Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America’s mass media of news and entertainment. Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know — or think we know — about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television. It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us. For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations — all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear. On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way. Molding American Minds For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist — that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America — is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows. The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views. And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established. Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan — with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things. Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers’ influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It’s a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters — and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it. The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media — television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures — speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world — a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends — and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it. And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn’t simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance. Electronic News & Entertainment Media Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine — it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies. AOL-TW. The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a White gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. A brief history of the company is in order. The four (gentile) Warner brothers founded their movie company in 1907 and had their first major success ten years later with My 4 Years in Germany. WB incorporated in 1923 and went on to cartoon success with Porky Pig and Bugs Bunny. In 1944, a court ruled that WB must release Olivia de Havilland after her seven-year contract. This decision prevented any one company from controlling a pool of creative talent, but it did nothing to stop the Jews from controlling the entire industry with which that talent was obliged to work. In 1948, WB sold its film library to MGM. In 1949, another court ruling forced WB to sell its cinema chain, obstructing vertical integration by a single movie-making company, while doing nothing to prevent the Jews from establishing such integration through an ethnic collaboration. In 1958, WB created Warner Brothers Records, which was later renamed WEA. In 1968, Jack Warner sold his shares to Seven Arts, while DC and All-American Comics were bought by Kinney National Services (a funeral parlor conglomerate). Kinney turned around and bought a talent agency, then turned around again and bought Warner-Seven Arts, becoming Warner Communications. Warner Communications bought Elektra Records in 1970, the same year that Jew David Geffen started the Asylum label. (The name is synonymous with crazy-house.) Time bought HBO from Charles Dolan in 1972. Ironically, 1972 was also the year when Money … read more »

Response:

of course!

Response:

of course! Most definitely. One has to wonder what people would think if the Catholics controlled the media. Hey…..wait a minute, they would think whatever we wanted them to think.

And you are living proof. Steve Zodiac

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – of course! Most definitely. One has to wonder what people would think if the Catholics controlled the media. Hey…..wait a minute, they would think whatever we wanted them to think. And you are living proof. Falls flat since Catholics don’t control the media. But…..antiCatholicism is politically correct because the Jews say it is. Now roll over and play dead like a good programmed American.

        Until you cough up the fake respect the Scout Ladies of this country demand for being Catholic. Paul

Response:

"Scout Lady" Falls flat since Catholics don’t control the media.

But…..antiCatholicism is politically correct because the Jews say it is. Now roll over and play dead like a good programmed American.

"My Kingdom is not of this world."  It seems to "me" that says it.  This construct people live by and proclaim our allegence to – whatever "national" construct that may be, and here it appears to be defined by the label "American" – is a delusion.  The nationalist construct is a delusion that separates us from the fundamental truth that we are ONE in Christ as He is ONE with the Father of Process. This is not a reasonable truth; it is an experiential truth. It is all too simple to grasp for so many.  This grave and morbid game of "America" vs "Iraq" is wasted time for the dinizens of the world.  "My Kingdom is not of this world;"  "It is among you."  What is this? A koan? Since the dawn of consciousness we have engaged the fundamental thinking error involving "the knowledge of ‘good’ and ‘evil.’"  This is the fundamental dialectic that reinforces our separation from the world itself. For isn’t it true that "world" is "object" to us rather than "subject."  We have juxtapositioned ourselves into an essential estrangement from God and from each other. It began with the discovery of the cerebral cortex. We took it out and played with it! Each time we see Protestant vs Catholic, Christian vs Jew, Jew vs Moslem, Bosnian vs Serb, American vs French, we see our world devided into fiefdoms of self-interest when there is no real "self" to agrandize.  Self is a totally constructed delusion that separates us from oneness that is. It is a thought. The Buddhist say, "All form is emptiness; all emptiness is form." This "secret" is incomprehensible to those lost in the dialectic between "self" vs "other"; subject beholding object and desiring to contain, control, or consume it.  The very object of our "individual" wills is this esential oneness. "I am the New Adam;" "My Kingdom is not of this world;" "The god of this world is mannon; you will love the one and rebuke the other, or serve the one god and abandon the other;" "If you would follow me, sell all that you have and give it to the poor then come along." Is this not non-attachment? Not? Open gate; closed gate! This is not complicated.  It only gets complicated when I believe that Billy Graham is God’s Voice arming America with righteousness.  These are lies of course; they separate me from the divine.

Response: