being "sold" than cheap voyeurism. The fitness cult has helped
with the promotion of the {disease} of environmentalism within the American
population.

From the beginning of the 1970s, television and other media associated
"fitness" with the concept of man, as a part of nature, being in harmony with
the laws of the kingdom of {Nature} -- all members of the fitness cult were
"initiated" into regimens of "healthy diets" and spiritual concepts relating
to "natural ways of living." Perusal of any of the many fitness magazines
reveals articles with this message.

The not-so-hidden message of such magazines and related television
programming and advertising was that man did not have dominion over nature,
but that he was merely "nature's steward." Nature, or so we were told,
dominated man, and if its laws were not obeyed, even in the realm of the
body, man would pay the price with his "health" and "wellness."

(Before some of you jump down my throat, let's again clarify that we are not
talking about medically proven facts about healthy eating habits or moderate
exercise programs, conducted under supervision of doctors; we are dealing
with {obsessive behavior} and are here talking about an {ideological outlook}
that became a justification for that obsessive behavior. So stay in your
seats, will you, and read on.)

According to this {spiritual} message, exercise brought man into closer
communion with his {animal} nature; this was even said to have a
"therapeutic" effect on man's consciousness, giving him a sense of inner
peace. In the counterculture of the late 1960s, this same nonsense was
contained in the preachings of "holistic medicine," "transcendental
meditation," "EST" and other cults. The operative concept was a "high without
the drugs" or a "natural high." This was being played back in a slightly
altered context, winning some old and many new recruits.

By identifying man as part of nature and by focusing him on his least-human
aspect, his corporeal body, the proponents of the fitness cult created people
with sympathy for environmentalism. Television programmers inserted
characters into shows who are both fitness nuts and radical
environmentalists.

At first, the ads and the television shows imprinted these images subtly,
through the infusion of shots of people on bicycles or jogging within other
action or with people eating "healthy" cereals, etc.

Now, the message is more literal. Ads openly pitch to this
fitness-environmental market: "I exercise to take care of my body. I eat the
right food. And I want to make my town environmentally safe for my children,"
says a young mother in an ad for a laundry detergent in a crushable,
recyclable container. That string of predicates seems totally "natural" to
you, doesn't it? That's how well brainwashing works.

It works so well that most people don't even remember that they used to
associate Jane Fonda, prior to her workout videos, with the word "kook" or
"nut" for her various leftist or environmental stands in the 1960s and 1970s.
She's still a nut, but a recent survey found that most people now associate
her name with "exercise" or "fitness."


Pain and Agony

As we said earlier, a properly defined exercise regimen can help an
individual maintain his health. More often than not, for a member of the
physical fitness cult, an exercise program driven by {infantile} obsession
with one's body and appearance can be destructive to one's health; it can
even threaten one's life.

Doctors involved with sports or fitness related medical practice have noted a
large number of debilitating and even crippling injuries directly
attributable to obsessive exercising. They note that in the last few years,
the numbers of such injuries are rising.

In many cases, typical of obsessional neuroses, the individual {cannot} stop
exercising, even when injured, even when he is told to by doctors. The person
is driven by the obsession, which overpowers his reason. The similarity to a
"programmed" brainwash victim has been noted by some clinical observers. In
the worst cases, those obsessed with their exercise are unaware of their
destructive behavior, and even when it is pointed out, cannot halt it
themselves.

But lest someone say that these are only extreme cases, the majority of those
involved with the fitness cult suscribes to the oft-repeated credo: "No Pain,
No Gain." While this {masochism} has been soundly denounced by medical
authorities, it has been reinforced by popular culture, including television
programming. According to one doctor, "Nothing we say seems to matter.
People believe what they see and hear on television. They believe that people
should exercise beyond the point of physical breakdown and pain."

Pain is often the subject of boasts and discussion among members of the cult.
Even agonizing injury becomes a cathartic experience, to be greeted with both
sympathy and awe by the cult members.

In part, this fixation on pain reflects the mass brainwashing of the
population around the Freudian concept of the {pleasure principle} -- that
pleasure is inexorably linked to unpleasure, and that a pleasurable
experience is merely the absence of unpleasure or, in this case, pain. By
this twisted logic, one derives pleasure from the end of a painful
experience; hence, the pain {leads} to one's pleasure.

This outlook has its political and economic correlative in the demand for
economic austerity and suffering. The same kind of Freudian logic is
summarized in the famous call for sacrifice of Lazard Freres's ersatz Hjalmar
Schacht, Felix Rohatyn; the choice, he told New Yorkers during the New York
City bankruptcy crisis of the mid-1970s, was between "Pain and Agony."

But the problem is even worse than that. The cult of physical fitness, or
more precisely one of its subcults, is going to kill or physically destroy
millions of our young people.

Over the last half of the 1980s, there has arisen a vast teenage subculture
driven by an obsession with the size of muscles and "pumped up" with
bodybuilding drugs. Experts who have profiled and studied this trend
estimate, on the conservative side, that there are {at least} 5 to 10 million
young people involved with this obsession. Of that figure, somewhere between
500,000 and 1 million adolescents are involved with the use of black market,
or illegal, steroids.

The numbers are even more startling since recent widespread publicity
campaigns have identified steroid and other bodybuilding drug use as
potentially harmful and even fatal. Studies have shown that the majority of
users do not dispute the medical claims. They are using the drugs anyway, and
even welcome the perhaps fatal outcome. The credo of this {death cult} is
"{die young, die strong,}" according to a recent article in {U.S. News &
World Report}.

In part, this usage is attributable to images in recent popular culture of
"pumped up" heroes, such as Rambo or Terminator, as well as football players
and others, with their enormous paychecks. But these images alone, and their
mass-brainwashing effect, cannot explain the existence of this cult. The
deeper psychological impetus for this phenomenon lies in the {infantile
nature} of adult society as a whole, with its own obsession with {physical
fitness} and carnal desires. It is not the drugs that drive the obsession,
but the other way around. The obsessive behavior of the youth mirrors adult
society, with its own  {infantile} desires for gratification of the flesh, at
the expense of creative reason, and as a subfeature of this, a fixation on
sports and the human body.

In our youth, that fixation leads to a destructive {narcissism}, with a focus
on the size of the body muscles. It starts with an insecurity about one's
body; it is followed by an attempt to correct this insecurity through
regimens of weightlifting and diet. But when that fails, and the insecurity
continues, the drugs become an alternative.

In the case of young athletes, the hyper-competitiveness of high school and
other organized sports creates the insecurity that drives this cycle. The
driven athlete turns to drugs as a performance enhancer or to "bulk up" to
meet the challenge of intense competition. It must be stressed, however, that
the majority of steroid users are white, middle-class males who {have never
been} serious about an athletic career and more than one-third have never
even been on a high school team.

It had been hoped that publicizing the dangers of the drug use would deal
with the problem. It appears instead to be having an opposite effect. The
athletes who have used steroids have merely become "anti-heroes," who are
revered by the hard-core of this {death cult.}

The growth of this subculture has been promoted vigorously by the mass media,
especially television. One of the most popular shows among young adolescents
is {American Gladiators.} It features competitions among "pumped up" men and
women in tests of endurance and strength in a futuristic setting.

Adolescents are the largest number of 7 million regular readers of so-called
muscle magazines, as well as wrestling magazines, which are promoted through
television advertising. This same age group helps make huge box office
successes of movies featuring "pumped up" heroes like Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Sylvester Stallone, and Jean-Claude Van Dam.

Again, it is wrong to look at those figures and conclude that such
programming is {only} directed at kids. The Me-generation, now middle-aged
adults, also watch {American Gladiators} and go to see the Terminator movies
or rent them for home viewing. There is no possibility of breaking this
subcult in our youth, without adults breaking from the much larger, but
equally mentally destructive, physical fitness cult.

Think about that as you leer at your next exercise video or watch with great
interest those commercials for various health foods. Try to imagine what the
{next} generation is going to be like -- or, if there is going to be a next
generation, at all.

That's all for now. When we return, we'll talk to you about Satan's own
television network, MTV, and what it and similar fare are doing to our
children.


                         MTV Is the Church of Satan

There's no need to remind you to turn off your television. From what we have
told you so far, you know it is impossible to follow what we are about to say
if you have your television on.

But I want to add a new precondition -- I want you to turn off your radio,
especially if there is popular music on. In this section, we are going to
discuss the relationship of music, in particular popular music, to your
brainwashing by television. You are going to need your head clear of all
background noise, so that you might concentrate on what we are going to
present and reflect on it. So turn off the radio also.

Over the last forty years, {television} has helped organize popular culture
into a {Satanic cult} whose values are the direct counter-position to
Judeo-Christian morality.

Man is distinguished from the animal by the fact that he is made in the image
of his Creator, the living God, and that each human being has been given by
the Creator a divine spark of reason, enabling us to carry out God's will. To
the extent that we act toward our fellow men through the wisdom of morally
informed reason, we act more like humans, less like animals.

Society is now organized around a popular culture dominated by Freud's god of
Eros and the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure as a goal in itself. Reason and
beauty have given way to mass celebrations of ugliness and anarchistic
infantilism. We have lost our ability to love other human beings, in the
Christian sense of the word, {agape@am}.

At the current epicenter of this mass hedonistic culture is what the
political leader Lyndon LaRouche has called the "one-eyed church of Satan" --
music Television Networks or, as it is more commonly known, MTV. It bleats
out a non-stop, 24-hour message of sex, violence, and hedonism to a daily
cable television audience of more than {25 million} people in the United
States alone.

Starting out 11 years ago, MTV has now become a total expression of youth
popular culture, featuring its own news programming, pop culture news, a
fashion show, a comedy hour, and its rock music video segments for every
perverted taste. It has branched out to a second channel, VH-1, which
features music videos designed for the "older folks," the 25-50 year olds,
with a special emphasis on "oldies" -- songs from the 1960s and 1970s.
Meanwhile, MTV music video spinoffs proliferate on network television.

In less than a decade, MTV has "hooked" America, especially its youth.
Through the power of television, MTV's values and methods have infected {all}
aspects of American popular culture. The music video is now the standard
form of television advertising, with the images and sounds tailored to fit
individual products; news shows have "music video" sequences; sports shows
and sporting events use music videos; almost all television now employs what
producers call "MTV production values," incorporating one or another form of
MTV "music" into their shows.

Thus, {the anti-Christian youth culture as depicted by MTV has become the
dominant cultural force of the late twentieth century}.

In this section of our report, we are going to try to explain in more detail
how that happened in the course of the last three or so generations, before
giving a more detailed look at the MTV evil web itself.


Evil Reaches Out

On Oct. 3, 1992, Irish rock singer Sinead O'Connor appeared on national
network television on NBC's {Saturday Night Live.} In the middle of a live
version of her a cappella song, "War," the singer, known for her shaved head
and shrill voice, displayed an 8 inch by 12 inch color photo of Pope John
Paul II; shouting "Fight the real enemy," she methodically ripped up the
picture of the Pontiff.

Within minutes, NBC was flooded with more than 500 phone calls expressing
outrage at what had happened. The next day, Catholic leaders and others
announced a boycott of O'Connor's records, including the new song "War,"
which had already been made into a music video, without the open attack on
the Holy Father.

But, over at MTV, there was no boycott of O'Connor. MTV's "news" discussed
the furor and indicated that O'Connor's millions of fans worldwide would
hardly bat an eyelash or drop a nose-earring at her behavior. Said one youth
interviewed on a local television news program, "It's a free country. She's
an artist. She has a right to express herself anyway she sees fit."

So far, O'Connor's record company reports that her sales remain steady. They
don't expect them to change.

The power of the one-eyed church of Satan, MTV, now openly challenges the
Church and all religion. Reaching more than 50 million homes through cable
networks in the U.S.A. and another 200 million in 70 countries on five
continents, it offers preachers like Sinead O'Connor a means to reach their
youthful flock.

As shocking as O'Connor's behavior was on national television, it is mild
fare for MTV. For example, a performer of the genre called "dark metal,"
which routinely features Satanic symbols such as upside-down crosses and
skulls in their videos, as well as anti-clerical, anti-Christian lyrics, by
Glenn Danzig, has what the {New York Times} describes as "scholarly interest
in the problem of evil -- If there is a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God,
why does He  allow so much pain and suffering?"

According to {The Times}, "Mr. Danzig has said that he perceives church and
state as evils that have co-opted the image of righteousness. If church and
government are good, Mr. Danzig seems to say in his songs, he is more than
willing to be branded as evil."

Danzig and his group of the same name are among numerous MTV-featured groups
and artists, like Sinead O'Connor, who actively seek the destruction of the
Church and all organized religion as a precondition for a new, society based
on a {Satanic}, anti-Christian order -- the so-called "New Age." His group's
second album, titled "Lucifuge" featured a song titled, "Snakes of Christ."
Religion itself is corruption that man must reject, screams the vile Danzig,
accompanied with appropriate video imagery:

    "Serpents of the Lord crawling to the will of God/ Serpents of your Lord
    crawling, all evil."

{The Times}, the newspaper of record for the Eastern Establishment, elevates
this evil to "high art." In its erudite "criticism" of MTV culture, {The
Times} terms such songs as Danzig's "thought provoking" and his album assault
on religion as "one of the most accomplished and absorbing rock albums of the
year.

