Polls

What most people believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the New World Order's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells them that the programming is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved.

Polling is a tool to change public opinion
By Dr John Coleman
Ex-intelligence person, from his book
CONSPIRATORS' HIERARCHY: THE STORY OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300

One of the most important areas of cooperation between what think-tanks turn out and what becomes government and public policy are the "pollsters." It is the job of the polling-companies to mould and shape public-opinion in the way that suits the conspirators. Polls are constantly being taken by CBS-NBC-ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. Most of these efforts are coordinated at the National-Opinion Research-Center where, as much as it will amaze most of us, a psychological-profile was developed for the entire nation.

Findings are fed into the computers of Gallup Poll and Yankelovich, Skelley and White for comparative-evaluation. Much of what we read in our newspapers or see on television has first been cleared by the polling-companies. WHAT WE SEE IS WHAT THE POLLSTERS THINK WE SHOULD SEE. This is called "public-opinion-making." The whole idea behind this bit of social-conditioning is to find out how responsive the public is to POLICY-DIRECTIVES handed down by the Committee of 300. We are called "targeted population groups" and what is measured by the pollsters is how much resistance is generated to what appears in the "Nightly News." Later, we shall learn exactly how this deceptive practice got started and who is responsible for it.

It is all part of the elaborate opinion-making-process created at, Tavistock. Today our people believe they are well-informed but what they do not realize is that the opinions they believe are their own, were in fact created in the research-institutions and think-tanks of America and that none of us are free to form our own opinions, because of the information we are provided with by the media and the pollsters.

Polling was brought to a fine-art just before the United States entered the Second World War. Americans, unbeknown to themselves, were conditioned to look upon Germany and Japan as dangerous enemies who had to be stopped. In a sense, this was true, and that makes conditioned thinking all the more dangerous, because based on the INFORMATlON fed to them, the enemy did indeed appear to be Germany and Japan. Just recently we saw how well Tavistock's conditioning-process works, when Americans were conditioned to perceive Iraq as a threat and Saddam Hussein as a personal enemy of the United States.

Such a conditioning-process is technically-described as "the message reaching the sense-organs of persons to be influenced." One of the most respected of all pollsters is Committee of 300 member Daniel Yankelovich, of the company, Yankelovich, Skelley and White. Yankelovich is proud to tell his students that polling is a tool to change public-opinion, although this is not original, Yankelovich having drawn his inspiration from David Naisbett's book "TREND REPORT" which was commissioned by the Club of Rome.

In his book Naisbett describes all of the techniques used by public-opinion-makers to bring about the public-opinion desired by the Committee of 300. Public-opinion-making is the jewel in the crown of the OLYMPIANS, for with their thousands of new-science social-scientists at their beck and call, and with the news-media firmly in their hands, NEW public-opinions on almost any subject can be created and disseminated around the world in a matter of two weeks.

This is precisely what happened when their servant George Bush was ordered to make war on Iraq. Within two weeks, not only the U.S. but almost the entire world public-opinion was turned against Iraq and its President Saddam Hussein. These media change-artists and news-manipulators report directly to the Club of Rome which in turn reports to the Committee of 300 at whose head sits the Queen of England ruling over a vast network of closely-linked corporations who never pay taxes and are answerable to no-one, who fund their research-institutions through foundations whose joint-activities have almost total control over our daily lives.

Together with their interlocking companies, insurance-business, banks, finance-corporations, oil companies, newspapers, magazines, radio and television, this vast apparatus sits astride the United States and the world. There is not a politician in Washington D.C. who is not, somehow, beholden to it. The Left rails against it, calling it "imperialism" which indeed it is, but the Left is run by the same people, the very same ones who control the Right, so that the Left is no more free than we are!

Scientists engaged in the process of conditioning are called "social-engineers" or "new-science social-scientists" and they play an integral-part in what we see, hear and read. The "old school" social-engineers were Kurt K. Lewin, Professor Hadley Cantril, Margaret Meade, Professor Derwin Cartwright and Professor Lipssitt who, together with John Rawlings Reese, made up the backbone of new-science scientists at Tavistock Institute.

During the Second World War, there were over 100 researchers at work under the direction of Kurt Lewin, copying-slavishly the methods adopted by Reinhard Heydrich of the S.S. The OSS was based on Heydrich's methodology and, as we know, the OSS was the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency. The point of all this is that the governments of Britain and the United States already have the machinery in place to bring us into-line in a New World Order with only a slight modicum of resistance materializing, and this machinery has been in place since 1946. Each passing year has added new refinements.

