From the 1970s until nelson mandella’s release from prison, the media used to frequently draw attention to the racist nature of white rule in south africa in which millions of blacks were denied the vote in national elections; were prevented from buying property in certain areas; and were required to carry passes to move around the country, etc. However, during this time and even up to the present day, the media has refused to highlight the racist nature of the zionist state which oppresses palestinians in far worse ways than the south african government used to oppress blacks. So why did the brutish media ignore the racism of the zionist state whilst highlighting the racism of the south african state? This is clear evidence of zionists’ domination of the brutish media where, as in parliament, there are a disproportionate number of jews.

The media’s coverage of the p*ny bombings was just as biased as its coverage of the 1991 gulf war.

On the evening of the p*ny bombings ‘newsnight’ held a discussion about what had just happened.[40] There were six guests on the show. Former zionist prime minister ehud barak; former american secretary of state james rubin, and mark urban, a bbc2 reporter. Three jews on what was supposed to be a balanced discussion of the day’s events! Just about shows what the bbc regards as political balance! And the politically correct dismiss the notion of a zionist global conspiracy!

Frost’s incredible interview with netanhayu in february 2001 has been highlighted above - see section 5.2.2.2.3.2: Media Coverage. David Frost’s Interview of the Crypto-Nazi Benjamin Netanyahu - 4.2.2001. This was the interview in which frost refused to challenge netanhayu’s obscene propaganda that palestinians were waving their children in the air to be shot at by zionist state terrorists. So, less than a week after the p*ny bombings, frost’s interview of this extreme religious nutcase promised to be an extraordinary event - and netanhayu never lets anyone down when it comes to displays of extreme bigotry. But, once again, it has to be asked, doesn’t anyone else find it strange that the brutish media believes that zionist racists have the right to air their vile racist views whilst refusing to offer the same opportunities to the victims of these vile racists? Why is it alright to interview zionist racists but not brutish racists? What’s the difference?

This show opened with a report by ian watson which exemplified the zionists’ global conspiracy in operation in another of the brutish broadcasting corporation’s main political discussion programmes. Watson provided a 10 minute summary of events leading to the p*ny bombings and yet did not once mention zionist state terrorism which has done so much to inflame moslem opinion around the world.[41]

This show opened with a report by david grossman which once again bore the hallmarks of an adherence to the tenets of the zionist global conspiracy. Another 10 minute summary of events which, once again, made no mention zionist state terrorism.[42]

Paxman is a schizophrenic interviewer. There’s the harsh, abrasive, accusatory, style which he inflicts on those he doesn’t like or those he suspects of being in the wrong and then there’s the obsequious, chummy, respectful, interviews he does with politically important people. On this evening’s show he interviewed a couple of palestinians after the targeted killing of rehavam zeevi, a crypto-nazi zionist in ariel bin sharon’s government. He was at his most accusatory when interviewing lella khaled. He then interviewed a yasser arafat spokesperson and once again adopted the accusatory tone. He asked why the palestinian authorities didn’t arrest the freedom fighters responsible for the assassination - but failed to ask why the zionists were continuing to expropriate palestinian land and were carrying out state assassinations? The palestinian replied in a quiet voice (despite the fact that he was being interviewed over the phone) pointing out some of the basic realities of life for palestinians living in zionist occupied palestine - the palestinian authority has no jurisdiction in jerusalem and its officers aren’t able to move around their own country to arrest those they suspect of liberation activities. This spokesperson gave a deft interview. The palestinians are in a bind because although the leadership wants a peace agreement with the zionists, the zionists continually provoke the palestinians making a peace agreement virtually impossible. The palestinian leadership finds it difficult to condemn palestinian freedom fighters because, as a result of so much zionist violence, freedom fighters have so much popular support amongst palestinian people. Palestinians leaders even seem to find it difficult to accuse the zionists of being racists because this would make themselves appear as extremists supporting terrorism. Basically palestinian leaders can’t launch any effective criticism of the zionists to boost the effectiveness of their propaganda. Paxman did not condemn zeevi’s crypto-nazi views, nor did he wonder what such a person was doing in ariel bin sharon’s cabinet, nor did he wonder how many more there were like him in sharon’s cabinet. The assumption of his interview was that the zionist state in palestine is a western, secular, liberal, freedom-loving, democracy - although quite how a crypto-nazi like zeevi could be called a western, secular, liberal, freedom-loving, democrat is impossible to see. (A more recent edition of newsnight confirmed that paxman does indeed have such an assumption - “Israel is a democracy.”[43]). Is this what support for the zionist state means - standing shoulder to shoulder with crypto-nazi zionists like rehavam zeevi and his close mate ariel bin sharon?

Thomas presented a bbc news special in which she covered the assassination of rehavam zeevi and then gave gore david, foreign affairs adviser to ariel bin sharon, a five minute platform for him to extol zionist propaganda without any critical questions or balancing interview with a palestinian.[44] It was just a plain party political broadcast for the zionist party being presented in the guise of a news item. It was one of the most obvious set-ups seen on a supposedly first class news service.

Urban did a piece on the eruption of conflict in palestine after rehavam zeevi’s disposal. He started off his article with the burial of a jewish girl who’d been killed by a palestinian. There was an interview with a bereaved relative who demanded retaliation. A zionist death squad carried out the wishes of the bereaved and executed the palestinian alleged to have been responsible for the girl’s death. Palestinians responded by killing zeevi. The article finished with a five minute interview with shimon peres. Once again there was no interview with a palestinian. This is what the bbc calls ‘balanced reporting’ in the middle east. The format of urban’s analysis is the one commonly used by virtually all reporters in the brutish media. He can’t possibly say that zionist death squads are roving palestine executing palestinian freedom fighters in their struggle against a vicious and brutal apartheid regime because his zionist-loving bosses expect him to continue broadcasting global zionist propaganda.

This was perhaps the most appalling example of paxman’s schizophrenic interviewing techniques. He opens the show with headlines about mcblair’s trip to syria and meeting with president assad of syria during his second middle east tour, “Should he (mcblair) have gone there, should he have spoken to him (assad)?” Paxman starts off by interviewing benjamin netanhayu who has calmed down after his insane outburst on the david frost programme.[45] Notice that this is yet another major interview with a crypto-nazi zionist leader without any commensurate interview with a high profile palestinian leader. Paxman adopts a friendly, chummy approach with netanhayu asking him a series of aunt sally questions and, at one point in what seemed like a public relations’ exercise netanhayu even called paxman by his christian name. Paxman failed to ask netanhayu about his racist opinions, his support for illegal zionist settlements, or his support for the zionist state’s demolition of palestinian homes - primarily because he knows that if he did then netanhayu would walk out of the studio denouncing him as an anti-semitic bigot. It is more than likely that newsnight and netanhayu lawyers got together before the show to agree on what questions could be asked and what questions could not be asked.

In the late 1990s zionist dominated hollywood produced a handful of action films seeking to exploit american people’s concern over terrorist threats. There are three ways in which such films could be viewed. Firstly, they were films which stimulated the terrorists to organize their p*ny attacks. Secondly, they were examples of zionist propaganda trying to stimulate anti-moslem sentiments which, thereby, provoked the p*ny retaliation. Thirdly, they were just hollywood exploiting people’s fears. Fourthly, hey were cautionary tales, or zionist propaganda, trying to wake up the world to a problem looming on the horizon. The ‘panorama’ programme was almost solely concerned with the last explanation. It was devoted to an analysis of the variety of ways in which hollywood films had supposedly warned about, or foretold, the p*ny attacks, “Hollywood did anticipate many of the details of September 11th.”[46]

The first of the three films that panorama featured as foretelling the p*ny events was ‘Executive Decision’. This film is about islamic extremists who hijack a jumbo jet and dive bomb washington dc. The second film was ‘The Seige’ in which islamic terrorists in america capture american hostages and then blow them up because the terrorists are not interested in negotiations. It ought to be noted here, for reasons that will become obvious, that the star of the film was denzil washington. He played a security agent possessing a conventional military attitude to terrorism. He believed it was possible to negotiate with hijackers - only to learn “the hard way” that these were islamic terrorists with whom it was not possible to negotiate they only be exterminated. What a surprise - this is almost the same attitude that ariel bin sharon has been taking towards palestinians fighting to free themselves from zionist oppression in their own country. The third film was called the ‘The Peacemaker’ in which the heroine was supposedly based on jessica stern. In the film, stern is played by steely efficient but still transparently beautiful, and unmistakably sexy, nicole kidman who defuses a nuclear bomb planted in new york by a desperate individual from serbia. She recognizes that some terrorists are not driven by greed or power but are people driven mad by injustice, pain, and desperation.

The day after the panorama documentary was broadcast in brutland, hollywood held its annual oscar awards ceremony. The big talking point about the 2002 extravaganza was that two afro-american actors won awards for best male and best female actors. This was unprecedented in the awards’ 70 odd year history. It was the first time a black woman had won the award and the first time blacks had won both the best male, and best female, awards. What gave the awards an element of political significance was that denzil washington had starred in the ‘The siege’ highlighting islamic terrorists. In other words, this was just another chapter in the zionists’ ‘Black and White Ministrel” propaganda which has been heading up the agenda of the global zionist propaganda for the last few years. The zionists in america are basically trying to woo black americans to the side of the white/zionist causes and thus away from those nasty islamic people who, as zionists have been trying to tell us, are all terrorists.

The day after the oscar awards ceremony, the bbc’s breakfast news, carried out an interview with two afro american female actors about the political significance of the politically correct, oscars for services rendered to the cause of zionism. They were, of course, elated that black americans had won such awards and said that young black people in brutland would now have role models to look up to rather than believing they couldn’t get anywhere in life - such is the influence of hollywood in brutland. It was thus quintessential that whites in brutland should elevate more and more black people into positions of power in order to give black youngsters something to aspire to leading eventually to equality between all people. (In other words, the best way of helping the poor is giving black luvvies high powered jobs). One of them even chipped in that there ought to be more black news readers - seemingly forgetting all about moira stuart sitting in front of the microphone - presumably regarding her as scottish - and the black male, darren, who reads the news after the breakfast edition. After the interview was over, jeremy bowen was about to move to the next news item when he drew attention to the fact that these two women were hugging each other in a luvvy celebration - for indeed, the interview they’d just taken part in was itself of some minor historical significance in the anals of the bbc because this was the first time two black women had been interviewed on breakfast news. What is significant here is that this is another example of the back and white minstrel strategy being employed to unite white and blacks in concert against evil asian terrorists - just how many asians/moslems are there on brutish television?

After the p*ny bombings the mirror, a brutish tabloid newspaper, repositioned itself as a serious newspaper trying to discuss the issues raised by the bombings and the events leading up to the bombing of afghanistan. Roy greenslade, a former journalist with the mirror, commented, “September 11th was more of a turning point in morgan’s journalistic outlook than many of us realized. His desire to produce a more serious paper wasn’t one of those sudden changes of direction after all. Morgan’s rediscovery of john pilger shows just how far he has travelled. He used to attack him. Now he appreciates every word pilger writes, relishing the fact that his controversial pieces attract more attention from readers than those by any other writer on the mirror.”[47] The mirror’s coverage has been valuable - and it is pleasant seeing someone move in the right political direction for a change.

A sun editorial insisted, “The language must be moderating - yet the west must hit back and it must defeat terrorism. Bush and blair face only one certainty - they cannot do nothing.”[48]

It was pointed out above that the mirror repositioned itself as a serious newspaper after the p*ny bombings. Its rival, the sun, went in the opposite direction and decided a story about the queen having a rubber duck in her bath deserved front page coverage rather than the start of the war in afghanistan.

On september 17th 2001 the front page of the mirror newspaper showed of a picture of osama bin laden and the words, “I want his head on a platter”. This was out and out warmongering to maintain, or boost, the paper’s circulation. However, the mirror’s editorial ‘the voice of the mirror’ was much more sober expressing its worries about mcbush’s gung-ho mentality! It criticized the dick cheney quote it had used on its front page, “Bush’s vice president dick cheney yesterday added to the hysterical rhetoric by demanding “bin laden’s head on a platter”. But that is not the way to bring justice or peace or to defeat terrorism.”[49] In other words, the mirror used cheney’s warmongering to grab readers’ attention and then preached caution. This is similar to the mirror’s attitude to oomans’ gargantuan slaughter of Animals. Over the last couple of decades the mirror has launched several major campaigns against Animal cruelty but, during much of the 1990s, had also regularly featured bimboes draped in fur.

The following day the mirror’s front page was even more gung ho consisting of yet another photo of bin laden in the format of a traditional american cowboy poster ‘Wanted Dead or Alive’.

The mirror was quick to start questioning the bombing of afghanistan. On october 12th the voice of the mirror stated, “We are increasingly sceptical that this current strategy of relentless air strikes will actually work. .. is the relentless bombing of slabs of battered concrete going to stop bin laden committing more outrages? Or will it simply whip up ever more anti-west sentiment and develop his expanding cult-status among fanatic fundamentalists.”[50]

On october 17th, the voice of the mirror stated that it gave limited support to the allies’ bombing campaign .. “But does that mean the endless bombing of targets reduced to rubble a week ago must continue without comment?”[51]

The following day, however, it adopted a more radical stance by asking for a bombing pause, “What is needed is not just bombing and humanitarian aid, but effective bombing and effective aid. If that means suspending the aerial assault for a few days, so be it.”[52]

The following week the mirror’s questioning of the war became even more intense. On october 22nd it stated, “What exactly is the mission of Enduring Freedom? Every war needs a strategy and an end game. Yet it’s hard to understand our current strategy and even harder to work out how this war on terrorism will end.”[53]

On october 29th the mirror went even further by publishing an article by john pilger, a leading anti war commentator. Pilger’s article was no great shakes but what was significant was that the mirror splashed the headline of his article over its front page, ‘This war is a Fraud’.[54]

On november 11th the mirror’s front page headline was ‘Stop the bombing’. This was yet another example of front page deception because, as it turned out, the mirror was presenting its own views but those of a muslim ally, “Britain’s most important muslim ally last night told tony blair: Stop the bombing of afghanistan during ramadan.”[57]

The mirror is opposed to a war against iraq, “We don’t have to condemn or criticise the us, but neither should we join an action of dubious validity and uncertain purpose.”[58]

The mirror has not been impressed by mcblair’s relationship with the president of the united states, “The mirror has called mr blair the president’s poodle. We didn’t do so lightly - but the truth is the prime minister has done nothing but play lapdog to the washington redneck. Whenever mr bush has barked, mr blair has rolled over with his legs in the air.”[59]

At the end of 1998 the sunday people launched a blatant bit of propaganda reinforcing the political demonization of saddam hussein, “Saddam hussein has hatched an evil plot to unleash his doomsday anthrax on britain in revenge for the air strikes against iraq.”[60]

On september 23rd 2001 the sunday people believed the war against afghanistan was only 48 hours away and decided to engage in some pretty vile, warmongering propaganda to put the populace in the mood for the carpet bombing of starving, destitute, afghanistani people. The front page featured a full page photograph of five children who had lost their father as a result of the september 11th bombings and the caption to go with it was intended to incite brutish soldiers to go into afghanistan and take revenge for the sake of these children, “Here are five more tragic reasons - from just one family - why british and american forces are about to launch a fearsome onslaught against evil bin laden. The wodenshek kids lost their dad in bin laden’s insane war on the free world.”[61] This is a prime example of telescopic moralism - focusing on the grief of a few people in an ocean of grief in order to make a political point. Cnn interviewed someone with connections to the american military and he described american soldiers’ attitudes to the pending invasion as being “willing to carry buckets of gasoline into hell” - one wonders at the barbarities that would have been inflicted on any unfortunate afghans who might have got in their way.