"The darkness in the music holds up a mirror to the darkness in society --
the empty pieties and alienating double-speak of politicians and self
appointed spiritual guardians," wrote {Times }critic Jon Pareles. "The best
dark metal bands may be an anathema in some quarters. But there can be no
question of their artistic intent."

To attack God as evil, to preach for the destruction of religion and the
"false" moral values of Judeo-Christian civilization, is both the implicit
and explicit content and intent of MTV brainwashing. That is what is being
"blessed" by the Establishment through its mouthpiece {The New York Times}
and countless other media outlets that have given their blessing to what is
known as "the MTV experience."

This is the network that has entrapped your kids. But before it entrapped
them, this web of evil snared {you}. And that is an important point to
remember, because if you, the adult population of America, were not
brainwashed, there would be no way to successfully recruit your children to
the evil that MTV preaches, no matter how many powerful people support it or
what the media says about it.


The Freudian Paradigm Shift

In a previous section of this report, we referred to what your brainwashers
call a {paradigm shift} -- the changing of sets of beliefs and values that
govern society. We explained that such {paradigm shifts} do not occur
overnight, but take place across several generations.

One marker for this change in social paradigms are the values embodied in
popular youth culture. One's moral outlook or social conscience (what
Freudians call the {super-ego}) is shaped by youthful experience. It is
assimilated, learned from one's family members and from the institutions,
such as the church and schools, that act as parental surrogates. If you want
to shift social values, then it is easier to do so by targetting youth,
{before} those values are reinforced by the society as a whole.

That is precisely what is being done with MTV. The brainwashers of your
children have set up a counter-institution, that preaches values contrary to
those of the church and society as a whole. But for such an effort to be
successful, they must neutralize the positive influence of parents and church
and schools, or at least weaken such influences.

For the last 40 years, as we have explained, the principal vehicle for mass
brainwashing has been {your television set}. Television, through its open
promotion of {rock music} and the sick culture that surrounds it, was the
major recruiter for the youth counterculture; those who were not active
participants or even offered nominal opposition, nonetheless participated
{vicariously} in the mass brainwashing experience by watching television in
that period.

Thus your toleration of the rock-drug-sex counterculture, in television
programming, has weakened your ability to influence your children. This is
what "opened the door" for MTV.


The Power of Music

Since the advent of moving picture technology and sound recording technology,
the mass brainwashers have organized popular youth culture around movies and
music, especially as disseminated by radio, television and films.

Music, in its classical form, has the power to bring the human soul into a
reasoned dialogue with the laws of the universe. Contrary to popular
opinion, the great classical music of a Mozart or a Beethoven is not an act
of mystical and unknowable genius, but the product of a scientifically
discoverable method which can be taught and reproduced. As such, great
classical music is a celebration of that which is most human about man, that
which is most connected to the divine spark given him by the Creator.

Romantic or other forms of banal music appeal to the emotions, and seek to
have one's emotions dominate the intellect and reason. Romantic music
degrades man, reduces him to a more bestial state.

Freud, who saw man as an animal, understood the power of music to manipulate
men into acting like animals. Implicitly recognizing its connection to
brainwashing, he stated that music plays upon "the instrument of the soul,"
in much the same way that his psychoanalysis did. He and neo-Freudians also
saw the special power of {romantic} music, either in the form of Wagnerian
pieces in "high culture" or more banal popular songs, to appeal in a most
direct fashion to that which is {most infantile and animal-like} in man, what
they called the {it} or the {id}.

Several Freudians even studied the effects of this so-called music on
"primitive people," observing that it drove them into a frenzy, unleashing
orgies of sex and even blood sacrifice. This, they said, proves the power of
musical sounds to unleash man from his inhibitions, from the control of his
moral conscience, {super-ego}. This "freedom" returns man to a natural state,
and, they observed, if properly regulated, can remove him from the hold of
false ideology and prohibtions created by western Judeo-Christian religious
teachings.

The evil witch, Margaret Mead, and other so-called social anthropologists,
further observed the relation of drugs in primitive culture to music; such
natural hallucinogens as peyote "enhanced" wild, uninhibited behavior.

It is around these studies and observations that the rock-drug-sex
counterculture was hatched by the networks associated with the Frankfurt
School and the Tavistock Institute.

We explained previously how images and messages in television shows watched
by young people are {played back} in behavior later in life. Several studies
have been done that show that a song or piece of music associated with one's
childhood, when heard later in life, can call forth memories and associations
of that earlier period. This is the marketing appeal of what MTV and radio
stations call "classic oldies," songs from 15-25 years ago which are
targetted at the adult population. Popular music {encodes} memories in the
listener that are recalled by hearing the same piece of music, thereby
triggering {an infantile emotional state}.

Think for a moment and you'll see what I am saying is true. If you are in
your 40s, then you had vivid memories of the 1960s, most of which are
associated with the youth culture of the day. When you hear a song by the
Beatles from that period, or the Rolling Stones, or the Beach Boys, what
happens? You have an emotional {flashback}. A feeling state is induced that
brings you back to that time.

Let's give a more precise example. You are walking in a store with piped-in
rock music. All of a sudden, a song from the sixties comes across the music
speakers: "Sweet Judy Blue Eyes" by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Your mind
drifts back to that time, now more than 20 years ago. You start free
associating, remembering a girl that you were with and a time when youthful
hormones were running a bit out of control. The song lasts only a few minutes
and the whole experience seems to pass without anything but a warm memory of
some distant time and place.

But then, without even realizing it, you start looking with a strange look
and even stranger feeling at some of the young girls passing by. You are
{fantasizing}, in a sort of {day-dream}. Your mind has been brought back to
the {infantile emotional state of 20 years ago!} Just by hearing a certain
song.

Be honest now -- Hasn't something like this ever happened to you? The more
frequently you hear this "golden oldies" music, the more time you spend
fantasizing, the more you tend to live in an infantile feeling state, in a
sort of emotional time warp.

During the height of the counterculture, it was estimated that more than 50
million Americans experimented with drugs of all kinds, the majority between
the ages 10-25 years old. Much of that drug usage was associated with the
performance of or listening to rock music.

Not surprisingly, recent studies reveal that the playing of those 1960s-1970s
rock songs today can {bring back memories of drug experience} for large
numbers of older Americans; in the most extreme cases, usually involving
people who heavily used psychedelic drugs such as LSD or mescaline, hearing
certain rock songs can cause {drug flashbacks}, identical to or mirroring the
drug experiences themselves.

On the surface, this may not seem to effect individual daily behavior.
However, it establishes an emotional tie between the "baby boomer" generation
and their {infantile and irrational} past. It makes the adult population in
general more tolerant of the MTV generation and its cultural habits.

"Hey, you guys have your music," says the MTV addict to his "golden oldies'|"
parent, not seeing any reason why he or she should not be allowed to have
"theirs."

Over the last 40 years, television brainwashing has so weakened the moral
stamina of each succeeding adult generation, that each has been incapable of
passing on the values of western Judeo-Christian civilization to their
children. Instead, social values are transmitted through surrogate
authorities, as they appear in the popular culture on television.

The brainwashers who ultimately control the content of television programming
have made sure that it {maintains} several generations in their moral
imbecility and infantilism. There has been a recent rash of nostalgia
programming, appealing to the infantile baby boomer; such programs feature
the popular music of the period.

This programming both establishes and then reinforces the {emotional
authority} of MTV, creating the climate for its acceptance by our
multi-generational, infantile youth culture. MTV returns the favor by
continuing the pattern of television addiction for new generations of youth.
And the doors to this church of Satan are always open, non-stop 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year.


The Assault on Reason

Imagine yourself sitting alone in a semi-darkened room. In front of you is a
television set, with MTV programming turned on.

There are bright colors, flashes of light, dream-like images blending into
one another, all accompanied by loud sounds of amplified, electronic rock
music. As the images flash, there is a steady, driving, pulse-like beat to
the music.

Then suddenly, there is silence. The images stop flashing, and the voice of
an announcer comes on. It is just his face on the screen, then it dissolves.
A pulsing, loud noise rises in the background, as his voice is overwhelmned
by the sound of the next "song." More and even louder noises, more bright
colors, flashes of light and images, ultimately dissolving into the gaze of
the so-called artist. A pulsing beat accompanies the images, which rapidly
change and again dissolve into the gaze of the artist, apparently mouthing
the lyrics.

Within four minutes or so, this next segment is over, and there is another,
brief moment of silence. Then, within a few seconds, the process begins all
over again.

This cycle of lights, colors, and noise is repeated in segments of
approximately four minutes each; the four-minute segments meld into a longer
sequence of multiple segments varying between 16 and 30 minutes. The
sequences are broken only for commercial messages, which are almost
impossible to distinguish from the musical segments.

As you continue to watch, you find yourself unaware of anything outside the
images and sounds emanating from the set. You lose your sense of time and
develop a sensation of being {inside} what is being projected on the screen.
Your mind is completely "turned on" to the sensations coming from the screen.
You {feel} a sense of excitation, eagerly awaiting the next audiovisual
assault on your senses.

When the set is finally turned off, {the music and images keep replaying in
your mind}. For the first few moments after such an experience of a moderate
duration is over, you feel confused and disoriented. It is hard to
concentrate on anything and even harder to pay attention to a complicated
discussion. You find yourself, {unconsciously}, humming one of the songs you
heard; as you do, some of the images are recalled.

This is what watching MTV does to your mind; it is even worse for younger,
more impressionable minds, who have been brought up on television. Over time,
with habituated MTV viewing, one's attention span {will tend to collapse into
the "four minute" segment of the music video}.

{All} television, if habitually viewed over a long period of time is
cognitively destructive. The visual image tends to shut down the central
nervous functions asssociated with human reason, as the brainwasher Fred
Emery remarked twenty years ago. Emery stated that there was a simple way to
"detox" from such a state -- Stay away from television for a few days.

But Emery wrote before the era of MTV. The MTV format induces a hypnotic
trance-like state in its habituated viewers, it becomes much more difficult
to "turn off;" add to that, the {playback} effects -- the images and videos
-- playing back in one's head, even while the set is off, and you have
created one of the most mind-numbing tools for mass brainwashing.

The brainwashers realize the power of MTV. In a book on MTV, titled {Rock
Around the Clock,} by E. Ann Kaplan, the director of something called the
Humanities Institute at the State University of New York at Stony Brook,
writes that MTV "hynotizes more than other [television] because it consists
of a series of short texts that maintain us in an excited state of
expectation.... We are trapped by the constant hope that the next video will
finally satisfy, and lured by the seductive promise of immediate plentitude,
we keep endlessly consuming the short texts. MTV thus carries to an extreme a
phenomenon that characterizes most of television...."

Kaplan, using the terminology of the Frankfurt School's philosophers who
speak of "a postmodernist outlook," says that MTV viewing produces a
"decentering experience" which challenges normative values as they are
logically represented by moral social conscience. MTV, she says, has no
single point of view, no philosophy, only a negation of reason as its
outlook, in favor of expressions of "desires, fantasies and anxieties," which
she calls a "postmodern" consciousness.

Kaplan indicates that the willingness to accept heavy doses of sex and
violence in music videos is reflective of the power of the medium presenting
them. By overwhelming reason with audiovisual sensations, there can be no
"reality check," no effort to separate the experience from reality. The
habituated viewer of MTV becomes a mental captive, a prisoner of the
non-rational, animal-like world being presented in the music videos.

Using a metaphor from Michel Foucault's {Panopticon,} Kaplan supports the
observation that watching television, and especially MTV, is the equivalent
of being an observed prisoner. The brainwashed viewer has only an illusion
that he controls his choices, which are in fact fed to him, 24 hours a day,
by those who observe his behavior -- the programmers of MTV. They profile
viewer responses through polls, and adjust the programming to increase the
brainwashing effect. MTV, Kaplan remarks, is built upon "an ever increasing
knowledge of psychological manipulation."

The combination of {sound} and {video} image by MTV is an effort to abort
reasoned thought by appealing directly to the sensory apparatus. The music
video represents a mode of {literal, non-thinking} that substitutes for
thought {perception and sensation}. For the four minutes of the music video,
an artificial reality is created, much like that of a drug-experience.

Freud and the brainwashers that have followed him understood the power of
music to reach directly into the emotion. However, music, even the most
romantic music, in and of itself is not {literal}. It requires some cognitive
activity to {relate} the sounds and words to thought-objects. The combination
of music with images, however, helps to {short-circuit any thought} by
providing a literal representation of the musical message.

The majority of music videos do not lend themselves to rational analysis.
That is intentional -- They are operating on the {emotional level}. In that
state, the dissociative power of television comes into play. Habituated
viewing produces a trance-like stare, through which one {receives} messages
and images without question.

Under normal social conditions, a youngster, especially one brought up in a
family steeped in the moral values of Judeo-Christian civilization, might
recoil at the vulgar and licentious actions of rock stars, both men and
women, as they are depicted in the videos. One's first reaction would be to
turn one's eyes away or to cover them.

But when this material is presented on MTV, the aberrant behavior is not
questioned by its young audience. The viewer, in his or her trance-like
state, receives the images and accompanying sound without a sense of shame.
There is no time for reflection, no time for thought, as the perceptions
overwhelm the senses. {Where there is no reason, there can be no morality}.

In the terminology of Freudian mass brainwashing, the viewer of a music video
is in an induced state most resembling a {dream}. He is "helped" or coaxed
into this state through the repetitive flashing of colors and images,
overwhelming the visual apparatus, while the pulsing, throbbing of the rock
beat, has a similar effect on the auditory apparatus.