It is this Committee of 300 which has established control-networks and mechanisms far more binding than anything ever seen in this world. Chains and ropes are not needed to restrain us. Our fear of what is to come does that job far more efficiently than any physical means of restraint. We have been brainwashed to give up our Constitutional-Right to bear arms; to give up our Constitution itself; to allow the United Nations to exercise control over our foreign-policies, and the IMF to take control of our fiscal and monetary policies; to permit the President to break United States law with impunity and to invade a foreign country and kidnap its head-of-state. In short we have been brainwashed to the extent where we, as a nation, will accept each and every lawless act carried-out by our government almost without question.

Artificial news, but its influence is real http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/08/1076175030977.html
Paul Sheehan February 9, 2004

The media is no longer merely reporting on political power games, it is playing them, through omission and invention, writes Paul Sheehan.

We live in parallel universes:

	the real world, where people run for office, vote, debate in parliament, and can be voted out of office; and
	Media World, where power is exercised in a very different way. Media World is meant to complement the democratic process but it has evolved into something which competes with the democratic process for power and influence. Media World no longer reports the political agenda, it seeks to set the political agenda.

One of the ways in which elected representatives are curbed and controlled is through a never-ending process of phoney elections. They are called opinion polls. Presented as an expression of the popular will and thus an expression of democracy itself, they serve the opposite purpose. They are a method of control. Opinion polls are artificial news events, easily manipulated, yet are treated with reverence in Media World, which is not surprising considering they are a creation of the media and a means of extending its power.

The entire process and undue emphasis given to phoney elections was exposed in recent weeks. On January 18, the American TV network CBS published a news poll which found that if the presidential election were held that day, 45 per cent of voters would have voted Democrat and 43 would vote for President George Bush, and CBS went on to state: "Former Vermont governor Howard Dean is still the clear first choice of Democrats nationwide, named by 24 per cent as their preferred nominee. Retired General Wesley Clark is at 12 per cent, while Rep. Dick Gephardt is at 11 per cent". Senator John Kerry did not rate a mention. He was listed as a distant fourth, with 7 per cent. Senator John Edwards was back in sixth place, with 5 per cent.

The CBS poll was typical. Before the first primary in this year's presidential race, a survey of the predictions of 48 political pundits found only one who had predicted John Kerry would win the Democratic presidential nomination. After the punditocracy and their opinion polls crashed and burned the first time they were confronted by the real world, the media critic of The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, summed up the entire circus in a single, disgusted sentence:

"Just about everything you heard and read about the Iowa caucuses in November and December was wrong."

Because Media World never applies the accusatory blowtorch to itself the way it constantly applies it to elected politicians (as a way of controlling and diminishing them) this latest debacle was simply absorbed as a mere hiccup. It is much more than that.

You might recall that Simon Crean's leadership was destroyed by the never-ending process of phoney elections and artificial news events and wolf-pack group-think long before he ever contested a real election. And exactly the same people who hunted Crean so hard are now fawning and boosting and brown-nosing around Mark Latham. It's transparent. And all the while Media World rages about the mendacity of elected politicians, it confects the most brazen fabrications. The technique for imposing these fabrications can be called "omission syndrome". It works like this: a highly complex, morally ambiguous sequence of events is boiled down, after the events, into a super-simple accusatory narrative which omits all major inconvenient facts.

The invasion of Iraq has provided a paradise for omission syndrome, and the latest fabrication is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of the invasion, thus the entire premise for the invasion was wrong, was almost certainly known to be wrong before the war began, and politicians have lied to us. Everything about this mantra is a half-truth, and I write this as someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq (in columns on February 6, 24 and March 31). I have not changed my mind. In recent days the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Howard hunting pack has leapt upon the admission by Dr David Kay, a war hawk sent to Iraq by the Bush Administration as chief investigator for weapons of mass destruction, that "we were almost all wrong" about the threat from such weapons in Iraq.

While his admission has been given prominence, omission syndrome required that other significant observations by Kay be ignored, such as his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 28 when he said: "Let me be absolutely clear about it, Iraq was in clear material violation of [UN Resolution] 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their [weapons] programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal. "... I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt ... in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated..."

This latest campaign is the biggest media world try-on in this country since the children overboard crusade, when omission syndrome presented the carefully narrow narrative that the Howard Government lied about a child being thrown overboard from a boat people's vessel and used the lie to help win an election. Omitted from this version of events was that every child on the boat - 76 of them - ended up in the water, forced off a scuttled boat in an act of reckless brinkmanship. This was moral blackmail at its worst, and the tactic was rejected, emphatically, in the real world, even as it was endorsed and embraced in Media World in an attempt to turn the election.

Keyword: social engineering, Tavistock

PERSUASION ENGINEERING: HOW TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION
http://www.summitconsult.com/arena/persuasion.html

"He who moulds public opinion is more powerful than he who
makes the laws." — Abraham Lincoln

Public opinion is the ultimate determinant of the outcome of any public policy debate. When informed and motivated, the public can be coalesced to support or stop government initiatives that directly impact your organization's bottom line.

Influencing public opinion starts with understanding that elected officials are greatly influenced by the "policy making community" — constituents, interest groups, opinion leaders and the media. Informing and persuading these groups is critical to an effective grassroots campaign.

Winning grassroots support requires that you cast the issue in terms the public can understand and identify with. For example, how does the outcome of your issue affect jobs, quality of life, or public services available in the local community? In short, you must explain to the public what's in it for them.

Most companies start with the premise that what's good for them is good for the public. Not anymore. Public opinion polls show an electorate that has grown cynical and wary of institutions and big business. There is widespread concern over taxes, health care, occupational health, product safety, education, infrastructure, the environment and other issues. Emotions are easily tapped because opinions are deeply rooted and often divided. Special interest groups are on the rise, underscoring how highly fractioned society has become.

The media are the most influential catalyst of public opinion. We live in the age of instant news, where information is disseminated around the world in a second through the Internet. The noise level is high. Myriad interests promote products, issues and positions. To break through, your message must be delivered frequently and consistently in forums that directly reach those who have a stake in your success.

Research takes the guesswork out of communications. Through customized, proprietary techniques, Summit Consulting Group can help you identify the exact words and symbols that will trigger powerful emotions and motivate your stakeholders to action.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/polls.html

Recent polls find that exactly 50% of Americans comprise half of it’s population. Hmm, what a useful survey;-)

When you poll people who are not informed about the details of an issue the poll is invalid. The networks misinform the public about an issue and then they turn around and poll the same misinformed public on how they feel about that issue? Perhaps they should poll the people on their knowledge of the issue first and then poll them about how they feel. They will never do this because it would expose they fact that they are misinforming their viewers.

A few points here.

When did news polls become relevant? The "News" networks "ASK US" things like "Who is a greater threat to world peace, Saddam or Bush?" ASK US??? Shouldn’t they be TELLING US??? Shouldn’t they be giving us enough facts to help us come to an informed conclusion?

Opinion or clairvoyance? It is one thing to poll people on how they feel regarding an issue, but the new trend is to poll people about how they feel about the future.
It is one thing to ask how we feel about invading Iraq; this is a valid question. What purpose does it serve to ask how long we think the invasion will last? What does that show?
On any given day take a look a Wolf Blitzer’s polls. Most of them are prime examples of these childish questions. Some however, are a bit more, shall we say, intelligent.

Completely invalid questions. They ask us if we support the war, yet the public is so misinformed that their opinion is irrelevant.
Ask first if they know that the US used forged documents as evidence of Iraq attempting to acquire nuclear material.
Ask next if they know that Colin Powell cited a 12 year old thesis, written by a student who had never been to Iraq, as the basis for his intelligence during his 1st presentation to the UN Security Council, and that it was not reported in the US because we conveniently went to code Orange and only reported about that.
Then ask if they understand that Bush has no evidence on any connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq, and that almost the entire world intelligence community feels that there are no links.
Then, if they know all of that, ask them if they support the war.
That is a valid poll. Current polling is very misleading. Continued...click next.

If Bush Was Popular, We Wouldn't Need Polls to Convince Us

Political Polls - Allencountydemocrats.org prepared this fantastic reference on political polls.

Dr. James J. Zogby: US bends statistical data on Iraqi surveys - Early in President Bush's recent public relations campaign to rebuild support for the US war effort in Iraq, Vice-President Cheney appeared on "Meet the Press."

