Couldit just have been the body that would have shed some light on what happened andwho did it? And if the authorities didn’t know what was going to occur, why were’VIPs’ warned not to take that flight after their seats had been booked? Amongthem were Pik Botha, the South African minister, and others accompanying him,including the head of BOSS, the South African intelligence agency (which has closeties with the CIA and Mossad). They cancelled their reservations on Flight 103shortly before departure after a tip-off from intelligence sources.3 Pik Botha told theBritish businessman, Tiny Rowlands, that these sources were the kind that “couldn’tbe dismissed”. Libya has been used as a diversion for years. Colonel Gaddafi was portrayed asthe monster of monsters, until it became more useful to give that title to GeorgeBush’s old friend, Saddam Hussein. The bombing of Tripoli by US planes flyingfrom British bases in 1986 was part of this. Dozens of Libyan civilians, includingchildren, were murdered by the Americans (with British support) in retaliation for”Libyan terrorism” at a disco in West Berlin, for which, again, there was noevidence, as later conceded by German investigators. I know nothing about Gaddafifor sure, but I have heard suggestions that he’s hated by the US. There is anotherview that this “hatred” is a front for CIA terrorist training based in Libya, which, itis said, has honed the skills of the IRA, the Red Brigades, and other terrorist groups.It’s hard to tell, but here I am looking only at the strange connections surroundingthe Lockerbie bomb. The man who wrote the paper for Ronald Reagan whichproposed a campaign to destroy the Gaddafi regime with lies and disinformationwas (by his own admission) the CIA operative, Vincent Cannistraro. He worked forthree years on the campaign with Oliver North and this led to the bombing ofTripoli. Who was the man appointed to head the CIA ‘investigation’ into Lockerbiewhich decided that two Libyans were responsible? It couldn’t be? Yes it could:Vincent Cannistraro. Part of the CIA campaign against Libya included the murderby the CIA of the British policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, in St James Square,London, on April 17th 1984. This murder was blamed on the staff at the LibyanPeople’s Bureau. Some researchers believe she was shot by a CIA marksman from 8St James Square, close to the Bureau, say some researchers. This building had beenoccupied from only a few months before by a company with known CIAconnections.Despite this information and the fact that no evidence points to an involvementby Libya in the Lockerbie bombing, the United Nations (Global Elite) continue toimpose sanctions on that country! And the British prime minister has refused toallow a trial of the two Libyans to take place in a neutral country. Either the Britishgovernment at the highest levels is breathtakingly dumb or they know more aboutLockerbie than they are prepared to reveal to the people who elected them. TheUnited States and the Elite use the create-a-monster technique all the time to divertattention from the fact that they are installing and pulling the strings of far moreextreme regimes throughout the world. There was no talk of monsters andterrorism in 1988 when the USS Vincennes fired a missile ‘by accident’ to shootdown an Iranian passenger jet with 290 on board.5 The Vincennes was in the PersianGulf to support Saddam Hussein, then America’s friend and ally in the Iraqi warwith Iran. The commander of the ship was ‘severely punished’: he was awarded theLegion of Merit Award by George Bush for “exceptionally meritorious conduct inthe performance of outstanding service” and for the “calm and professionalatmosphere” under his command during the period the jet was destroyed.6The stepping-stones strategy is another diversion. The Elite know the goal theyare aiming for and the stepping-stones required to manipulate public opiniontowards that end. But if they are going to persuade people to accept those steppingstones, each one must be presented in isolation. If once they are seen by the general public as links in a chain leading towards a global centralised tyranny, obviouslythe game is up. If you want barcoded human beings linked to a central computer,you must first get them to accept credit and identity cards. You can be even moresubtle by announcing first of all that the identity cards will not be compulsory, asMichael Howard did at the Conservative Party Conference in 1994. Shouts ofdismay from the audience who want them to be compulsory make you lookpositively moderate in comparison, and initial opposition from the civil libertiesgroups is diluted because the government says, “But they are not compulsory;people have the choice”. Of course, the plan is to make them compulsory and thengo on to barcoding, but the stepping-stones diversionary approach demands thatthis be done in distinct stages, so that people in general don’t realise what is goingon. These tactics are used at all levels of society. If you want to develop an area ofunspoilt, isolated land, and you announce plans to build a housing estate orindustrial complex, it would attract enormous opposition. Instead, the first stage isto propose a road to allow people greater ‘access’ to the area. Once this has beenachieved a few buildings begin to appear, then more and more, until you have built,in stages, what you intended all along. This is one reason why the information inthis book and others like it is so important. Once you know the ultimate aims, thestepping-stones towards them become so easy to see.The ‘Free’ PressNone of this mind manipulation could happen without the media. Again, only afew people in the media know they are playing a key role in programming thehuman mind to walk the road to a global tyranny. The overwhelming majority ofjournalists have no idea how they are being used. I would go further. From myexperience inside the media for many years and more recently on the other side ofthe microphone and notebook, I believe the two least knowledgeable and streetwiseprofessions – in general – are journalism and politics. As I suggested earlier, theyare two aspects of the same illusion. The politicians act as if they rule the world andthe media report events as if politicians are the global decision makers. Thus, thereal controllers can stay in the shadows, unreported and unidentified. There areexceptions when you meet a very bright journalist who can see behind the facades.They know they are imprisoned within a media structure which severely limitswhat they can say and do. But they take every opportunity to get across as muchinformation as they can. I have met a few of those people and they are a joy to talkto. If only that were true of the rest. Most journalists on local and regional papersand local radio are either time-servers, who are programmed to turn out the sameold establishment line without question while thinking their years in the professionmake them streetwise, or they are youngsters fresh out of university who have noexperience of the world and the manipulation that goes on. There are, I stress,exceptions, but I am