In this dream-like state, the moral conscience, or in Freudian terms, the
{super-ego}, is pushed aside and there is direct access to the most infantile
emotions of the {id}. Anti-social rage and erotic desires, kept in check by
one's moral conscience, can now be brought to the surface.

The connection made between the viewer and music video, in terms of Freudian
brainwashing, is that of a {wish fulfillment}, an expression of the {desires
of the infantile id} to express itself, without the constraint of social
conscience.

What is left from this experience, especially if it is repeated many times,
is a sense of anxiety and conflict between {reality} and the {images} in the
music video. This creates a {moral confusion}, especially in young viewers
whose conscience lacks both development and strength. It produces a
{moodiness} that further increases a tendency to non-rational emotional
responses to situations of everyday life.

Does the viewer of a music video {understand} what he has seen? Not really,
because understanding is a function of reason. The emotions cannot
{understand}, they can only {react}. Studies of MTV viewers have found that
they can recall only certain grotesque images, and some striking phrases that
may accompany them. They cannot recall whole songs, but can remember rhythms
and beats. These same studies also show that while they cannot {explain} the
content of a music video, they can describe {strong feelings} that they
associate with it.

It has been noted that playing a given song without the video images can
cause an habituated viewer to replay those images from the music video, as if
on a slide screen in the mind. There is no flow, no continuity, in the
images -- It is as if they were mental snapshots, associated with particular
sounds, which in turn are associated with particular feelings.

Brainwashers would say that the {visual images have been imprinted on the
memory}; they are {encoded} by the {sounds}. When those sounds are played,
even in the absence of the images, the images are {played back}, reproducing
the sense of being enveloped in the music video experience. This is how your
children are being programmed.

The more someone watches MTV, the more one will tend to "think" with this
emotional imagery. The former student leftist and current social critic, Todd
Gitlin, now a professor of sociology at Berkeley, told {Time} magazine, that
MTV has "accelerated the process by which people are more likely to think in
images than logic."

Those who created MTV were quite conscious of this effect. Robert Pittman,
the person who is given most credit for its creation and operated MTV until
1986, stated:

    "What we have introduced with MTV is a non-narrative form. As opposed to
    conventional television, where you rely on plot and continuity, we rely
    on mood and emotion. We make you feel a certain way as opposed to walking
    away with any particular knowledge."

The TV-reared generations, says Pittman, form their impressions of things
from {images} and {pictures} and not from words.

Pittman saw MTV as establishing a new form of consciousness, the type of
mental dissociation that the brainwasher Fred Emery identifies as the "The
Clockwork Orange" paradigm:

    "You're dealing with a culture of TV babies.... What the kids can't do
    today is follow things for too long. They get bored and distracted, their
    minds wander. If information is presented to them in tight fragments that
    don't necessarily follow each other, kids can comprehend that."

    "Image is everything," says the punk tennis superstar Andre Agassi, in a
    camera commercial made with music video production values. And,
    concentration, reason and morality are out the window.


They Look So Bad

If there is one thing that truly marks the youth culture of MTV it is
{ugliness}.

Have you taken a good look at your kids or their friends lately? Maybe you
should keep your eyes open when you walk around the malls. The first thing
you notice are the weird hairdos, often done at beauty parlors that
specialize in what is called "rock and roll hair" or that "MTV look." It
looks like their heads have been stuck into an electric outlet and then
placed in a vat of brightly colored printers' ink.

And the clothes -- tightly fitting, but sparsely covering garments, with bright
colors and rips. They frequently wear the skins of animals, such as snakes,
lizards and cows. Occasionally, they wear what appears to be underwear as
their outer garments, parading around in leather bras and the like. And they
wear so much jewelry and so many chains that one might think that they need
to lift weights to be able to carry it all.

This extreme taste has infected even the so-called high fashion houses of
Paris and New York. It is common to see such styles in clothing being shown
by the glitzy design houses, draped over the highest priced models. Ugliness
is the "in thing."

MTV now has its own fashion show, {The House of Style,} which, typical of MTV
format, has no scheduled time slot and is shown at random with approximately
six different shows a year. Its host is supermodel Cindy Crawford, and covers
the fashion scene with a non-stop MTV soundtrack, wild color, and fast cuts
and wide camera angles. Fitting the MTV version of the "counterculture," the
show stays away from the normal fashion glitz of Paris, etc. to feature lower
priced "in" clothes, celebrity interviews, and discussions with younger
designers.

Those of us old enough to have memories of the 1960s or earlier might see
nothing too odd about what is happening. After all, popular performers have
always seemed to establish fashion trends. But those who control our
brainwashing and the mass brainwashing of our youth through the MTV
experience have noted a difference. {The New York Times} style section
remarked recently that "MTV videos have made musicians more conscious of
their images and have trained audiences to expect a new look every album."
MTV and its "artists" have usurped "the vacuum of authority" in setting style
trends for the masses.

This is especially true in the volatile children's clothing market. "Rock
video is driving the children's market right now," said J.C. Penney's
children's fashion adviser. "Whatever the rock stars are wearing, kids are
trying to emulate them."

And that includes very young children. "Preschool children know fashion,"
said another department store official. "They are exposed to MTV and Madonna
even before they can walk and talk."

Citing the power of MTV and its superstars to create style, Elizabeth
Saltzman, the fashion editor of {Vogue} told {The Times}, "It's not like
wearing underwear outside your clothes was the next thing. Madonna made it
happen."

When Madonna ended her 1986 tour in New York, Macy's sold out of such
garments, all licensed by the "Material Girl," in two days.

And MTV, in the 1980s, "made" Madonna, as it made numerous other people
popular stars through its mass exposure. In a certain sense, MTV functions
like all advertising does to attract consumers to a product. Its music
videos, seen from that perspective, are self-promotions, created at a cost of
anywhere from $35,000 on up by recording companies to sell, in the last
decade, first albums (vinyl) and audio cassette tapes and then CDs and video
cassettes. According to the format, a popular video, slated for heavy play,
will run as many as 4-7 times a day, depending on its slot; less heavily
played videos, or ones from newer artists being "broken in" will run four or
more times in a week. They are kept in the "rotation" usually for at least a
month cycle.

There can be no doubt that as an advertising medium MTV is one of the most
successful in history. At the point of its creation in 1981 by a subsidiary
of Warner Communications, Warner Amex Cable (it has since been sold to the
huge media conglomerate, Viacom, which in turn has been taken over by the
billionaire, Sumner Redstone), all record sales were in doldrums.

MTV, in the words of one record industry executive, "saved our ass." It
returned the "single" or the pop hit song to its former role as the major
means of marketing other recording products, giving it a prominence that it
hadn't had since the days of the old {American Bandstand} (now itself a video
rock show).

People who focus on its effect on the multibillion recording industry, are
taking a far too narrow view of MTV as an advertising medium. It has {sold
American youth on a new level of degenerate culture, while crippling their
powers of reason}.

Freud's nephew Eduard Bernays was one of the first people to apply his
uncle's mass brainwashing principles to advertising. In his early writings,
Bernays indicates that the best advertising appeals "above the mind,"
directly to emotions and instincts. Such appeals bypass rational thought and
work on {unconscious desires}, especially {infantile} associations involving
sex and power, for example.

Bernays ushered in an age of psychologically sophisticated advertising
featuring movie stars and other beautiful people to induce target audiences
to {copy} what they {perceived} to be emotionally desirable behavior.

MTV carries this mode of brainwashing to new technological levels. Its
audience is already in a trance-like, non-critical state, ready to receive
copyable images. MTV's effectiveness can be measured by how much your son
might resemble the lead singer in Megadeath or your daughter looks like
Madonna.


Behavior Modification

Beyond the sales of black leather panties, garter belts or leather bras, or
ripped tee-shirts, MTV also sells {patterns of asocial, non-rational
behavior}, for consumption by our young people.

Writing in the 1950s, Dr. Frederic Wertham, one of the first people to warn
of the destructive power of television programming on the minds of young
people, described how the young mind accepts {images} of behavior obtained
from sources outside the family and social institutions like the church. Dr.
Wertham waged war against the comic book industry and later, television,
because they presented young people with violent and other non-rational,
emotionally based solutions to problems.

Dr. Wertham explained that it is impossible to statistically correlate any
one to one relationship between an image in a comic book and the violent act
of a teenager, as some people have tried to do. The mind, he said, does not
work so simply.

For example, the image of a colorfully presented comic book character beating
someone with a lead pipe will stay buried within a person's memory. It is
recalled in a stressful situation, such as a street fight, in which the
emotions involved with the comic book representation, in this case rage, are
also present. Under such circumstances, the young person will {copy} what is
in the comic book, picking up a a lead pipe and beating someone to death.

The courts and others may never see the connection, Dr. Wertham says, but it
is the role of adult society to make sure that such images are not
transmitted, uncritically, to the impressionable minds of our youth.

With MTV, {the presentation of the images itself is addicting}. The most
important product being advertised and consumed is the television
brainwashing itself. Kaplan, in her previously cited work, says that all
television and MTV in particular is "seductive precisely because it speaks to
a desire that is insatiable," promising fulfillment of that desire in "some
far distant and never to be experienced future. TV's strategy is to keep us
endlessly consuming in the hopes of fulfilling our desires."

In the case of MTV, its self-promotion feeds on the infantile desire to
possess objects. Its former advertising slogan, popularized internationally,
is the scream of an infant for its mother or surrogate, "I want my MTV."

Another of its self-promotions shows an image reference to Aztec temples,
then shows the MTV logo toppling those temples. In that way, MTV announces
itself as the new heir to the Aztec culture -- a culture based upon bloody
human sacrifice that saw no value in human life.

Dr. Wertham, in one of his many cogent clinical observations, based on case
studies, noted that habituated comic book reading had prepared a whole
generation to accept the non-reasoning, often violent fare of television. He
observed that {all} comic books, with their emphasis on {imagery}, presented
in colorful ways that were attractive to young minds, discouraged creative
reasoning.

Even more important, Dr. Wertham countered some of the arguments that were
made by the comics industry and its defenders that they were getting people
who would otherwise not do so, to "read." Comic books created mental barriers
to reading, preventing children from developing a mastery of language and the
ambiguity contained in great literature and poetry precisely because words
were associated with their pictures. The mind, he said, was being turned off
and the emotions turned on. Comic book readers, he said, were not reading
because they were not thinking -- they were merely passively looking at
pictures, with silly dialogue.

He disputed classical Freudians who claimed that a young child's personality
was set in stone by Oedipal developments between the ages three and five. Dr.
Wertham asserted that the cornerstone of man's identity is his moral
conscience and that this is shaped by young children's interaction with
society. It is something that is learned and to learn it one must be able to
think. Comic books were thus making America immoral; later he was to say the
same about television and its programming.

For the purposes of this report, let's concentrate on one aspect of Dr.
Wertham's observations. To get someone to accept MTV programming, there must
be a certain {preconditioning} that takes place. Some of that preconditioning
is obvious. MTV is a television event, thus the general acceptance by adult
society of television helps prepare a child to accept "the MTV experience."
Then, there is the pervasive effect of the counterculture and its music on
society; rock and similar music is everywhere, so why shouldn't there be a
television channel devoted to it?

But, such a channel could have simply televised shots of groups and singers
doing their songs, as if in concert. MTV does do some of that; but the core
of MTV programming is the music video, which people like Kaplan and others
already writing the history of MTV describe as if it came from nowhere, as
something totally new. If that were the case, then it would seem to
contradict Dr. Wertham's clinical observations.

Well, it isn't the case. There are mass media precedents for the combining of
music with visual imagery to produce the kind of non-reasoning emotional
appeal we have previously described. We have already talked about one such
precedent -- television advertising.

For more than 40 years now, people have been watching ads which, through the
clever use of music and image, have attempted to manipulate subconscious
drives and instincts to sell products. Most run less than a minute, but
contain numerous images and quite often a catchy jingle.

Starting a little less than 20 years ago, rock music became a staple of
television ads. At first it was only a few products aimed at a younger target
market. By the end of the last decade, rock-laden advertisements were the
dominant mode of television advertising.

This preconditioning of the MTV audience by television ads was so effective
that one of the first things that the new network had to do was to convince
people it wasn't simply one big advertisement. To do this, the brainwashers
and profilers of public opinion helped push MTV into the "advant guard," to
provide bizarre images that were beyond the ken of "normal" television. This
meant pushing "new music" or socially outlandish music, such as heavy metal,
and performers who outraged, such as Madonna, Prince, and Michael Jackson.

The image of Madonna, clutching her breasts and crotch, wearing leather bras
and panties as outergarments, helped define the image of MTV well apart from
the television mainstream, and its tame, by comparison, advertisements.

But it is important to remember that Madonna, herself, was and is not what is
being marketed or sold through her MTV and other promotion. "I am selling a
point of view," she once told an interviewer. And what is her point of view?
In another interview about a previous video, "Express Yourself," in which she
appeared chained to a bed, writhing luridly for the camera, she stated, "I
have chained myself. There wasn't a man that put that chain on me.... I was
chained to my desires. I do everything by my own volition. I'm in charge,
O.K.?"

The video promoting this self-crippling emotionalism won an award from MTV,
that institutional authority of the popular culture.