Attempting to make the case that the US was winning in Iraq, Cheney made the following observation:

- One of the questions it asked is: "If you could have any model for the kind of government you'd like to have"

- and they were given five choices - "which would it be?" The US wins hands down. If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shia population.

- If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 per cent of the people polled said they want the US to stay for at least another year.

- But the AEI's "spin" and the Vice-President's use of their "spin" created a faulty impression of the poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.

- So while technically Cheney might say that "over 60 per cent (actually it's 59 per cent) … want the US to stay at least another year," an equally correct observation would be that 65.5 per cent want the US and Britain to leave in one year or less.

Parties Spinning the Polls: Who's Right, Who's Wrong?

- It's one year out from the presidential election and both parties are furiously spinning the polls. Democrats are emphasizing polls they say show signs of increasing weakness in President Bush's re-election effort. Republicans counter that, historically, Bush is in a safe place and that his prospects have dimmed little.

- Who's right and who's wrong? The answer, as it often is in Washington, depends on how you look at it.

Spin clouds truth in polls of Iraqis - Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has said, "The polls do show that most Iraqis want us to stay as long as necessary."

- The Washington Post story pointed out that the same poll found that 47 percent of residents thought they were worse off at the moment, compared to only 33 percent of residents who thought they were better off. Nearly everyone (94 percent) said Baghdad was more dangerous now than before the invasion. The United States cleaned up one mess, but has replaced it with chaos of its own.

Reference book quoted in
'Conspirators Heirarchy: story of the Committee of 300', by Dr John Coleman

UNDERSTANDING MAN'S SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, Cantril.

Cantril was primarily responsible for establishing the Association for Humanistic Psychology based in San Francisco that taught Tavistock methods. It is in institutions of this type that we find the lines between pure science and social-engineering become totally obliterated. The term "social-engineering" covers every aspect of methods used by Tavistock to bring about massive changes in group orientation toward social, economic, religious and political events and brainwashing of target-groups who then believe that opinions expressed and viewpoints taken are their own. Selected individuals underwent the same Tavistockian treatment, resulting in major shifts in personality and behavior. The effect of this on the national scene was, and still is, devastating and is one of the principal factors in bringing the United States into the twilight, decline-and-fall state-of-being in which the country finds itself at the close of 1991.

I did a report on this national condition under the title: "Twilight, Decline-and-Fall of the United States of America" which was published in l987. The Association for Human Psychology was founded by Abraham Maselov in l957 as a Club of Rome project. Another Tavistock-Club of Rome Commissioned opinion-making research-center was established by Risis Likhert and Ronald Lippert who called it The Center for Research in the Utilization of Scientific Knowledge. The facility was under the directorship of Club of Rome's Donald Michael. The center drew heavily on the Office of Public Opinion Research established at Princeton University in l940. It was from here that Cantril taught many of the techniques used by today's pollsters-opinion makers.

Buying in to "Political Correctness"
home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/bookofrevelation.htm

This Awareness indicates there is also that which is known as the political war. Essentially, if entities understand what is meant by: "political," it is best to think of it in terms of popularity contests, for essentially that is what political correctness is: the position that is most popular, the position that is promoted as being the most popular. If entities can begin to understand a certain position as being politically correct and buy into that political correctness, they are seeking to be popular on the agenda of that which is promoted as the politically correct or popular position.

This Awareness indicates there are many who are not politically correct, who take a position that is less than popular, whose position is described as unpopular. Many of these entities described as unpopular, will find that gradually their position becomes less and less popular, because the masses want to be on the right side of politics. They want to be political correct.

This Awareness indicates therefore, if they are told by polls or by the media that it is politically correct to be "such and such" and politically incorrect to be something else, then they are likely to switch their positions accordingly. This Awareness indicates there is a war in regard to the taking of polls, because this is part of the propaganda war, part of the machinery that persuades entities to take a position which lines them up to give power to one group over another.

It is a war for power. In some cases it erupts in violence. For the most part the violence is kept secret or hidden or is presented in a way that excuses it or makes it appear that the victims of the violence are "evil" and unworthy to live. An example of this is that which occurred in the Waco scenario and situation. Likewise, in the Montana Freemen situation.

These entities were vilified without ever having the opportunity to give their side of the story to the press, or to the public. The press was of course part of the propaganda for those elite factions that control the one side of the story. This Awareness indicates essentially, this is a war between the masses, the people, and the various governments and the elite controllers of those governments.