[NUJ Bristol] Psyops experiments in television

--=======64052711=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64725519; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Television and the hive mind

by Mack White

http://www.ar.utexas.edu/Staff/White/tv.html

Sixty-four years ago this month, six million Americans became unwitting=20
subjects in an experiment in psychological warfare.

It was the night before Halloween, 1938. At 8 p.m. CST, the Mercury Radio=20
on the Air began broadcasting Orson Welles' radio adaptation of H. G.=20
Wells' War of the Worlds. As is now well known, the story was presented as=
=20
if it were breaking news, with bulletins so realistic that an estimated one=
=20
million people believed the world was actually under attack by Martians. Of=
=20
that number, thousands succumbed to outright panic, not waiting to hear=20
Welles' explanation at the end of the program that it had all been a=20
Halloween prank, but fleeing into the night to escape the alien invaders.

Later, psychologist Hadley Cantril conducted a study of the effects of the=
=20
broadcast and published his findings in a book, The Invasion from Mars: A=20
Study in the Psychology of Panic. This study explored the power of=20
broadcast media, particularly as it relates to the suggestibility of human=
=20
beings under the influence of fear. Cantril was affiliated with Princeton=20
University's Radio Research Project, which was funded in 1937 by the=20
Rockefeller Foundation. Also affiliated with the Project was Council on=20
Foreign Relations (CFR) member and Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)=20
executive Frank Stanton, whose network had broadcast the program. Stanton=20
would later go on to head the news division of CBS, and in time would=20
become president of the network, as well as chairman of the board of the=20
RAND Corporation, the influential think tank which has done groundbreaking=
=20
research on, among other things, mass brainwashing.

Two years later, with Rockefeller Foundation money, Cantril established the=
=20
Office of Public Opinion Research (OPOR), also at Princeton. Among the=20
studies conducted by the OPOR was an analysis of the effectiveness of=20
"psycho-political operations" (propaganda, in plain English) of the Office=
=20
of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the Central Intelligence=20
Agency (CIA). Then, during World War II, Cantril=F7and Rockefeller=20
money=F7assisted CFR member and CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow in setting up=
=20
the Princeton Listening Center, the purpose of which was to study Nazi=20
radio propaganda with the object of applying Nazi techniques to OSS=20
propaganda. Out of this project came a new government agency, the Foreign=20
Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS). The FBIS eventually became the=20
United States Information Agency (USIA), which is the propaganda arm of the=
=20
National Security Council.

Thus, by the end of the 1940s, the basic research had been done and the=20
propaganda apparatus of the national security state had been set up--just=20
in time for the Dawn of Television ...

Experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman reveal that, when a=20
person watches television, brain activity switches from the left to the=20
right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is the seat of logical thought. Here,=
=20
information is broken down into its component parts and critically=20
analyzed. The right brain, however, treats incoming data uncritically,=20
processing information in wholes, leading to emotional, rather than=20
logical, responses. The shift from left to right brain activity also causes=
=20
the release of endorphins, the body's own natural opiates--thus, it is=20
possible to become physically addicted to watching television, a hypothesis=
=20
borne out by numerous studies which have shown that very few people are=20
able to kick the television habit.

This numbing of the brain's cognitive function is compounded by another=20
shift which occurs in the brain when we watch television. Activity in the=20
higher brain regions (such as the neo-cortex) is diminished, while activity=
=20
in the lower brain regions (such as the limbic system) increases. The=20
latter, commonly referred to as the reptile brain, is associated with more=
=20
primitive mental functions, such as the "fight or flight" response. The=20
reptile brain is unable to distinguish between reality and the simulated=20
reality of television. To the reptile brain, if it looks real, it is real.=
=20
Thus, though we know on a conscious level it is "only a film," on a=20
conscious level we do not--the heart beats faster, for instance, while we=20
watch a suspenseful scene. Similarly, we know the commercial is trying to=20
manipulate us, but on an unconscious level the commercial nonetheless=20
succeeds in, say, making us feel inadequate until we buy whatever thing is=
=20
being advertised--and the effect is all the more powerful because it is=20
unconscious, operating on the deepest level of human response. The reptile=
=20
brain makes it possible for us to survive as biological beings, but it also=
=20
leaves us vulnerable to the manipulations of television programmers.