speaking generally here. I don’t say this out of condemnation,but as this mindset stands between the events in the world and the way theinformation about them is communicated to the public, it is important that weknow the nature of the filters and the filtering that goes on. I remember talking in Southern England one night in the terms I have outlinedin this book. There was one person in the audience who seemed to have apermanent question mark above her head. This turned out to be the local journalist.When I saw her report, it was headlined “Icke’s old theory about the New WorldOrder”. I was intrigued. “Old theory?” Had this newspaper talked about the globalconspiracy before, then? No, as it happens. The headline referred to the reporter’scontention that what I said that night about the nature of the New World Order wasnot new because George Bush had used the same words years before! If that was anisolated example of the thought processes which provide our news, it wouldn’t be aproblem. But it isn’t. I could fill another book with stories of my experiences withpeople bravely claiming to be journalists who have asked questions and writtenarticles that would make a two-year-old look like the peak of maturity.At the national and international level, the number of journalists knowinglymanipulating the human mind is far greater than the local and regional media, butit is still a relative few. The rest just conform to the traditional structure andapproach and allow themselves to be manipulated to manipulate their audience. Iworked in the BBC Television national newsroom for years and everyone aroundme appeared to be extremely genuine. Most of them were very nice people wholoved their children and would not wish to leave them to face a centralised globaldictatorship. But every day they turn out stories which feed their millions ofviewers the line the Elite want them to see and hear.To manipulate the world, you don’t need to have people running around all thetime, like one of those stage performers trying to keep a dozen plates spinning onthe end of a stick. Once you have created the structure, anyone coming into thatorganisation, say a newspaper or television newsroom, has to conform to what isalready there. If you can get your representatives into the positions which appointothers into that organisation, it is even better, because you can then fill the placewith clones of your own attitudes. Also, journalists are there to report events. If youcan engineer significant events, the journalists will report them. You don’t have tocontrol every journalist to do this; the event will be reported anyway. Most of thetime, the background information and explanation of that event will come fromofficial sources. Watch a television news bulletin today if you can, and see where thewords the reporter is speaking are overwhelmingly coming from: official sources.So without even manipulating a single journalist, your engineered event, be it a”terrorist bomb” or “economic problem”, is both reported and explained in the wayyou want.The coverage of the horrific bombing in Oklahoma City in April 1995 was yetanother example of puppet-strings journalism. Whatever official statements wereissued, the media jumped on them immediately and accepted them as fact, withoutquestion. I listened to the BBC’s Radio Five at that time and they introduced a ladyfrom an organisation I had never heard of in America. There was not one questionabout what her organisation represented, who funded it, or what its backgroundwas. The interviewer just fed her questions and allowed her, unchallenged, to giveher ‘expert’ opinion on the people she believed had carried out the attack. In BBC Television’s review of 1995, the so called “heavyweight” news presenter, JohnHumphreys, parrotted the government line on Oklahoma and named McVeigh andthe militias as the “enemy within” even before there had been a trial! And they callthemselves ‘journalists’. It’s unbelievable.When you are looking at the news, make a note of how short the individualitems are. There is usually only enough time, even in major stories, to say this iswhat has happened and this is the (official) explanation. I was laughed at bymillions when I questioned that the figure I was seeing on the television news wasthe real Saddam Hussein back in 1991. There was this man on the screen and thereporter or newsreader was saying it was Saddam. We were told whom he had metthat day, and, on one occasion, how he had swum across a river to show his peoplehe was alive and well after the Gulf War. Now we know from a defector from Iraqthat it was not the real Saddam, but his stand-in lookalike. The media is beingconned day by day and it then cons its audience. Ask 99% of journalists about theBilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, andthe Elite in general, and they will look at you in bewilderment. They won’t evenhave heard of them, let alone know what their role is.But there are some journalists in strategic positions who do know and supportwhat those organisations are doing. The media is such a vehicle for the coup d’etatthat if it ever got into the hands of the Elite, the potential would be limitless. But wedon’t have to worry because, as we are told so often, we have an independentmedia. Ummm. Independent of what and whom? In the August/September 1993edition of the Netherland’s based magazine, Exposure, details were published of thecontrolling boards of the three television networks in the United States, NBC, CBS,and ABC. These networks are supposed to be in ‘competition’ and it is this very’competition’ that is part of the ‘independence’ which ensures we enjoy unbiasednews. That’s the theory, anyway. The Exposure research came from the work of theAmerican New World Order investigator, Eustace Mullins. From what I read,Eustace and I would have very little in common on most things, but either thepeople he names were controlling the networks at the time of the article, or theywere not. The following is provable fact: NBC is a subsidiary of RCA, a mediaconglomerate which appears regularly on the career details of a number of peoplenamed throughout this book. Among the NBC directors named in the Mullinsarticle were: John Brademas (CFR, TC, Bil), a director of the Rockefeller Foundation;Peter G. Peterson (CFR), former head of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co (Rothschild), and aformer Secretary of Commerce; Robert Cizik, chairman of RCA and of First CityBancorp, which was identified in Congressional testimony as a Rothschild bank;Thomas O. Paine, president of Northrup Co (the big defence contractor) anddirector of the (Elite-controlled) Institute of Strategic Studies in London; DonaldSmiley, a director of two Morgan Companies, Metropolitan Life and US Steel;Thornton Bradshaw, chairman of RCA, director of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund,Atlantic Richfield Oil, and the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies (both of thelatter headed by ‘environmentalist’ and elite Bilderberger, Robert O. Anderson).Clearly the NBC board has considerable Rockefeller-Rothschild-Morgan influence.