               Virtual Reality: Electronic LSD for the New Age

In this section, we are going to take a look at the future your brainwashers
have in store for you. What we are about to describe represents the
culmination of more than 40 years of mass media efforts to turn our
population into a bunch of yahoos. The Freudian brainwashers from the
Tavistock Institute and similar places have zeroed in on your moral and
intellectual weakness. They have offered you {entertainment} as an {escape}
from the tension and horrors in modern life, as disseminated from Hollywood
and television. You have been urged to follow {popular opinion} as
represented by these media, rather than seek the truth, and, in your moral
and intellectual weakness, you walk down one of the many similar, controlled
paths they offer. The more you watch, the more reality recedes into fantasy,
and your capacity reason is destroyed. the not-too-distant future, they are
going to offer you a deal that they think you can't and won't refuse. You
have been {watching} fantasy projected into your home through your television
and in movie theaters. The technology is already available to allow you to
{enter} those fantasies, to become an active participant, or even better yet,
to create your own personal fantasy world that will be so real as to fool
your senses into believing it is real.

After more than 40 years of coaxing you to turn on your television sets, your
brainwashers are now going to, to use terminology appropriately borrowed from
the psychedelic drug counterculture, {turn you on} to {virtual reality}, a
new, legal drug in the guise of technology, more powerful than LSD.

In mid-May, tens of millions of Americans got their first look at virtual
reality in a four-day, prime time television miniseries, {Wild Palms},
produced by Oliver Stone. Set in a vaguely fascistic society in the first
decade of the next millennium, the movie showed characters wearing special
sunglasses interacting with very realistic holograms of projected fantasy
worlds. The actual state of the art of the technology is much more crude and
cumbersome, but the seductive promise of {Wild Palms} is already present.


Putting on the Mask

A man is standing on a platform in a small room. On his head, he wears what
appears to be a pair of goggles, completely enclosed and containing a small
stereo and liquid crystal display screens. There is something extending from
the goggles that roughly resembles a set of stereo earphones. The goggles and
the earphones are firmly attached to the head, and from each, numbers of
wires extend, passing from the room to an unseen enclosure outside.

On his hands, and extending up his arm, the man wears thin gloves. Visible
on the gloves and the arm are what look like sensors. >From the gloves,
there extend wires which are suspended from the ceiling and then travel, like
the other wires from the goggles, to an unseen location.

The room is bare, its walls empty. It is well lit, but the man in the goggles
cannot see the light. Inside the goggles, the man sees a three-dimensional
world, filled with colored objects. As he moves his head, his orientation in
this world-within-the-goggles changes.

Suddenly, what appears to be a dragon lunges towards him. He turns to his
side, and as he does he points a hand in the air. Suddenly, he is flying
above the dragon. In his other hand he holds a sword, and pointing the other
hand downward, he swoops toward the dragon, plunging the sword into the
creature. Through the earphones, he hears the sound of the sword piercing the
dragon. The dragon falls to the ground, slain by our gloved hero.

The man moves his foot, and, looking down, he sees it placed in conquest on
the dragon.

The room is still empty. The man hasn't moved from the small platform. All
that has been described has taken place in what is called {cyberspace}, a
computer-generated realm that exists {inside a person's brain}, a realm where
nothing is real, but everything is {perceived} to be real. Welcome to
{virtual reality}.

What has been described could have taken place at research labs at Stanford
University, the University of North Carolina, MIT's Media Lab, or a number of
other locations. There is already a significant network of individuals and
laboratories working on what has been labeled "VR."

The technology, even based on the latest and fastest computers and
minaturized video equipment, remains crude. The reality is not yet "real" in
terms of graphic representation, and certainly not as real as the holograms
of {Wild Palms.} Other sensations, including touch and smell, are being
worked on. But with some of the largest electronics companies, such as
Fujitsu and Sony, backed by the Hollywood entertainment mafia, including the
Disney Studios, as well as several governments, willing to front the research
and development bill, improvement will come quickly. In less than a decade,
they plan to have virtual reality "fantasy worlds" in locations throughout
the United States, with some as large as the present Disney World
configurations.

At this moment, some crude versions of virtual reality "games" are being
test-marketed in a video arcade setting. But, although there has been a
barrage of international publicity to herald this new technology, direct
public access has been limited, by cost and other factors, to a small insider
group and to those involved in the research itself. That will change in the
fall, when a major mass marketing of the first crude VR systems will begin.

Ultimately, perhaps within the next 10 years, it is planned that each home
should have its own version of goggles (called head mounted displays or HMDs)
and gloves, linked to programs run on ultra-fast personal computers. The
first "home" programs will be much like current video game cartridges or
computer games. Later there will be more choices available and even later
still, the choices will be "self-programmable."


What's Going On

VR "is an alternate reality filling the same niche otherwise filled by
physical reality," says Jaron Lanier, the dread-locked 34-year-old whose
company, VPL Research, Inc., makes the DataGlove used in VR. "It's created
when people wear a kind of computerized clothing over their sense organs. If
you can generate enough stimuli outside one's sense organs to indicate the
existence of a particular alternate world, then a person's nervous system
will kick into gear and treat the stimulated world as real."

In the dragon-slaying scene described earlier, the wires led to a very fast
computer, which, through the use of programmed algorithms, generated
three-dimensional imagery, projected onto the LCD monitors placed in front of
each eye. Sounds were sent into the stereo earphones. Other wires also
connected to sensors which determined the orientation of the person's head
and hands, sending that information back to the computer, which in turn
projected the appropriate "interactive" visual images. The DataGloves also
contain sensors, which transmit directional prompts, serving as commands in
the computer program, which are translated into images on the LCD "eye
screens."

VR systems are limited by their ability to produce sharp, lifelike images on
the tiny video screens, and by the lag time between the transmission of human
interactions with those images and their appearance on the screens. "It's now
somewhere between a dream and cartoon," said one VR programmer recently,
describing the current "state of the art."

In the future, higher speed computers will reduce the lag time to be almost
seconds or less. There are plans to bypass the cumbersome HMD equipment,
replacing the tiny screens in the clumsy goggles with a system that will
transmit images {directly onto the retina} -- the equivalent of the {Wild
Palms} sunglasses; there are already experiments taking place with this new
technology, called retina imprints.

"The time will come when you will go and look at something and there won't be
any way to distinguish between whether it's something that's living, whether
it's artificial, whether it's controlled by another intelligence," says Eric
Gullichsen, the cofounder of another VR "shop," Sense8, and the person
credited with figuring out how to add the "third" dimension to virtual
worlds. "Those kind of distinctions won't mean anything ten or twenty years
in the future."

In our discussions with Tavistock brainwashers about audio-visual stimula and
television, they described {passive} media.

Movies, especially with the addition of sound and color, projected
larger-than-life "virtual" images on a screen. This caused the viewer to
suspend judgment, and allowed his mind to relate to the artificial reality
projected on the screen. The mass brainwashing effect occurred in part
because of the shared experience in the theater -- many people sharing the
same artificial reality giving a sense of {hyper-reality}.

In this state of {suspended judgment}, Hollywood creates a nonrational
dialogue, one based on the substitution of {emotional response} for reason.
This coheres in Freudian terms with the unleashing of the id, or the most
infantile mental state, through appeals to the carnal and other instinctual
aspects of the personality.

Television brought the power of Hollywood brainwashing techniques into the
living room. Still, for all its new technology, from a brainwashing
standpoint, television works the same way as the Hollywood film.

Back in the early 1970s, Tavistock's Fred Emery predicted that there would be
an increasing tendency to seek fuller immersion in the brainwashing
experience. Ultimately, he said, larger and larger screens, with greater and
greater resolution, would be made available and be sought by viewers, who
would be "pulled toward the screen."

But the interaction was still passive viewing. One could make bigger screens
and more real images, such as the new high definition television systems,
with surround sound, replicating theater experience, but the viewer would
still only be drawn {closer} to the screen, with the screen representing both
a barrier and an apparent limit to the scope of the interface between the
human subject and his brainwashing medium.

Virtual reality collapses that physical barrier. It places the person {inside
the images on the screen}. The screen is now dissolved, and you {interact}
with the artificial world, changing it by your actions.

In much the same way as is done with so-called hard brainwashing, VR systems
{shut off contact with the real world completely}. There are no {outside}
stimuli to interfere with the brainwashing process, making it easier for the
mind to be "fooled" by the computer-generated VR "cues."

Psychological studies of the effects of immersion in VR worlds for extended
periods of time, show that despite the lack of precise coherence with
real-time experience, and the "cartoonish" imagery of most existing VR
programs, the experience is powerfully {addicting}.

In addition, while "quick" VR experiences appear to produce little or no
disorienting effect, with almost instantaneous readjustment to the "real
world," longer or repeated use produces {disassociation} and even {panic}. VR
controllers suggest that there be people available to serve as "`guides" and
"reorienters" for this initial period. They hypothesize that, once large
numbers of people get used to VR, they will be able to handle it on their
own. The same was once said of hallucinogenic drugs.


Electronic LSD

Nearly 50 years ago, the degenerate writer and social psychologist Aldous
Huxley presented a vision of a future world in which experiences,
manufactured through the use of a drug called {soma}, and technology, would
be able to keep a population satiated and controlled. The "feelies" of {Brave
New World} made it possible for each person to create his own fantasy,
avoiding the reality of their controlled existence. The power to control such
experience, wrote Huxley, is the power to control society.

In the book {Brave New World, Revisited}, written in the late 1950s, Huxley
states that {soma} was a religion, "a way of justifying God's way to man."
Just like a religion, Huxley wrote, "the drug had the power to console and
compensate, it called up the vision of another, better world, it offered
hope, strengthened faith and promoted charity." And it did so without dogma
or any act of reason on the part of its initiates. This unreasoned, but
"higher," consciousness is the brave new world, he said.

In a very real sense, {Brave New World} was a cookbook for Tavistock's
brainwashers for the 1960s drug-rock-sex counterculture. The combination of
mass-media entertainment, especially television, with the dissemination of
psychedelic drugs, such as mescalin and LSD, was used to create a
counterculture that elevated "feelie" experiences over reason.

"In LSD-25 (lysergic acid diethylamide)," Huxley wrote in 1957, "the
pharmacologists have recently created another aspect of soma -- a perception
improver and vision producer.... This extraordinary drug ... has the power to
transport people into another world. In the majority of cases, the other
world to which LSD-25 gives access is heavenly; alternately, it may be
purgatorial or even infernal. But positive or negative, the lysergic acid
experience is felt by almost everyone who undergoes it to be profoundly
significant and enlightening. In any event, the fact that minds can be
changed so radically at so little cost to the body is altogether
astonishing."

From the mid-1950s through the early 1970s, several millions of doses of LSD
and similar hallucinogenic drugs were distributed, mostly for free,
throughout the United States, many under the secret CIA MK-Ultra project.

Studies conducted by the Tavistock Institute and allied networks of the
college users of psychedelics in the 1960s found a disturbing number of cases
of total dysfunctionality. Repeated LSD use produced a tendency toward actual
psychosis, the kind that required institutional treatment. The drug, while
useful to a brainwashing process for its tendency to produce a disassociated,
"decentered" state in its users, also produced often uncontrollable
aggressiveness and suicidal behavior patterns.

This was clearly not Huxley's "feelie," whose effects could be controlled and
predicted, and whose usage could be generalized to a population much larger
than the small percentile of LSD users, even if Huxley, who himself became an
"acid head," didn't realize it at the time.

With the advent of virtual reality, the "era of `feelies' is on the horizon,"
writes Howard Rheingold in his book {Virtual Reality}. Rheingold points out
that the "brave new world" in the making will be much closer to that imagined
in the 1984 science fiction "cult" book {Neuromancer} by William Gibson.

In Gibson's future, one plugs a computer chip, called a "stim," directly into
the brain, producing the images of an interactive, self-chosen fantasy world.
It is as simple as popping a CD into a disc player. The "stims," says Gibson,
are movies or videos for the senses.

Most often, the stims are preprogrammed, but it is also possible to become a
"rider" on someone else's reality, as it happens, through the central nervous
system of this brainwashers' dream world -- the Matrix, the global
communications and computing infrastructure.

The new realm of consciousness thus created Gibson dubs {cyberspace} -- "a
consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate
operators."

The term {cyberspace} is now the term used to describe the virtual worlds
where those experiencing VR "go."

The guru and chief salesman of VR is Dr. Timothy Leary, the same man who was
dubbed the "pied piper of LSD" in the 1960s, the man whose phrase "turn on,
tune in and drop out" became a slogan of the counterculture.

"I have finally discovered a way to produce mass consensual hallucinations,"
he proclaimed two years ago, speaking of VR. Leary was a trained
neo-Freudian psychologist until he was picked up by Tavistock and one of its
top operatives, R.D. Laing, to popularize the LSD experience. Now, Leary goes
from meeting to meeting, forum to forum, to preach the wonders of the coming
"virtual worlds."

"There are no limits to virtual reality," he says, echoing his raps of the
1960s on LSD. "The donning of computer clothing is as significant as the
donning of outer clothing was in the Paleolithic."

In another location, a forum in New York City, he gives a more
"revolutionary" rap -- Virtual reality is "the ultimate empowerment of the
individual," something that we just dreamed about in the 1960s, he says.
"Virtual reality means we won't have to lug our bodies around anymore," he
cries out. "The only function of the body will be for acts of grace! Barriers
of class and geography will fall. Kids in the inner city will be moving their
brains anywhere they like. Ninety percent of all travel will be
unnecessary...."

