Media Masters

Masters of the Media

The Media-Power in Great Britain and Elswhere

Here follows a lengthy analysis and study of the Jewish media-occupation in Great Britain. Written in 1997, this text describes the present state of affairs when it comes to Jewish media power in Great Britain. It is crucial, in the battle against the Jewish racist totalitarianism, to have a basic knowledge about the jewish media-dictatorship-monopoly and about the political power the zionists possess and who are - as Jewish political actors - the leaders of this Jewish Power.

" ... the freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. And it's true."

Jonathan Tobin, Editor of the weekly The Jewish Ledger (West Hartfort, USA), quoted in the Jewish Chronicle (London), Aug. 25, 1995, p. 19

"Today the film makers are the people who control the most powerful medium in the world, an art that can create ideals, change language or topple governments." John Baxter in the Daily Mail (28th December 1995)

INTRODUCTION

According to the theory of democracy, "the people" rule. They elect politicians by their own choice, and if and when those politicians fail to act according to their wishes they can be dismissed by the vote of the people. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with "alternatives"; if one loses their confidence, they can support another. Thus is realised the democratic principle of: government of the people, by the people and for the people.

It would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. How do "the people" acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They cannot possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. Only a tiny few of them ever see their political leaders close up and are able to watch and assess their performance of their duties. The vast majority are not students of politics. They don't really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew.

"The people" are doctors, lawyers, engineers, clerks, shopkeepers, factory workers, farmworkers, small tradesmen, nurses, secretaries, schoolteachers and a thousand or more other things. They know, or ought to know, something about the occupations in which they are engaged. But only the minutest number can be expected to know the business of politics - one of the most complex of subjects, with its vast range of issues and the many points of view that will be brought to bear on each of these issues. To know what the issues are, and to examine and evaluate these points of view, the people need to have these issues presented to them and the points of view expounded in a form that they can understand.

This is where the "mass media" come in: newspapers; television; radio. And for those with a more studious and enquiring bent there are other media: books; magazines; the Internet. The list is growing as information technology advances.

But there is a problem here. "The people" cannot own, control and regulate the media. That can only be done by a small minority - a mere fraction of the population, in fact much fewer than one per cent. And it is this minority which is able to determine which facts the people will be allowed to know about, which events will be reported to them, which points of view they will be able to examine and evaluate, which political parties it is good to vote for and which not, which politicians are decent, upright, honourable and capable citizens and which are disreputable, incompetent, "dangerous" and "extreme".

This invests that minority who control the mass media with enormous power - perhaps even greater power than a prime minister or cabinet. It is this minority which determines the climate of "public opinion" in which politicians have to operate, the "public opinion" to which they have to defer and which they dare not offend if they are to get elected and stay elected.

Even when the mass media consisted mainly of newspapers, and only a small minority read those newspapers, this power was considerable. Today, when it embraces mass-circulation newspapers and television, it is colossal beyond imagination.

And we must not forget another fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles, and television programmes, of a direct political nature - connected, that is, with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people's thought patterns by other means: newspaper stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV "soaps", "educational" programmes: all these types of fare help form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense and what is "fashionable" and "unfashionable". These human value systems, in turn, shape people's attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.

Yet for some strange reason there is very little public discussion in Britain today, as an example, of who actually exercises media control. The people are encouraged to get tremendously excited about the outcome of a general election, even of local government elections, yet these contests probably have far less a bearing on the question of who wields power over us than the much more crucial one of who regulates "public opinion" and therefore determines the agenda both for the contesting of elections and for what is done in government by whoever wins.

Any study of what is happening on the national scene must therefore today include a study of the workings of the mass media: who the people are who own, control and operate those media, and to what purposes their immense power is being put.

________________________________________

Current Affairs

Discussion programmes on TV and radio dealing with current affairs and topical public issues are presented so as to convey the impression that they are conducted in accordance with the letter and spirit of "democracy", with various viewpoints given a hearing. However, where the discussion threatens to touch upon issues considered "sensitive" to the judaized establishment which controls TV and radio, it is carefully stage-managed so that "dangerous" viewpoints are excluded.