It is not just commercials that manipulate us. On television news as well,=
=20
image and sound are as carefully selected and edited to influence human=20
thought and behavior as in any commercial. The news anchors and reporters=20
themselves are chosen for their physical attractiveness--a factor which, as=
=20
numerous psychological studies have shown, contributes to our perception of=
=20
a person's trustworthiness. Under these conditions, then, the viewer easily=
=20
forgets--if, indeed, the viewer ever knew in the first place--that the=20
worldview presented on the evening news is a contrivance of the network=20
owners--owners such as General Electric (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS), both=
=20
major defense contractors. By molding our perception of the world, they=20
mold our opinions. This distortion of reality is determined as much by what=
=20
is left out of the evening news as what is included--as a glance at Project=
=20
Censored's yearly list of top 25 censored news stories will reveal. If it's=
=20
not on television, it never happened. Out of sight, out of mind.

Under the guise of journalistic objectivity, news programs subtly play on=20
our emotions--chiefly fear. Network news divisions, for instance,=20
frequently congratulate themselves on the great service they provide=20
humanity by bringing such spectacles as the September 11 terror attacks=20
into our living rooms. We have heard this falsehood so often, we have come=
=20
to accept it as self-evident truth. However, the motivation for live=20
coverage of traumatic news events is not altruistic, but rather to be found=
=20
in the central focus of Cantril's War of the Worlds research--the=20
manipulation of the public through fear.

There is another way in which we are manipulated by television news. Human=
=20
beings are prone to model the behaviors they see around them, and avoid=20
those which might invite ridicule or censure, and in the hypnotic state=20
induced by television, this effect is particularly pronounced. For=20
instance, a lift of the eyebrow from Peter Jennings tells us precisely what=
=20
he is thinking--and by extension what we should think. In this way,=20
opinions not sanctioned by the corporate media can be made to seem=20
disreputable, while sanctioned opinions are made to seem the very essence=20
of civilized thought. And should your thinking stray into unsanctioned=20
territory despite the trusted anchor's example, a poll can be produced=20
which shows that most persons do not think that way--and you don't want to=
=20
be different do you? Thus, the mental wanderer is brought back into the=
 fold.

This process is also at work in programs ostensibly produced for=20
entertainment. The "logic" works like this: Archie Bunker is an idiot,=20
Archie Bunker is against gun control, therefore idiots are against gun=20
control. Never mind the complexities of the issue. Never mind the fact that=
=20
the true purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect the rights of=20
deer hunters, but to protect the citizenry against a tyrannical government=
=20
(an argument you will never hear voiced on any television program). Monkey=
=20
see, monkey do--or, in this case, monkey not do.

Notice, too, the way in which television programs depict conspiracy=20
researchers or anti-New World Order activists. On situation comedies, they=
=20
are buffoons. On dramatic programs, they are dangerous fanatics. This=20
imprints on the mind of the viewer the attitude that questioning the=20
official line or holding "anti-government" opinions is crazy, therefore not=
=20
to be emulated.

Another way in which entertainment programs mold opinion can be found in=20
the occasional television movie, which "sensitively" deals with some=20
"social" issue. A bad behavior is spotlighted--"hate" crimes, for=20
instance--in such a way that it appears to be a far more rampant problem=20
than it may actually be, so terrible in fact that the "only" cure for it is=
=20
more laws and government "protection." Never mind that laws may already=20
exist to cover these crimes--the law against murder, for instance. Once we=
=20
have seen the well-publicized murder of the young gay man Matthew Shepherd=
=20
dramatized in not one, but two, television movies in all its heartrending=20
horror, nothing will do but we pass a law making the very thought behind=20
the crime illegal.

People will also model behaviors from popular entertainment which are not=20
only dangerous to their health and could land them in jail, but also=20
contribute to social chaos. While this may seem to be simply a matter of=20
the producers giving the audience what it wants, or the artist holding a=20
mirror up to society, it is in fact intended to influence behavior.

Consider the way many films glorify drug abuse. When a popular star playing=
=20
a sympathetic character in a mainstream R-rated film uses hard drugs with=20
no apparent health or legal consequences (John Travolta's use of heroin in=
=20
Pulp Fiction, for instance--an R-rated film produced for theatrical=20
release, which now has found a permanent home on television, via cable and=
=20
video players), a certain percentage of people--particularly the=20
impressionable young--will perceive hard drug use as the epitome of=20
anti-Establishment cool and will model that behavior, contributing to an=20
increase in drug abuse. And who benefits?

As has been well documented by Gary Webb in his award-winning series for=20
the San Jose Mercury New, former Los Angeles narcotics detective Michael=20
Ruppert, and many other researchers and whistleblowers--the CIA is the main=
=20
purveyor of hard drugs in this country. The CIA also has its hand in the=20
"prison-industrial complex." Wackenhut Corporation, the largest owner of=20
private prisons, has on its board of directors many former CIA employees,=20
and is very likely a CIA front. Thus, films which glorify drug abuse may be=
=20
seen as recruitment ads for the slave labor-based private prison system.=20
Also, the social chaos and inflated crime rate which result from the=20
contrived drug problem contributes to the demand from a frightened society=
=20
for more prisons, more laws, and the further erosion of civil liberties.=20
This effect is further heightened by television news segments and=20
documentaries which focus on drug abuse and other crimes, thus giving the=20
public the misperception that crime is even higher than it really is.

There is another socially debilitating process at work in what passes for=20
entertainment on television these days. Over the years, there has been a=20
steady increase in adult subject matter on programs presented during family=
=20
viewing hours. For instance, it is common for today's prime-time situation=
=20
comedies to make jokes about such matters as masturbation (Seinfeld once=20
devoted an entire episode to the topic), or for daytime talk shows such as=
=20
Jerry Springer's to showcase such topics as bestiality. Even worse are the=
=20
"reality" programs currently in vogue. Each new offering in this genre=20
seems to hit a new low. MTV, for instance, recently subjected a couple to a=
=20
Candid Camera-style prank in which, after winning a trip to Las Vegas, they=
=20
entered their hotel room to find an actor made up as a mutilated corpse in=
=20
the bathtub. Naturally, they were traumatized by the experience and sued=20
the network. Or, consider a new show on British television in which=20
contestants compete to see who can infect each other with the most=20
diseases--venereal diseases included.

It would appear, at the very least, that these programs serve as a shill=20
operation to strengthen the argument for censorship. There may also be an=20
even darker motive. These programs contribute to the general coarsening of=
=20
society we see all around us--the decline in manners and common human=20
decency and the acceptance of cruelty for its own sake as a legitimate form=
=20
of entertainment. Ultimately, this has the effect of debasing human beings=
=20
into savages, brutes--the better to herd them into global slavery.

For the first decade or so after the Dawn of Television, there were only a=
=20
handful of channels in each market--one for each of the three major=20
networks and maybe one or two independents. Later, with the advent of cable=
=20
and more channels, the population pie began to be sliced into finer=20
pieces--or "niche markets." This development has often been described as=20
representing a growing diversity of choices, but in reality it is a=20
fine-tuning of the process of mass manipulation, a honing-in on particular=
=20
segments of the population, not only to sell them specifically-targeted=20
consumer products but to influence their thinking in ways advantageous to=20
the globalist agenda.

One of these "target audiences" is that portion of the population which,=20
after years of blatant government cover-up in areas such as UFOs and the=20
assassination of John F. Kennedy, maintains a cynicism toward the official=
=20
line, despite the best efforts of television programmers to depict=20
conspiracy research in a negative light. How to reach this vast,=20
disenfranchised target audience and co-opt their thinking? One way is to=20
put documentaries before them which mix of fact with disinformation,=20
thereby confusing them. Another is to take the X Files approach.

The heroes of X Files are investigators in a fictitious paranormal=20
department of the FBI whose adventures sometimes take them into=20
parapolitical territory. On the surface this sounds good. However, whatever=
=20
good X Files might accomplish by touching on such matters as MK-ULTRA or=20
the JFK assassination is cancelled out by associating them with bug-eyed=20
aliens and ghosts. Also, on X Files, the truth is always depicted as "out=20
there" somewhere--in the stars, or some other dimension, never in=20
brainwashing centers such as the RAND Corporation or its London=20
counterpart, the Tavistock Institute. This has the effect of obscuring the=
=20
truth, making it seem impossibly out-of-reach, and associating reasonable=20
lines of political inquiry with the fantastic and other-wordly.

Not that there is no connection between the parapolitical and the=20
paranormal. There is undoubtedly a cover-up at work with regard to UFOs,=20
but if we accept uncritically the notion that UFOs are anything other than=
=20
terrestrial in origin, we are falling headfirst into a carefully-set trap.=
=20
To its credit, X Files has dealt with the idea that extraterrestrials might=
=20
be a clever hoax by the government, but never decisively. The labyrinthine=
=20
plots of the show somehow manage to leave the viewer wondering if perhaps=20
the hoax idea is itself a hoax put out there to cover up the existence of=20
extraterrestrials. This is hardly helpful to a true understanding of UFOs=20
and associated phenomena, such as alien abductions and cattle mutilations.