The choice of Leary as a salesman for VR is quite deliberate. Tavistock and
their Frankfurt School allies are attempting to build off the drug
counterculture of the 1960s, and he is one of the most visible, living links
to that degenerate past. His connection predictably caused the media to label
VR, "electronic LSD," as was done in a front-page article in the {Wall Street
Journal}.

Article after article hypes VR as the "ultimate trip," a {legal} drug, with
the allure of the illicit LSD and the same promise of "expanded
consciousness" but with none of the {apparent} drawbacks.

The characterization in the media coverage of the "sci-fi" nature of VR, also
adds to the mystique. "We are creating the worlds of Buck Rogers and beyond,"
said a VR exponent at a symposium on the subject. "And they said that it
could only be done with drugs! Well, they were wrong."

Meanwhile, Lanier and some others try to stress the "difference" between LSD
and VR. "The idea of spacing out on virtual reality is absurd," Lanier stated
in an interview. "VR is a medium. It affects the world outside your sense
organs and that's all. It has nothing to do with the brain chemistry or your
state of being. If one becomes euphoric in virtual reality, it would be
because you are reacting to the outside world that way. The first moment of
freedom is always ecstatic, but after that you are on your own. Actually I am
unqualified to talk about the subject because I have never taken LSD. I don't
take drugs and I don't drink alcohol."

Jaron Lanier, the man who only looks like a Rastafarian drug freak, says that
he wants to take VR out on tour, to reach the people. It would be modelled on
the psychedelic bus tour of the 1960s, says Lanier, where Ken Kesey and his
"Merry Pranksters" handed out huge numbers of doses of LSD for the Mk-Ultra
project.

A very large number of those involved with VR research either did or continue
to take drugs to "expand their consciousness."

"I am at liberty to say that I am an acid head and do not pretend to be
otherwise," said John Perry Barlow, a sci-fi author and lyricist for the
Greatful Dead heavy metal rock group, who is a close friend of fellow
Deadhead, Jaron Lanier. "Most people I know on this scene have taken
psychedelic drugs. I just don't think this culture is being particularly
honest about it."

Every now and then, one of the VR cultists lets it all hang out. Such was the
case at a 1990 "Cyberthon" conference, appropriately held in San Francisco,
the former capital of the psychedelic counterculture. Following a
presentation by Leary, Terrance McKenna, who was described as "an
ethnobiologist who studies natural hallucination," rose to address the
gathering of scientists, VR fanatics, and new initiates in the form of what
was once called a "stoned rap."

"It's kind of a strange idea but people have been doing VR for about 125,000
years. They just called it psychedelic drugs." As he was speaking, various
images were projected on a blank moving screen, described by one observer as
a "shifting snake of chaos changing from pink to lavender to white."

"We need to recapture the conspiratorial ambiance of the dope-dealing past
that we keep trying to leave behind," McKenna continued. "Because it is a
conspiracy, make no mistake about it...."


The Real Conspiracy

But the conspiracy to which McKenna refers is not a bunch of drug dealers, or
even those, like himself, who are peddling the shared "consensual
hallucinations" of VR. The people who control both Leary and McKenna, and who
will ultimately make the decisions on the mass marketing of this electronic
LSD are those same forces that control the mass media and television. The
real conspiracy is that of the oligarchical interests who run the stables of
brainwashers at Tavistock and the social engineers and philosophers of the
Frankfurt School and all its offshoots throughout the world. It is an open
conspiracy, as we have explained, whose object is to destroy Western
Judeo-Christian civilization.

The intention of this higher conspiracy is to use the technology of virtual
reality to further reduce man to a nonhuman, irrational, and hedonistic
beast.

Virtual reality can alter the way an individual relates to the world he lives
in. As with a drug experience, VR reduces the capacity and the desire to know
right from wrong and truth from falseness. The personality becomes intensely
self-centered, with a distorted worldview.

Under such conditions, one's mental state plunges toward the most infantile
and most beastlike, which in the Freudian paradigm is called the id. Within
that state reside "pit" figures, horrible dreamlike images relating to bad
experiences in childhood and thereafter. Reason disappears, replaced by
fixations on objects and things, as is the case with young children.

Tavistock-sponsored studies of LSD experiences revealed that the so-called
"blissful" states often spoken about were nothing but dreamlike fantasies of
a childlike nature. The "expanded consciousness" is really a {severely
reduced consciousness}, a reduction of the powers of reason.

Fundamental to Western Judeo-Christian civilization is the idea of man being
created in the living image of God, {imago viva Dei}. It is not our outward
appearance that makes us like God. Each of us contains within himself the
divine spark of creative reason and it is in respect to that capacity alone
that we are made in the image of our Creator, as distinguished from all the
other species.

The nurturing of that divine spark is the foremost responsibility of both
society and the individual. If we fail to develop our creative capacities to
the fullest extent possible, and to apply those capacities to act for the
Good, then we commit a sin. LSD or a virtual reality "drug" experience, by
impairing or destroying that power of morally informed reason, makes us less
human.

The perverse counterculture proudly proclaims this impairment of human
potential, this triumph of the id, as the "desired" human state. Listen to
the "rap" from Jaron Lanier:

    "As babies, each of us had an astonishing liquid infinity of imagination.
    That butts up to the stark reality of the physical world, which resists
    us. That the baby's imagination cannot be realized ,that we only learn to
    live with when we decide to call ourselves adults. With virtual reality
    you have a world with many of the qualities of the physical world, but it
    doesn't resist us. It releases us from the taboo against infinite
    possibilities. That's the reason that virtual reality excites people so
    much."

The {taboo} that we are to be released from is the power of one's morally
informed conscience to govern the mind and soul. Virtual reality, as it is
to be developed, creates an artificial world in which, we are told, we are
free to do whatever we want because it will have no consequence in the {real
world}. If you want to have sex with your neighbor's wife, well go ahead, and
do it in the virtual world; he won't mind because it's only her
computer-generated image with which you are fornicating.

The infinite possibilities of carnal and sensual gratification (in virtual
sex, complete with a very real orgiastic experience) are to be given the
population, while the {perception} of consequence is removed. VR is thus the
ultimate in {entertainment}.

>From a Freudian or neo-Freudian standpoint, this is the ultimate in the
liberation of repressed desires of the ego and id. With the acting out of
one's repressed fantasies, one is {liberated}, and {free}, according to the
neo-Freudian paradigm, producing a new consciousness that properly redefines
good and evil. It is a universe that is, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche,
"beyond good and evil." Man can do evil without the effect of evil and
therefore purge himself regularly of his innate desire to {be} evil, the
neo-Freudians who speak highly of "virtual experience" argue.

But, if one does evil, even if it is only in the imagination, then one is
sinning against his Creator. He is degrading and debasing himself, in the
name of this {catharsis,} weakening his power to reason. In the virtual
fantasy world there can be no universal truth, only the experience of the
moment. And without universal truth, there can be no reason. If truth is
killed, then Judeo-Christian civilization is killed with it.


A Witches' Brew

This {new consciousness of virtual experience} is exactly what Leary
advocated as the benefit of LSD during the psychedelic revolution. He calls
it a "new spiritualism," but it is merely the old witches' brew of Frankfurt
School philosophy that spawned the counterculture, leaning heavily on Leary's
mentor, R.D. Laing, and the teachings of the pro-Hitler, Freudian renegade
Carl Jung.

According to John Barlow, the Grateful Dead lyricist whose foundation helps
fund VR research and experiments, the intent is to reintroduce the kind of
thinking associated with the 1960s counterculture in a technological mask.
"Drugs are not the issue here," he told an interviewer. "It's the slippery
epistemology that psychedelics induce."

The slippery epistemology of the rock-drug-sex counterculture is now, some 30
years past the so-called Summer of Love of 1967, deeply imbedded within our
popular culture. "You don't have to take psychedelic drugs to have it," he
said, since it dominates our popular culture. This sets the stage for the VR
revolution, Barlow proclaimed.


Truth Is Lies...

{When the truth is found to be lies/ And all the joy within you dies/ Don't
you want somebody to love?/ Don't you need somebody to love?/ You'd better
find somebody to love}

So went the lyrics of one of the popular anthems of the psychedelic
"revolution" by the Jefferson Airplane, whose band members were admitted LSD
users and disciples of Timothy Leary.

The song, which is now played on "golden oldies" radio and one VH-1, "old
folks video," the MTV channel aimed at the baby boomer audience, is
{consciously based} on the teachings of Leary's mentor R.D. Laing, whose
book, {The Politics of Experience}, was the bible of the LSD-drug
counterculture.

A radical Freudian, Laing claimed that truth is determined only by
{individual psychological experience}. All of what the individual was taught
by society, all of its  values, good and bad, all of history that had come
before, had to be "unlearned." In a view coherent with today's "political
correctness" lunacy, Laing argued that any attempt to impose a universal
concept of truth must therefore be false. Society, acting through the nuclear
family, seeks to impose on its youth such a concept of universal truth. This,
Laing says, is an act of aggression against the child, that inhibits the
development of the child's experiential and intuitive powers, which Laing
misidentifies as its sole source of creativity.

As a child, one truly experiences the world, says the psychotic Laing. We
must return ourselves to this infantile state. "The relevance of Freud to our
time," writes Laing in {The Politics of Experience}, "is largely his insight,
and, to a very considerable extent, his demonstration that the ordinary
person is a shriveled, dessicated fragment of what a person can be.

"As adults, we have forgotten most of our childhood, not only its contents,
but its flavor; as men of the world we hardly know of the existence of the
inner world -- we barely remember our dreams, and make little sense of them
when we do; as for our bodies, we retain sufficient proprioceptive sensations
to coordinate our movements and to ensure minimal requirements for biosocial
survival. Our capacity to think ... is pitifully limited; our capacity even
to see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is so shrouded in veils of
mystification that an intensive discipline of unlearning is necessary for
{anyone} who can begin to experience the world afresh, with innocence, truth
and love."

One must reject the social order, reject the concept of society itself to
become whole, to become childlike again, says Laing. This leads to one of
his most infamous and absurd conclusions -- that there is no distinction in
society between the sane and the insane. The only people who are sane, are
those who are labeled as insane. To restore the social balance, the
individual must be driven into insanity. Only from this pschotic state can
one then achieve a new consciousness.

The mode, as he calls it, for achieving this transformation is {fantasy}.
Repeating a theme of several Frankfurt School philosphers, Laing claims that
man must return to his {primitive} roots to seek a higher form of what he
calls spirituality. All primitive religions rely on mystery and fantasy --
often induced and enhanced by drug use -- Laing states. It is in this state
of fantasy that the "higher consciousness" lies.

Laing's stated goal is to create a society based on fantasies of the id,
where each person can be in touch with his {personal fantasy}. One must
attempt to reach the children first, he says, before they "are made absurd"
by their families and religion. Once the children are "turned on," once they
can experience truth as orgiastic love, they can become a force to change all
of society.

Such are the ravings of a dangerous madman. In a society consciously steeped
in the concepts of Judeo-Christian civilization, which places value in the
sovereign creative mind and in the concept of charity, this teaching would be
denounced. But in the 1960s, Laing's ideas were popularized as part of a
movement against civilization and reason itself. Those who listened and
debated the ideas were surrounded by psychedelic drug use and the mass
culture it spawned.

Drugs and LSD were a key part of the rebellion. They were the "proof" that
the "higher concsciousness" that Laing, Leary, and others of this ilk spoke
of could be accessed without formal knowledge. The trip proved that the less
you "knew," the more you understood. The hallucination caused by the drug's
interaction with brain chemistry presented one a view of "Heaven," and
occasionally "Hell," which Leary once claimed showed the futility of trying
to "understand" these concepts from the minds of "great thinkers." Life is
thus reduced to a series of hedonistic experiences.

The last chapter of {The Politics of Experience} is reportedly a record of an
LSD "trip" or several trips, written while Laing was at Tavistock. It ends
with another famous quote of the counterculture, one repeated in various
forums and media:

    "There is really nothing more to say when we come back to that beginning
    of all beginnings that is nothing at all. Only when you begin to lose
    that Alpha or Omega do you want to start to talk and to write, and then
    there is no end to it, words, words, words. At best and most they are in
    memoriam, evocations, conjurations, incantations, emanations, shimmering,
    irridescent flares in the sky of darkness, a just still feasible tact,
    indiscretions, perhaps forgivable...."

    "City lights at night, from the air, receding, like these words, atoms,
    each containing its own world and every other world, Each a fuse to set
    you off....

    "If I could turn you on, if I could drive you out of your wretched mind,
    if I could tell you I would let you know."

More than 25 years later, our society and most individuals live according to
a hedonistic calculus not so terribly different from the teachings of Laing
and Leary. That is why Leary and those who control him are so confident that
they can get you to turn on to their new drug. Their goals have remained
consistent.

"Virtual reality," writes Howard Rheingold, the self-appointed scribe of the
VR revolution, "if inspired and talented people are seized by the vision and
desire to make it so, might become the first wholesome, integrating,
non-pathological form of ecstasy capable of liberating safely the long
repressed Dionysian energies of our heavily Apollian civilization. One answer
to the electronic LSD question is, therefore -- `yes, VR might become the key
to opening the doors of perception, if someone has the grace and good sense
to design it properly."