At the beginning of november, the sunday people provided a list of the “17 anti-war mps who are stabbing tony blair in the back. And today we reveal their office phone numbers so you can bombard them with calls, telling them exactly what you think of their views.”[63]

As has been noted above, the telegraph is currently owned by a zionist who is giving as much support as he can to the zionist state in palestine, “Yet in any extension of the global war on terrorism Damascus does not deserve to be so lucky. It provides headquarters for about 10 militant Islamist groups, among them Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Saiqa and the PFLP. In Lebanon, over which Syria has held sway since the Ta'if Agreement of 1989, Hizbollah, the Shi'ite militia, has strengthened its position in the south following the withdrawal of Israeli forces in May 2000, thus making northern Galilee more vulnerable to attack. Three men suspected of belonging to the group are on the Bush Administration's most wanted terrorist list.”[64]

Dick butler, the weapons inspector who helped to demilitarize iraq after the allies proxy zionist war against iraq in 1991, has said there was no link between iraq and the anthrax sent to people in america. But, he pointed out that there hadn’t been any military inspections in iraq for three years so they didn’t know what saddam might have been up to and, he hinted, it would be a good idea if it was known what he’d been doing.[65]

Owen pretended he has extraordinary powers of insight into saddam’s military war machine, “It would seem there is now no doubt that iraq was involved in the atrocities of september 11th.”[66] Or was it that he’d been given the nod to give a plug for a renewal of the war.

“So why should america worry about civilians who will inevitably die in any backlash? America knows it can’t be half hearted in any attack. A token gesture will send out the wrong signals and these people will gloat over what an easy target the western world is.”[67]

John pilger expressed contempt for some ‘newsnight’ broadcasts .. “when some recent editions of newsnight might have been produced by the foreign office.”[68] It ought to be noted that jeremy vine presented a much less unbalanced programme when he was covering events in palestine than other newsnight reporters such as jeremy paxman.

John pilger pointed out that the news about the vote taken by the commission on human rights focused not on the decision itself, which was critical of the zionist state, but on the brutish government’s dismissal of the vote - thereby protecting the zionist state from censure, “Similarly when the united nations’ commission on human rights last week voted 40-5 to condemn israel for its “mass killing” the news was not this near-unanimous expression of world opinion, but the british government’s rejection of this resolution as “unbalanced.”[69]

Let’s try an experiment to prepare for a bit of controversy. A rich, white, anglo-saxon, protestant, tory member of parliament owns a company which produces a website called 'Totally English'. The website carries news of interests to wasps and also provides them with a wasp dating agency. The people managing the website are wasps all of whom are determined to marry only wasp partners because they don't want to compromise or dilute their culture. Anyone can communicate with the website but, de facto, it’s primarily for wasps. The dating agency is nominally open to everyone but, in reality, it is provided primarily for wasps. The website also organizes massive, and sumptious, charity dinners, for well groomed, well-heeled, people - all of whom are wasps because basically the event is basically a social opportunity for wasps to find like minded wasp partners. Members of other ethnic groups are not invited to these charity dinners.

There were many things of political interest about, ‘Dot Com and Kosher’. Firstly, it was about jews. This is not unusual. What would be unusual would be programmes about asians or palestinians. There are more programmes about jews than there are about vegetarians or vegans on the bbc.

The west might look upon itself as if it is the most just, highly educated, and the most enlightened, part of the world but the rest of the world looks at it as being full of pro-semitic racist bigots. No matter how much work western countries do to rid themselves of the scourge of racism in their own countries their support for the racist zionists in palestine casts a massive cloud of doubt over everything they do.

Politically, the advertising world is banned from making any form of political statement, so usually it is not regarded as being of much political significance. It is there to sell commodities not political values. However, it is not always possible to separate the two. The days when the advertising world tried to sell just commodities on their merits have long gone. These days, in order to boost sales, it also sells emotions, dreams, fantasies, attitude, and lifestyles. It also has to condition people into becoming consumers to spend more on consumer products. It plays a leading role in shaping people’s attitudes over a large number of domestic and consumerist issues. The advertising world tries to put itself on the cutting edge of trends in music, fashion, and design. It also tries to pick up on social trends as quickly as possible in order to take advantage of any new sales opportunities. In these ways, it is almost as influential as hollywood movies. Indeed, many hollywood directors have been commissioned to produce spectacular or unusual television commercials.

The most famous name in the brutish advertising world is saatchi and saatchi.