Extraterrestrials have been a staple of popular entertainment since The War=
=20
of the Worlds (both the novel and its radio adaptation). They have been=20
depicted as invaders and benefactors, but rarely have they been=20
unequivocally depicted as a hoax. There was an episode of Outer Limits=20
which depicted a group of scientists staging a mock alien invasion to=20
frighten the world's population into uniting as one--but, again, such=20
examples are rare. Even in UFO documentaries on the Discovery Channel, the=
=20
possibility of a terrestrial origin for the phenomenon is conspicuous by=20
its lack of mention.

UFO researcher Jacques Vallee, the real-life model for the French scientist=
=20
in Stephen Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, attempted to=20
interest Spielberg in a terrestrial explanation for the phenomenon. In an=20
interview on Conspire.com, Vallee said, "I argued with him that the subject=
=20
was even more interesting if it wasn't extraterrestrials. If it was real,=20
physical, but not ET. So he said, 'You're probably right, but that's not=20
what the public is expecting--this is Hollywood and I want to give people=20
something that's close to what they expect.'"

How convenient that what Spielberg says the people expect is also what the=
=20
Pentagon wants them to believe.

In Messengers of Deception, Vallee tracks the history of a wartime British=
=20
Intelligence unit devoted to psychological operations. Code-named=20
(interestingly) the "Martians," it specialized in manufacturing and=20
distributing false intelligence to confuse the enemy. Among its activities=
=20
were the creation of phantom armies with inflatable tanks, simulations of=20
the sounds of military ships maneuvering in the fog, and forged letters to=
=20
lovers from phantom soldiers attached to phantom regiments.

Vallee suggests that deception operations of this kind may have extended=20
beyond World War II, and that much of the "evidence" for "flying saucers"=20
is no more real than the inflatable tanks of World War II. He writes: "The=
=20
close association of many UFO sightings with advanced military hardware=20
(test sites like the New Mexico proving grounds, missile silos of the=20
northern plains, naval construction sites like the major nuclear facility=20
at Pascagoula and the bizarre love affairs ... between contactee groups,=20
occult sects, and extremist political factions, are utterly clear signals=20
that we must exercise extreme caution."

Many people find it fantastic that the government would perpetrate such a=20
hoax, while at the same time having no difficulty entertaining the notion=20
that extraterrestrials are regularly traveling light years to this planet=20
to kidnap people out of their beds and subject them to anal probes.

The military routinely puts out disinformation to obscure its activities,=20
and this has certainly been the case with UFOs. Consider Paul Bennewitz,=20
the UFO enthusiast who began studying strange lights that would appear=20
nightly over the Manzano Test Range outside Albuquerque. When the Air Force=
=20
learned about his study, ufologist William Moore (by his own admission) was=
=20
recruited to feed him forged military documents describing a threat from=20
extraterrestrials. The effect was to confuse Bennewitz--even making him=20
paranoid enough to be hospitalized--and discredit his research. Evidently,=
=20
those strange lights belonged to the Air Force, which does not like=20
outsiders inquiring into its affairs.

What the Air Force did to Bennewitz, it also does on a mass scale--and=20
popular entertainment has been complicit in this process. Whether or not=20
the filmmakers themselves are consciously aware of this agenda does not=20
matter. The notion that extraterrestrials might visit this planet is so=20
much a part of popular culture and modern mythology that it hardly needs=20
assistance from the military to propagate itself.

It has the effect not only of obscuring what is really going on at research=
=20
facilities such as Area 51, but of tainting UFO research in general as=20
"kooky"--and does the job so thoroughly that one need only say "UFO" in the=
=20
same breath with "JFK" to discredit research in that area as well. It also=
=20
may, in the end, serve the same purpose as depicted in that Outer Limits=20
episode--to unite the world's population against a perceived common threat,=
=20
thus offering the pretext for one-world government.

The following quotes demonstrate that the idea has at least occurred to=20
world leaders:

"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much=
=20
unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal=
=20
threat to make us realize this common bond. I occasionally think how=20
quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from=
=20
outside this world." (President Ronald Reagan, speaking in 1987 to the=20
United Nations.