VR, he concludes, "represents the possibility that someday, in some way,
people will use cyberspace to get out of their minds as well as out of their
bodies."


The Jungian Dream

Carl Jung died 30 years ago, just at the onset of the psychedelic
counterculture which was to give his ideas a new prominence. Now, as we
approach the end of the century, that counterculture has helped shift society
into a new Dark Age based in part on a Jungian paradigm.

Thirty years ago, Jung represented a wild variant of radical Freudianism. He
was denounced as a mystic, an unscientific fraud, and a supporter of the
Nazis, all of which he was. He was, in fact, a raving gnostic, drawing from
early gnostic teachings to devise a psychology that placed man in a universe
ruled by equally powerful mystical gods and devils, which exist within man
himself. Man must learn to {experience} these forces, to accept them, said
Jung, and not to put rational principles in the way of that experience.

This gnostic mysticism drove Jung to praise Hitler as the ultimate leader and
made his theories a useful component of the drug counterculture matrix. Jung
thought he could "explain" what people saw in their LSD trips, their visions,
and provide a {synthetic} explanation for their mental states. The content of
the pit that the drugs summoned forth, the irrational id state, was the
{collective unconscious}, according to Jung. It was composed of mythlike
symbols and images that link man to his more primitive animal-like self.

Jung, whose own debauched lifestyle was well known, asserted that man must
reject the Church and its false teachings, in favor of a mystical notion of
God. Echoing Freud, he wrote that man creates god and devil in his own image;
but, separating his gnosticism from Freud's atheism, Jung wrote that these
images of gods and devils are not illusions, but the true self of the
collective unconscious.

Jung argued that man needs his myths and spirituality to maintain his sanity;
to call such things simple illusion and to seek to have man break with them,
as Freud had argued, would produce dysfunctional psychosis.

There was more to man's life than libido, the sexual drive, and more to the
shaping of personality than early childhood, Jung stated. There is a drive to
"individuation" and toward "self-awareness" that causes man to desire to
become part of something larger than himself. This, said Jung, could be a
social or political movement. The truth of such movements, and their power,
depended on whether they appealed more or less directly to the {collective
unconscious}.

Ripping up the Freudian paradigm and its view that the unconscious is the
personal repository of childhood ideas and wishes repressed by society, Jung
said that the collective unconscious, the infantile id, was the location of
all universal processes. The images of the id, which he called {archetypes},
reveal the essential dualistic fight within the soul between good and evil.
The Christian God is false, according to Jung, because it is Good; the true
God is as man is -- both good and evil. Thus, each archetype has its opposite
or its dark side.

Man relates unconsciously to society through this struggle between good and
evil, Jung wrote. The Judeo-Christian view of the sacred responsibility of
the sovereign individual to act for the Good, Jung claimed, is a source of
discomfort and pyschosis, since it denies that man and God contain within
them evil.

"Why have we not long since discovered the unconscious and raised up its
treasure house of images?" Jung asks. "Simply because we had a religious
formula for everything psychic -- and one that is far more beautiful and
comprehensive than immediate experience.... All man's strivings have
therefore been directed towards the consolidation of consciousness.... This
was the purpose of rite and dogma; they were the dams and the walls to keep
back the dangers of the unconscious, the `perils of the soul.'... It is these
barriers, erected in primitive times, that later became the foundations of
the Church. It is also these barriers which collapse when the symbols become
weak with age."

The {collective unconscious} reveals itself in our dreams, Jung claimed. It
is accessed only when our guard is down, when the societal barriers that
inhibit it are removed, and that occurs most readily in dreams.

Only by replicating the dream state can man come into contact with his
collective unconscious. At that moment, the barriers erected by religious
teachings and its moral conscience collapse, Jung claimed. Man must learn not
to fear the collapse of these barriers. On the other side lies another world,
of shadows and images, of nightmares and fantasy, but only by experiencing it
can we "know" the Creator. If religion stands between us and such experience,
if society stands between us and the new spirituality, then we must change
the Church and its teachings, and change society. "Our concern with the
unconscious," Jung wrote, "has become the vital question for us -- a question
of spiritual being or non-being."

To the extent that science, with its hyperrationalism, tries to impose its
explanations and ethos on society, it becomes the enemy of civilization,
Jungians claim. Only through the recognition of the dimension of the
collective unconscious can science serve the interests of man. Science must
rely on the unconscious, on fantasy, on dreams, to create ideas of value for
man.

Jung was obsessed with expounding on his differences with Freudian theory,
but when all was said and done, they amounted to a matter of degree. Both
agreed that man was at root an animal, and that the view of Judeo-Christian
teachings that separated man from the animal was false and an act of
arrogance. Where Freud attacked the Church from the hyperrationalist,
Aristotelian view of the Enlightenment, separating questions of the spirit
from science, Jung sought to coopt the Church's following with a new mystical
spirituality, which subordinated science to mysticism. But even that is not
{new}, but merely a reworking of gnostic heresy.

The cooption is working, with heavy support from the mass media. Jungian
thought can now be found everywhere there is the promotion of the New Age. It
is found in beer commercials that talk of the collective unconscious, while
popular movies, like the {Star Wars} trilogy, are consciously built on
Jungian imagery and ideas. Books on Jungian topics have been climbing on
bestseller lists. His ideas are being incorporated into the work of a growing
number of Christian clergy; Jungian institutes are training both Catholic and
Episcopal priests by the tens of thousands, while Jung's archetypes and
discussions of the collective unconscious are being incorporated into sermons
and pastoral counseling programs, according to a recent magazine article on
the subject of the Jungian "rebirth" in the United States.

"It fits so much better than the Freudian approach, because Freud was an
atheist," the Rev. Philip Blake of the Jesuit Retreat House of Los Altos,
California told {U.S. News and World Report}. "I live my life according to
the Gospel message, not according to Carl Jung. But it's a help to me."

Jungian concepts are central to the next stage of societal degeneration
involving the mass-marketed personal fantasy machines of {virtual reality}.
Those heavily involved with the VR revolution live and breathe Carl Jung and
his mystical ideas. They see their new technology as the key to opening the
door to the Jungian dream world, to creativity as they understand it. It is
totally coherent with the LSD-nature of the new technology.

"In the future I see [virtual reality] as a medium of communication where
people improvise worlds instead of words, making up dreams to share," said VR
guru Jaron Lanier in a recent magazine interview. "An ideal VR conversation
would have the continuity and spontaneity of a jazz jam, but the literal
content that's missing. Things being made would be objects -- houses,
chemical processes, or whatever the conversation is about. {It would be a
reality conversation, an objective form of the Jungian dream, the collective
unconscious. You might call it the collective conscious.}"

It was no mean trick to popularize the ideas of the Nazi mystic Carl Jung. At
the height of the 1960s-70s LSD counterculture, his followers numbered only a
few, and the majority of the American population was not familiar with him.

But while people did not know the "mumbo-jumbo" of Jung's pagan ravings, they
were already getting a heavy dose of the symbolism, through the mass
entertainment media. Movies and television bombarded the population with
Jungian symbolism, creating mythological worlds of "superheroes" and
"supervillains," while introducing character representations of {archetypes}
such as the "Great Mother" or the "Wise Old Man" or the "Maiden" or the
"Eternal Youth."

This was no coincidence -- The largest single concentration of Jungians in the
United States continues to be in Hollywood itself, where numbers of
producers, directors, actors and actresses and screen writers underwent
Jungian "dream therapy."

In addition, so-called musicians, lyricists, and others on the rock scene,
influenced by the LSD experience, gravitated toward Jungian thought, and
inserted his symbolism into their songs.

To create the basis for a new paganism, somebody had to take Jung's ideas and
repackage them into a coherent ideology, one that could play off the existing
mass brainwashing of the population through television and other popular
entertainment. The salesman for this was the late Joseph Campbell, who
self-consciously positioned himself to "retell the story of man." Campbell,
who looked the part of the Wise Old Man, especially in his later years,
offered a lying history of religion as comparative mythology. Regarded as
the world's foremost authority on myths, he wove a tale that denied the
superiority of western Judeo-Christian thought, bidding man to seek the
wisdom from primitive myths.

Where Jung and even Freud reached a relatively small immediate audience,
Campbell, with the support of pagan mass media, reached more than 100 million
people worldwide. In the mid-1980s, American public television produced a
lecture series that was its most popular show in history. It was turned into
an international best-selling book, and has been distributed to schools and
campuses and the home through videos as means to reach additional millions.

Myths, Campbell stated, in his famous PBS interview with a self-proclaimed
convert to his thinking, Bill Moyers, "are clues to the spiritual
potentialities of human life.... I think that what we are seeking is an
{experience} of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely
physical plane will have resonances within our innermost being and reality,
so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive."

A myth, says Campbell, paraphrasing Jung, is "society's dream. The myth is a
public dream...." Directly citing Jung, he explains that the content of myths
is the archetype, which he calls a "ground idea."

"Jung spoke of archetypes of the unconscious," Campbell tells Moyers, saying
that they could be misidentified as "elementary" ideas. "|`Archetype' is the
better term because the elementary idea suggests headword. Archetype of the
unconscious means that it comes from below." He says that the difference
between Jung's archetypes and Freud's complexes is that Jung, in Campbell's
mind, correctly saw that it is not the mind alone that creates them, but that
they are manifestations of the organs of the body and its mystical powers.
They are "biologically grounded," and as such, Campbell claims, hold a higher
meaning than mental abstractions.

Myths, Campbell stated, give expression to these biological "truths." Truth
that is biological is more powerful than reason per se, because it speaks to
man's innate animal characteristics. The power of the myth, he says, is to
teach us through the "hero," the power to overcome "dark passions, the hero
symbolizes our ability to control the irrational savage within us." Echoing
both Freud and Darwin, he argues that man cannot deny his biological heritage
as an animal; he decries Christian thought that denies this, and posits man
as something higher. To truly experience life, one must, he says, "admit
within ourselves the carnivorous, lecherous fever" that is endemic to human
nature. That fact is the truth of all valid myths, Campbell tells Moyers.

Because myths are biologically determined and passed on, there can be no
question of judging their {individual} truth. One need only adopt appropriate
symbols for the appropriate time and location in human history, Campbell
claims. The evil cult of Isis-Osiris, he states, has a myth that is as valid
as the Christ "myth." They are {shared mythologies}, Campbell lies, with one
flowing back and forth into the other. It is only outdated religious dogma of
the Church that prevents one from seeing this, he claims.

Myths, Campbell tells Moyers, serve four functions:

    "The first is the mystical function.... Myth opens the world to the
    dimension of mystery, to the realization of mystery that underlies all
    forms."

"The second is the cosmological dimension," Campbell states, "the dimension
with which science is concerned -- showing what shape the universe is, but
showing in such a way that the mystery again comes through." In that way,
myth undermines belief in the knowability of the universe, and forces science
to compromise with more "profound truths" such as the raving lunacy of
environmentalism, for which Campbell was a leading advocate.

"The third function is the sociological one -- supporting and validating a
certain social order," he says. Judeo-Christian thought is "outdated," he
said, speaking to the ideas of two or more millennia ago and not to today. In
his mind, since there is no universal truth governing our ideas, one can
"fine tune" and even change these ideas, as appropriate. We need a new
religious myth, with new symbols, not the "tired" images of the Renaissance,
maybe even a pantheism, that will enable us "to get back into accord with our
wisdom of nature and realize again our brotherhood with the animals and with
the water and the sea."

This can be done with new myths and myth technologies, serving the fourth
function of mythologies:

    "the pedagogical function, of how to live a human lifetime under any
    circumstances. Myths can teach you that."

George Lucas, the creator of the {Star Wars} trilogy, was a self-proclaimed
disciple of Campbell and Jung, who openly acknowledged his debt to Campbell
for the content of {Star Wars}. In fact, part of the Campbell PBS series was
filmed at Lucas's Skywalker Ranch in California.

Campbell praised Lucas's efforts in myth-making, stating that the film series
contains the necessary symbols and pedagogy to teach a new consciousness.
Lucas, he told Moyers, has put "the newest and most powerful spin" on the
story of the hero.

Lucas consciously constructed {Star Wars} as myth using all the Jungian
archetypes, as Campbell pointed out, almost without any "masks" -- the Wise Old
Man, who is the sage of the ages, in both its positive (ObeKnobe) and
negative (Darth Vader), the Maiden (Princess Ilyia), the Eternal Youth (Luke
Skywalker), etc. This direct access to myth through the archtype accounts for
the films' power to "teach," claims Campbell, because it is a story that
rings "true," appealing to the infantile, collective unconscious in both the
young and old.

"Certainly {Star Wars} had a valid mythological perspective," he told Moyers.
It shows the state as a machine and asks, `is the machine going to crush
humanity or serve humanity?'... It's what Goethe said in {Faust} but which
Lucas has dressed up in the modern idiom -- the message that technology is
not going to save us. Our computers, our tools are not going to be enough.
We have to rely on our intuition...."

The high point of the first movie, he says, comes when Luke understands that
true knowledge "lies within" and that he must "turn off his computer and
trust his feelings."

Not suprisingly, one of the biggest promoters of virtual reality is George
Lucas, who sees VR as the technology that can teach Campbell's ideology to
the masses.

For Campbell, the Word of God, the Logos, has become the mystical
incantation, "May the Force be with you," in the words of ObeKnobe.

Just as they are steeped in Jungian thought and symbolism, the VR cult looks
at what it's doing through Campbell's perverse and seductive mirrors. They
cite Campbell's work to "prove" that the essence of all religious experience
is use of illusion or a "virtual reality" to "attract the attention of an
initiate to a deeper reality, underlying the appearances of the mundane world
-- a reality that differs not in the form or matter or energy of its
manifestation, but in the way the initiate is conscious of it," according to
Howard Rheingold, in {Virtual Reality}.

Citing Campbell's ideas as his basis, Rheingold claims that virtual reality
combines the two sides of the Delphic cult of Apollo-Dionysius -- the
"rational" of the Apollian experience with the power and ecstasy of the
Dionysian experience:

    "There are moments of Dionysian ecstasy when the delight is to see and
    feel and hear the form as it shatters and smashes. The sublime expression
    of power and force that shatters all things and brings forth all things
    is the two points of view. One ascends the dynamism and the other ascends
    the formal principle. But for the work of art, you must have both."

Rheingold, again citing Campbell, says that the purpose of the VR illusion is
to wrest man from his rational consciousness so that the unconscious and
other Dionysian power can take over. He quotes a Campbell lecture on a
Dionysian ritual as describing the "inner truth" of VR:

    "There was a metal bowl associated with the initiation that had been
    mathematically reconstructed. The concavity of the bowl was such that a
    young man looking in expecting to see his own face would see instead the
    face of an old man, or the mask of an old man held up by the candidate.
    The shock of realization, the death and old age within youth, represents
    the opening of the mind to a logic dimension of his own existence. Not
    becoming fixed on this particular moment of life, the initiate is wakened
    to the course of life. Out of that there will be associated
    restructurings as to the sense of it all. This kind of shock would not be
    experienced if the young man had been told bya friend who had gone
    through the mystery. That is why it was regarded as criminal to betray
    anything of the mysteries. Now, if things like this also were associated
    with a slight hallucinogenic situation in the mind, you can imagine what
    kind of illumination would come through."

    "I have bought a wonderful machine," Campbell told Moyers, "a
    computer.... It's a miracle what happens on that screen. Have you ever
    looked inside one of those things?... You can't believe it. It is a whole
    hierarchy of angels -- all on slats. And all those little tubes -- those
     are miracles. I have had a revelation from my computer about mythology.
    You can buy a certain software, and there is a whole set of signals that
    lead to its aim. If you begin fooling around with signals that belong to
    another system of software, they just won't work.... You must understand
    that each religion is a kind of software that has its own set of signals
    and will work."

Can anyone doubt that what is being talked about is the creation of a new
pagan, primitive religion whose Homeric mode is the technological equivalent
of an LSD experience?

    "After our youngest son had seen {Star Wars} for the twelfth or
    thirteenth time, I said, `why go so often,'|" Moyers, the former White
    House press secretary and "respected" commentator, recounted to his guru,
    Campbell. "He said, `For the same reason you have been reading the Old
    Testament all your life.'"

"He was in the world of myth," Moyers explained.


Getting from Here to There

As the VR people will tell you, the road from here to the virtual world
passes through your child's Nintendo game and your own personal computer
games.

It is estimated that one in every three households in the United States has a
video game unit of some kind, such as Nintendo or Sega Genesis System; in
addition, approximately 10 million portable Nintendo "Gameboy" units, which
are small enough to be carried anywhere, including to school, have been sold,
prior to this last Christmas season.

Nearly every shopping mall in the United States and some of the smaller
"strip" shopping centers, sport a video arcade with all the latest games, on
a much grander scale than is available at home. Almost every bar, pizza
parlor or fast food restaurant has one or more such games, as do airports and
train stations, even some school lunchrooms.

If children are watching less television, reported one recent survey, it is
only because they are playing {more} video and computer games, for longer
periods of time.

It was the television culture that helped addict our kids to these games.
Children who grew up staring for hours at screens and relating to television
screen images were easy targets for a mass-marketed game craze that built off
these images. But unlike television viewing, the games, even the earliest,
crude versions, involved {interaction} with the screen. That interaction
brought the kids and adult players one step closer to entering the virtual
worlds of VR equipment manufacturer Jaron Lanier and his cult.

The video game craze started in the early part of the 1980s with the
introduction of the Atari and Nintendo systems. It appeared to peak at
mid-decade, but has since rebounded strongly with sales now surpassing former
record levels. The rebound is in large part attributable to the infusion of
greater "realism" into the game programs, and greater levels of complexity.
The earliest games had levels of interaction based primarily on a fixedglance
and repeated muscle actions, usually of only the thumb and perhaps other
fingers, and, in that way, were not that much different from "pinball" and
other arcade experiences.

The new games, at least many of the most successful versions, attempt to
force the {mind} into a fantasy world created by the game programs. The level
of involvement is much greater, the brainwashing effect more complete.
Improvements in computer, video, and audio technology allowed for the
addition of MTV-like sound and Disney-like color intensities. These provide
necessary "cues" that link the game experience to other elements of the
popular culture, including television and movie characters. The games have
moved a long way from "Pac Man," to a point where many now involve
interaction with lifelike digitized images of human actors, often from
popular television shows or movies.

All game programs, beyond the simple Pac Man or Space Invaders type, which
revolve solely around eye-hand skill, involve intense role-playing as a mode
of brainwashing. The player becomes a hero, who is given an heroic task to
accomplish within a period of time. He competes against symbolic evil
characters, controlled by the computer program. It all fits quite nicely into
the concept of the Jungian dream, the pagan myths that Joseph Campbell speaks
about.

It is easy to see how one, using these games as a basis, can scramble
societal role images. For example, what if the images of the evil cult of
Isis, the enemy in outlook of Western Christian belief, were represented in
the game as the Good? What if the role your child is to play is as an Isis
priestess or priest and the "evil" that he fights is some character
representing reason?

Such games exist already and are being played by your children and perhaps
even yourself on the computer. There are games in which openly Satanic
figures are represented as the "hero," with the need to summon forth mystical
and magic powers from sorcery to defeat even more evil powers.

This trend started in a big way with the intense role-playing of the Dungeons
and Dragons game two decades ago by college kids. The game, which was acted
out, often over weeks, with roles determined through a rule book, led to a
number of deaths. The players, immersed in Satanic fantasies, often became
psychotic, and started acting out their "roles" in real life.

That game was translated into the first computer role-playing game in 1974.
The game has undergone a technological makeover with realistic graphics, but
its Satanic role-playing premise is still the same. There are at least {10
million} players of the game worldwide, with, on any given day in the United
States, more than 5 million people entering its "virtual" brainwashing world.

"In spite of the economy, business is strong," says an executive of TSR, the
company that markets Dungeons and Dragons. "People would rather do without
other things before they give up their hobby."

There are now hundreds of games like Dungeons and Dragons played on the
computer.

"Enter a wonderous world of magic and fantasy," reads an ad for the CD-ROM
computer game called "Loom." "You'll travel back to the days of the Great
Guilds, when the Guild of the Weavers knew the secret of weaving magic from
the very fabric of reality itself. But a strange power has swept the Weavers
into oblivion. And as the sole surviving Weaver, you have to unravel the
mystery of their disappearance and save your guild and the universe from
unspeakable catastrophe.

"A fully animated fantasy adventure, Loom is an extraordinary role-playing
game that puts the power of magic in your hands.

"You'll make use of musical spells (called drafts) to learn the secret of the
Loom and prevent Ultimate Chaos and her army of the undead from conquering
the world.

"You don't just play Loom, you live it. Your adventure is brought to life
through meticulously detailed 256 color, 3-D graphics and full voice
dialogue."

Granted, not all games are quite this explicit and not all people have access
to this technology. But between the PC games and the new and readily
available arcade games, {most} people already have access to games that are
like this, if not quite as sophisticated. Regardless, all involve
role-playing brainwashing. The point to recognize here is that it is not just
the Nintendo and your kids, but all of you computer nerds and fanatics are
addicted as well to this. Pornographic computer games, which depict digitized
sexual encounters, are the biggest selling computer games, selling even more
than games that simulate sporting events or "test pilot" adventures.

It is estimated that more than 40 million American adults are playing
computer or video games on a daily basis, often, in the case of the computer
games, in their place of work. It's a wonder that people have the time to
watch six to eight hours of television anymore!

Studies have shown that repeated video game playing and some computer game
operations can produce a form of epilepsy, often accompanied by violent
seizures and requiring sedation and psychiatric treatment. Despite this and
other evidence of the harm that is done by these games, a section of the
psychiatric community has been called on to defend them. Recent popular
magazine articles claim that video games help teach kids

"valuable" motor control skills and "reasoning." As they progress through
levels of difficulty in simple games and start playing more complicated video
and computer games, these quacks claim, the players are being "challenged" to
"react quickly to new situations" and to "take actions with consequence."
Parents should not be afraid of the video game playing of their kids, said a
recent popular magazine article, they should join them in their play, making
it a "family experience like the best of television viewing."


Aristotle on a Chip

"The challenge for a game designer is the same as it is for a director of a
film or the author of a book or a play," says David Feldman, whose company
designs computer games and is designing games for the new, advanced Nintendo
systems. "You've got to get the audience to suspend its disbelief."

Video games, interactive video, and computer games are all programmable
experiences, as is virtual reality. The computer, says author Howard
Rheingold, {cannot} as some people have claimed and continue to claim,
replicate human intelligent thought processes. Creating an artificial
intelligence, the subject of billions of dollars of research, is not what the
people involved with VR or most the designers of computer games are after.
They are not seeking to create artificial intelligence -- they want to alter
the thinking of human beings, in the same way that LSD alters and {degrades}
their thinking.

Can computers think? asks Brenda Laurel, another VR theorist and author of
the book, {Computers as Theater.} The proper answer to that question, she
says, is "who cares?" If computers can be used to alter consciousness, then
why should we care whether they "think" says Laurel, who has worked with AI
theorist Marvin Minksy at MIT.

Laurel makes the observation that the design of spohisticated computer games
and virtual worlds is made possible because computers function according to
{Aristotelian} principles of logic. The most complicated algorithm can never
even come close to simulating human intelligence, she says, but it can
produce a world according to sets of rules.

Computers can "create" like Aristotle does, Laurel writes, by naming what is
there and describing what it does. Action and interaction are programmed
according to simple principles, linear rules, which do not change. Thus,
objects can be placed in a computer world and moved about; they can even be
transformed {within} those worlds. But a computer can never transform those
worlds they create into something else.

Laurel correctly understands that the virtual worlds created are mere objects
of perceptions; they are not complex thoughts, not something beyond the
sensual. Like a true Aristotelian, she states that this is all there is to
the world. What else is the gnostic or mystical quality of "spirit" or "soul"
which governs the sensual world? Only through an irrational process does one
access the spirit, she claims, since it lies "in the depth of the soul," not
the mind.

Laurel says that the purpose of creating virtual worlds is to produce the
kind of drama explicitly defined by the rules of Aristotle's {Poetics}.
Laurel argues that the virtual experience, and the advanced video game
experience, create a {mimesis}, a combination of vicarious participation and
suspension of belief. If the initiate who enters a virtual world can
successfully accomplish this, then, Aristotle claims, an emotional and
spiritual state of {catharsis} will be produced that will release deep inner
feelings. Harkening back to Freud, Jung, and Campbell, Laurel says that this
"purification of the senses and the soul" will lead to a transformation of
consciousness of the individual.

"It is not enough to imitate life," Laurel writes. "Dramatically constructed
worlds are controlled experiments, where the irrelevant is pruned away and
the bare bones of human choice and situation are revealed through significant
action. The predispositions of such worlds are embodied in the traits and
their characters and the array of situations and forces embedded in their
contexts. If we can make such worlds interactive, where a user's choices and
actions can flow through the dramatic lens, then we will enable an exercise
in the imagination, intellect and spirit that is entirely of a new order."

Creative reason is inherently anti-Aristotelian. The attempt to force reason
into an Aristotelian straightjacket, as described by Laurel, is an act of
deliberate menticide. What she is describing is a form of brainwashing by
computer program -- making a person think like a computer.

Computers cannot represent the transformation of characters of a Schillerian
or Shakespearean drama. Laurel's "dramas" are the role-playing of Dungeons
and Dragons, where Jungian pit images clash with each other, according to
primitive cult rituals. It is a world of gods and goddesses, but without God.
She refers repeatedly to the power of Isis rituals, to the plays of Shiva
rituals, and to the "heightened" consciousness induced by hallucinogenic
drugs. We must learn from the past, she says, to be better able to "program"
for the future.

Meanwhile, people are gradually becoming accumstomed to the new implements of
a VR system. Mattel has already introduced its version of the DataGlove,
called the PowerGlove, as part of a new game system. Sony is preparing to
introduce the first mass-marketed head-mounted personal video montior, the
so-called Visitron. By the time VR systems are ready for the mass market,
people will be wearing their HMDs and gloves.

It won't be long before the public will be ready for virtual reality, or as
Rheingold calls it, "Aristotle on a chip."


Educational Brainwashing

Fujitsu, as part of its research program, is spending several hundred million
dollars to produce "educational" VR systems. They are proceeding from the
radical information theory concept that all learning takes place through
{experience}, as translated into simple interaction between humans and
objects. A VR system, programmed to simulate {any} experience, therefore
represents the ultimate teaching tool, in the minds of these followers of
such "thinkers" as Norbert Weiner and Jean Piaget, on whose observations of
child-learning experiences the new VR programs are being directly modeled.