"The nations of the world will have to unite, for the next war will be an=20
interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common=20
front against attack by people from other planets." General Douglas=20
MacArthur, 1955)

Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe=
=20
would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien=20
enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and=20
purpose." (John Dewey, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University,=20
speaking at a conference sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for=20
International Peace, 1917)

And where was this "alien threat" motif given birth? Again, we find the=20
answer in popular entertainment, and again the earliest source is The War=20
of the Worlds--both Wells' and Welles' versions.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that H. G. Wells was a founding member of the=
=20
Round Table, the think tank that gave birth to the Royal Institute for=20
International Affairs (RIIA) and its American cousin, the CFR. Perhaps=20
Wells intentionally introduced the motif as a meme which might prove useful=
=20
later in establishing the "world social democracy" he described in his 1939=
=20
book The New World Order. Perhaps, too, another purpose of the Orson Welles=
=20
broadcast was to test of the public's willingness to believe in=20
extraterrestrials.

At any rate, it proved a popular motif, and paved the way for countless=20
movies and television programs to come, and has often proven a handy device=
=20
for promoting the New World Order, whether the extraterrestrials are=20
invaders or--in films like The Day the Earth Stood Still--benefactors who=20
have come to Earth to warn us to mend our ways and unite as one, or be=20
blown to bits.

We see the globalist agenda at work in Star Trek and its spin-offs as well.=
=20
Over the years, many a television viewer's mind has been imprinted with the=
=20
idea that centralized government is the solution for our problems. Never=20
mind the complexities of the issue--never mind the fact that, in the real=20
world, centralization of power leads to tyranny. The reptile brain,=20
hypnotized by the flickering television screen, has seen Captain Kirk and=20
his culturally diverse crew demonstrate time and again that the United=20
Federation of Planets is a good thing. Therefore, it must be so.

It remains to be seen whether the Masters of Deception will, like those=20
scientists in The Outer Limits, stage an invasion from space with=20
anti-gravity machines and holograms, but, if they do, it will surely be=20
broadcast on television, so that anyone out of range of that light show in=
=20
the sky, will be able to see it, and all with eyes to see will believe. It=
=20
will be War of the Worlds on a grand scale.


Jack Kerouac once noted, while walking down a residential street at night,=
=20
glancing into living rooms lit by the gray glare of television sets, that=20
we have become a world of people "thinking the same thoughts at the same=
 time."

Every day, millions upon millions of human beings sit down at the same time=
=20
to watch the same football game, the same mini-series, the same newscast.=20
And where might all this shared experience and uniformity of thought be=20
taking us?

A recent report co-sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation and=20
the Commerce Department calls for a broad-based research program to find=20
ways to use nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and=20
cognitive sciences, to achieve telepathy, machine-to-human communication,=20
amplified sensory experience, enhanced intellectual capacity, and mass=20
participation in a "hive mind." Quoting the report: "With knowledge no=20
longer encapsulated in individuals, the distinction between individuals and=
=20
the entirety of humanity would blur. Think Vulcan mind-meld. We would=20
perhaps become more of a hive mind--an enormous, single, intelligent=
 entity."

There is no doubt that we have been brought closer to the "hive mind" by=20
the mass media. For, what is the shared experience of television but a type=
=20
of "Vulcan mind-meld"? (Note the terminology borrowed from Star Trek, no=20
doubt to make the concept more familiar and palatable. If Spock does it, it=
=20
must be okay.)

This government report would have us believe that the hive mind will be for=
=20
our good--a wonderful leap in evolution. It is nothing of the kind. For one=
=20
thing, if the government is behind it, you may rest assured it is not for=20
our good. For another, common sense should tell us that blurring the line=20
"between individuals and the entirety of humanity" means mass conformity,=20
the death of human individuality. Make no mistake about it--if humanity is=
=20
to become a hive, there will be at the center of that hive a Queen Bee,=20
whom all the lesser "insects" will serve. This is not evolution--this is=20
devolution. Worse, it is the ultimate slavery--the slavery of the mind.

And it is a horror first unleashed in 1938 when one million people=20
responded as one--as a hive--to Orson Welles' Halloween prank.

In a sense, those people who fled the Martians that night were right to be=
=20
afraid. They were indeed under attack. But they were wrong about who was=20
attacking them. It was something far worse than Martians. Had they only=20
known the true nature of the danger facing them, perhaps they would have=20
gone to the nearest radio station with torches in hand like the villagers=20
in those old Frankenstein movies and burned it to the ground, or at least=20
commandeered the new technology and turned it towards another use--the=20
liberation of humanity, instead of its enslavement.




                   US report foretells of brave new world
                                                       Sydney Morning=20
Herald    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/20/1026898931815.html






Bristol branch - National Union of Journalists
10-12 Picton Street
Montpelier
BRISTOL
BS6 5QA
http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/
http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html
http://www.nuj.org.uk
0117 944 6219

--=======64052711=======--