According to Howard Rheingold, all cultures, both "primitive" and
"civilized," learn and create scientific theories by "pottering around with
natural objects in various combinations." The goal, he claims, is to create
{bricoleur}, using a term of the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, to
signify an "intuitive" technician who plays with concepts and objects.

The term has been picked up in the work of Seymour Papert, a brainwasher and
theorist of "artificial intelligence" whose Media Lab at MIT has received a
$3 million grant from Nintendo to study ways to bring video game technolgy
into the classroom as a "learning device." His efforts are in part
responsible for some of the recent publicity about the "positive" effects of
kids' addiction to mind-destroying video games.

Papert, who spent five years studying child psychology in Switzerland with
Jean Piaget, develops the {bricoleur} concept into a methodology for
educating through computer simulation. He writes in the book, {Mindstorms}:

    "The process reminds one of tinkering -- learning consists of building up a
    set of materials and tools that one can handle and manipulate. Perhaps
    most central of all, it is a process of working with what you've got....
    I suggest that working with what you've got is a shorthand for a deeper,
    even unconscious learning processes.... Here I am suggesting that in the
    most fundamental sense, we as learners are all {bricoleurs}."

    "Let's say that you want to teach students about dinosaurs," says Jaron
    Lanier, conjuring a VR application within this theory. "In virtual
    reality, you can take them to a place where there are dinosaurs. Because
    the child has the power to change reality itself, it is sort of
    super-real to them in a way that the physical world isn't. The child
    cannot only sit on the ground and watch the dinosaur thump past, to see
    how big a T-Rex is, but can actually become a T-Rex and move around
    experiencing the body of a T-Rex, looking down from such a height."

Papert proposes to make a preliterate "child" interface, which will place
children into computer simulations that can be applied to all levels of
education:

    "Stated most simply, my conjecture is that the computer  can concretize
    (and personalize) the formal. Seen in this light, it is not just another
    powerful educational tool. It is unique in providing us with the means
    for addressing what Piaget and many others see as the obstacle which is
    overcome by the passage of the child to adult thinking. I believe that
    this can allow us to shift the boundary separating the concrete and the
    formal. Knowledge that was only accessible through formal processes can
    now be approached concretely. And the real magic comes from the fact that
    this knowledge includes those elements one needs to be a formal thinker."

The education potential of VR, said Fred Brooks, who is also working on
educational VR systems, could furnish a "magical sandbox" and "access to all
the objects of this world and other worlds."

Lyndon LaRouche has spent the last 40 years attacking such concepts of
education and the information theory that stands behind them. In contrast to
the Deweyite experiential learning proposed by the VR cult and people like
Papert, LaRouche, in his recent paper, {On the Subject of Metaphor}, argues
that the key to the educational process is to replicate in the student's mind
the thought processes by which great discoveries in the progress of human
knowledge have been made. The object of education is not to teach particular
facts about objects, nor to cause them to be named in an Aristotelian
fashion, nor to cause the recitation of strings of facts or theories, but to
come to truly know the great minds and how they worked by reproducing the
crucial experiments that led to their fundamental contributions.

The nondeductive solutions to these problems cannot be represented by any
explicitly linear medium, such as communication media, LaRouche states. The
solutions to the crucial experiments are themselves not the object of
education -- It is in the replication of non-deductive, nonlinear {thought
processes} of the original thinker in the mind of the student that real
education takes place. In that way, LaRouche states, in contradistinction to
all who talk of learning facts and theories, the student's mind becomes
populated, not with mere images of formerly alive historical figures, as if
characters in a story, but {knows} each as "{a living, thinking person}" who
is alive within the student's own mental processes.

"Our creative mental processes do not address directly sensory objects per
se," LaRouche writes. "Human thought knows only change; we know only a
thinkable correspondence between a change in our behavior and a correlated
change in the manifest behavior of nature. It is correspondence of the two
Types of change which constitutes the entirety of phsyical science. That
correspondence is what is intelligible for us; we must discover everything
else respecting nature from this approach to the elementary primacy of
change, to the universal space-time of nothing but change."

To communicate this, one needs literate language, not the gibberish of
deconstructionists, symbolists, post-symbolists. Without literate language,
there can be no thought. Lanier and Laurel speak of a new language of
hyperreal images, where gestures and looks substitute for words, where words
are not allowed nor desired. This is not progress but a return to
primitivism, to a technological form of cave-painting.

It is not all that far from here, where we are, to where these brainwashers
want to take us. Think of the latest science fiction or horror movie, and its
images. Or, think of the Disney cartoons, with their intense imagery or an
MTV music video. These are all examples of nonverbal communication. They are
making us more and more bestial, by the day.

I hate the language of words, says Lanier. It leaves so much out. "It leaves
out the experience."

In the Aristotelian universe, there is a past, a present, and a future,
linked together by a linear timeline. The past is essentially dead, to be
studied as a dead object in this universe. The future is a projection, a
nonreal, or in the terms of our discussion, {virtual} world, knowable by
extrapolation from past and present experience.

What is left out of this and what makes it false is the concept of change, as
LaRouche develops, and it is this change that gives meaning to our mortal
existence on the planet. By our individual moral action, we participate in
the process of universal change. Acting in the present, we alter the
relationship of all previous human generations to that present and to the
future, thereby altering the past. Thus, each individual is morally
responsible, not simply for the present and possibly the future, but for the
past.

Virtual reality and "learning" based on it or similar computer technologies
reduces everything to an "at-onceness," as Lanier calls it, echoing Marshall
McLuhan. In so doing, we kill the past, destroy the future, and render the
present morally impotent. Yet that is precisely what those who would misuse
this new technology would do, turning something potentially useful into a
brainwashing tool on behalf of "information theory."


The Good and the Bad

Those who are prepared to mass market their "personal fantasy generators"
have put the oxymoron "virtual reality" into circulation to conjure up the
appropriate images of a "magical" or "sci-fi" future. Stripping away the
psychological baggage and media hype, the core of the computer-video
technology involved in VR systems could be of enormous benefit to mankind.

Some of this benefit has already been realized. For example, using
interactive 3-D graphics, a component of any VR system, it is already
possible to design complex machinery, electronic circuitry, and the like, and
to do so more cheaply and more accurately than before.

Add to this 3-D design capability, the possibility of human interaction to
manipulate computer-generated images, and you create additional
possibilities. In one application, already available, an architect can design
a space, and then, through use of an HMD and DataGlove, can walk through that
space to see how it actually might look in a three-dimensional projection.
He then has the option to redefine the space, on the spot, so to speak,
changing it to meet certain specifications. Once that is done, he can take
his clients on a walk through "their" space, before anything has been built,
making additional modifications.

The application of the technology to medicine has the potential to save
millions of lives. Surgeons can be trained to perform operations on
computer-generated images, using DataGloves and HMDs, augmenting their
training on human cadavers. Meanwhile, three-dimensional imaging techniques
are making possible diagnosis of illnesses without often-dangerous, and
always painful, exploratory surgery. Already, it is possible to use the
technology to "see" the other side of tumors and soon it will be possible for
doctors to figure out how best to aim various radiation treatments so as to
kill only desired cancer cells.

The technology also adds new capabilities to the field of robotics --
computer controlled machines. Military and other research already has humans
wearing HMDs and DataGloves controlling "robot" vehicles and instrumentation
tens of miles away, through what is known in VR "lingo" as {telepresence}.
This will one day enable someone on Earth to assist in the building of space
stations in Earth orbit or even on another planet.

All of these things and more are possible as both computer and video
technology improves. That advancement appears to be simply a matter of the
deployment of sufficient resources.

The problem is that most of the research in what should appropriately be
called interactive, three-dimensional computer simulation overlaps with the
more obscene elements of "virtual reality," and typically, the latter
receives most of the funding. The drive to create "personal fantasy machines"
is what increasingly dominates research in the {entire} field. More
importantly, the radical Jungian politics and ethos of the counterculture
infuse most, if not all, of this work.

The two key companies in the "fantasy" race, as of the end of 1992, are the
Japanese electronics giants Fujitsu and Sony, while the Hollywood interests
of Disney and Time-Warner are pushing hard for the creation of a "virtual
reality entertainment empire."

There will be two elements to this operation, as the technology improves. We
are most likely to see the creation of massive VR "theme parks," along the
lines of Disneyworld, simply because the personal and moderately priced
fantasy machines appear to be a few years off. Fujitsu, which has a
multibillion dollar research project, is working on VR systems, including
ones to be used in schools. Sony, as we reported, will market the first
personal video system, the Visitron. Both are aiming at the personal fantasy
machine. For Sony, which controls Columbia Pictures and Records, it is the
logical next step in progressive mass marketing of brainwashing hardware that
began with the Walkman, moved on to the Discman, and now, portable video.

As Rheingold states in his book, both elements of this marketing drive -- the
software and hardware -- feed off each other, creating a popular interest and
fascination with the new product.

The media is also helping to feed public curiosity, with articles in nearly
every major newspaper and popular magazine appearing within the last two
years, and more on the way. Each article contains enticements for our
pornographic popular culture of things not yet quite attainable, but to be
available in the not-so-distant future.

For example, there is already widespread discussion of "virtual sex" or as
Rheingold calls it, {teledildonics}. Research is under way, we are told, that
will make it possible to have orgasmic sex with virtual partners or virtual
projections of real partners. "It's the solution to the problems with the
libido in a world driven crazy by fear of AIDS," says one of the articles.

For the MTV generation, there is the prospect, in the not so distant future,
of direct interaction with the images of music videos and even new kinds of
audiovisual sensation. Lanier spins out a psychedelic dream of using VR to
create cities by playing music.

The person who invented the DataGlove for Lanier did so with the idea that it
could be used to play an "air guitar" -- an electric Fender Stratocaster in
the air. Together with Lanier, one of the first VR projects they completed
was a Jimi Hendrix simulator!

Meanwhile, some of the bigwigs of the rock business have dived head first
into the new media. Peter Gabriel, Brian Eno, and Laurie Anderson, to name a
few, are deeply involved. There are plans for both live performance using
virtual worlds created on large television screens and for videos produced in
the same manner. MTV has publicized the new technology.

Jerry Garcia, of Timothy Leary's Grateful Dead, is sold on VR and will
promote it to the legions of "deadheads" as more powerful than drugs. Other
rock stars will be brought in as the sales pitch intensifies, including
Michael Jackson, who has already produced a 3-D video experience that is
shown at Disneyworld. Lanier and the others say that within ten to 15 years,
VR will be the preferred means of interaction between the rock culture and
its disciples.


Back to the Future ...

The power that VR holds as a brainwashing tool is its ability to break down
the social conscience of the individual. The real mythology, the Big Lie, is
that such an experience, even if repeated, will have no effect on the
individual in the real world. VR, just like television, turns off the
cognitive processes that enable one to apprehend the real world, substituting
the infantile world of the Jungian dream. The individual's personality is
reshaped by fantasy, to the point that not only can he no longer understand
his relationship to the real world, but he no longer cares.

All of this is right now being studied by the brainwashers of Tavistock and
related institutions. One such brainwasher, Nathaniel Durlach, who works out
of MIT, predicts that VR systems will become the "ideal systems for
experimental psychology. Every university that has an experimental psychology
department is going to have a virtual world system." He indicates that it
will provide the way to monitor human response to {fantasy}, thus enabling
fine-tuning of the brainwashing experience in ways never before imagined.

Mass-marketed VR creates a world in which nothing is real, because nothing
can be understood as true. By eliminating the concepts of universal truth,
there is no truth. And without truth and the search for truth, there can be
no civilization.

In the terms of the Tavistock brainwashers, VR is the most powerful means yet
to degrade the social field, to rip asunder the fabric of Western
Judeo-Christian civilization, plunging man deeper into a New Dark Age. It is
the techological fix that is to allow man to live with the barbarism of the
collapsing and decadent social order. This is where 40 years of television
and mass-media brainwashing has brought us.


Conclusion

This concludes our series on television. If it were used properly, as a means
to enhance the reasoned dialogue between individuals in their search for the
truth, then television would be an enormously useful technology. That its
promise was perverted and turned to an evil use by the oligarchy and their
entertainment mafia, must not alter our assessment of the technology itself.
Our continuing fight must be to express what is human in each of us, by the
creation of new technologies and to use them to act for the Good as our
morally informed reason defines the Good. We must take back technologies
such as television from the wicked who would use them to destroy
civilization. It is to that aim, that this series has been dedicated.


                                  ---===---

Most of this series was originally posted to alt.activism by John Covici
(covici@ccs.covici.com), with the last two installments 14 & 15 distributed
via the LaRouche Issues mailing list. It appeared originally in the LaRouche
affiliated paper The New Federalist.

My hope is that regardless of people's opinion of LaRouche, and some of the
controversial and unorthodox assertions contained in this series, that people
here will nonetheless find it an interesting and thought-provoking criticism
of TV and the mass brainwashing of the entertainment culture.

-Steve Crocker (ad626@yfn.ysu.edu)

"The New Federalist" is published weekly. Subscriptions are available at $20
for 50 issues, $35 for 100 issues.

Make checks payable to:

    New Federalist
    P.O. Box 889
    Leesburg, VA 22075.

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
