When ‘Two and a Half Men’ star Angus T. Jones last week warned, “do some research on the effects of television and your brain, and I promise you, you’ll have a decision to make when it comes to television,” he didn’t reveal the sources that led him to reach this conclusion. However, as many of you reading this will be aware, it only requires a cursory search on the internet to discover that the actor’s words of caution can be supported by a large number of credible studies. For example, following a ten-year examination of more than 1,000 children from the inner-city areas of Manchester in the UK, speech and language therapist Dr. Sally Ward concluded in the late 1990s that infants exposed to too much TV experienced speech and language difficulties that could jeopardise their education in later years. She found that one-in-five 9-month-olds displayed poor listening skills and were slow in learning to speak. At age 3, she claims a number of them spoke like 2-year-olds. She also discovered that children were unable to understand their own names, the names of family members or identify and/or respond to simple objects. In 1996, Dr. Ward said she’d discovered during her study that TV had effectively played a significant contributory role in the lack of interaction between parent and child, especially in homes where there were more than one television. She stated that a mother or father, “would wander from room to room dipping into different programmes and as a result spent little time teaching their babies to speak.” Some, she revealed, “use it as a baby-sitter, allowing the infants to sit in front of the screen for long periods of time.” She also found that, “the television goes on when they get up in the morning and goes off when they go to bed at night,” warning that, “the consequences are far-reaching, because babies who are not spoken to will fall behind with their schoolwork and their education will suffer.” She insisted that “babies will benefit from Day One from parents who talk to them.” She also said, “at 3 you can put things right. By the time the child is over 4, they have lost so much ground. You can do an enormous amount, but whether they will ever fulfil their academic potential I think is doubtful.” In a 1998 article from the official news magazine of the ‘American Academy of Paediatrics,’ teacher, lecturer and author Jane M. Healy Ph.D. wrote:
Too much television – particularly at ages critical for language development and manipulative play – can impinge negatively on young minds in several different ways including the following:
* Higher levels of television viewing correlate with lowered academic performance, especially reading scores – This may be because television substitutes for reading practice, partially because the compellingly visual nature of the stimulus blocks development of left-hemisphere language circuitry. A young brain manipulated by jazzy visual effects cannot divide attention to listen carefully to language.
* The nature of the stimulus may predispose some children to attention problems – Even aside from violent or overly stimulating sexual content, the fast-paced, attention-grabbing ‘features’ of children’s programming (e.g., rapid zooms and pans, flashes of colour, quick movement in the peripheral visual field, sudden loud noises) were modelled after advertising research, which determined that this technique is the best way to engage the brain’s attention involuntarily. Such experiences deprive the child of practice in using his own brain independently, as in games, hobbies, social interaction, or just ‘fussing around.’ I have talked to many parents of children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder who found the difficulty markedly improved after they took away television viewing privileges.
Many of the above concerns highlighted by Healy and Ward have continually been echoed by others over the subsequent years. In 2010, Dr. Linda Pagani, a psychosocial professor at the University of Montreal, published the findings of a study in conjunction with the Sainte-Justine University Hospital Research Centre and the University of Michigan to determine the impact of TV exposure on two-year-olds. She concluded, “early childhood is a critical period for brain development and formation of behaviour. High levels of TV consumption during this period can lead to future unhealthy habits. We found every additional hour of TV exposure among toddlers corresponded to a future decrease in classroom engagement and success at math.” She added that they also “have a more sedentary lifestyle,” and were open to “increased victimisation by classmates.” Almost one and a half thousand pre-teens took part in the study in which parents were asked to report how much TV their children watched at 29 and then 53-months of age. School teachers were then called on to evaluate the youngsters’ academic, psychosocial and health habits at aged 10. Pagani said, “although we expected the impact of early TV viewing to disappear after seven and a half years of childhood, the fact that negative outcomes remained is quite daunting.”
Dr. Aric Sigman is well-known to TV audiences in the UK, having appeared frequently on talk-shows and news-programmes as an expert commentator on various sociological and health-related issues affecting the young. He has a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in psychology, a Master of Science degree in the Neurophysiologic Basis of Behaviour, and a Ph.D. in the field of the role of attention in autonomic nervous system self-regulation. He’s also an outspoken critic of the physical and mental effects of television. In a 2005 article for the UK’s ‘Daily Mail’ under the title, ‘’How TV is (quite literally) Killing Us,‘ he not only underlined views brought to the fore by Pagani, Healy and Ward, but elaborated further on the wider implications. He stated:
I’ve recently compiled a report on the serious risks associated with watching the amount of television we do. I’ve analysed a wide range of scientific studies from government agencies across the world, from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, to The Royal College of Psychiatrists, The American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, and Harvard and Stanford medical schools. I’ve spent months poring over articles in journals ranging from The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine to Nature and Journal of Neuroscience. The picture I formed was profoundly disturbing and amounts to what I believe to be the greatest health scandal of our time. I learned that viewing even moderate amounts of television:
• May damage brain cell development and function.
• Is a major independent cause of clinical depression.
These are not wild suppositions: they are based on hard, clinical evidence that has lain buried in academic journals. For example, scientists at the University of Washington studied 2,500 children and found a strong link between early television exposure and attention problems by age seven which was ‘consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD.’ For every hour of television a child watches a day, they noted a nine per cent increase in attentional damage. More subtle, but no less pernicious, were the results I found when I travelled the world to research how remote cultures have been affected by the recent arrival of television. By studying these societies, I was, in effect, going back in time to see how our own society might have been shaped by television. In Bhutan – the last country on earth to introduce TV – I was appalled to discover that since the arrival of 46 cable channels, the country was experiencing its first serious crime wave. Greed, avarice and selfishness had replaced traditional values of peace and respect. Bhutanese academics had conducted a study which showed how television was to blame for increasing crime, corruption and dramatically changing attitudes to relationships. They were particularly appalled to discover that more than a third of parents now preferred to watch television than talk to their own children. I found similar problems when I travelled to Vava’u in Tonga, where I interviewed Police Chief Inspector Ashley Fua. He told me that since the arrival of American TV shows and DVDs on his island, crime among young men had soared. The problem, he told me, was that until now, there had been no need for juvenile courts, jails or a criminal justice system. The police were suddenly having to cope with a crime wave for which they were not prepared.
Consider the facts. By the age of 75, most of us will have spent more than twelve-and-a-half years of 24-hour days watching television. It has become the industrialised world’s main activity, taking up more of our time than any other single activity except work and sleep.
It’s not simply that watching so much television means that children are not undertaking more stimulating play activities, it is suspected that the audiovisual output from TV is actually damaging the child’s rapidly developing brain. The statistics bear this out. Children who have televisions in their bedrooms at ages eight and nine score worst in school achievement tests. And a 26-year study, tracking children from birth, has just concluded ‘television viewing in childhood and adolescence is associated with poor educational achievement by 26 years of age. (And) may have long-lasting, adverse consequences for educational achievement and subsequent socio-economic status and wellbeing.’
In 2007, he wrote:
A study in New Zealand following children from birth to age 15 recently found the amount of television-viewing to be a more significant factor in obesity than the effect sizes often reported for nutritional intake and physical activity. A study of girls aged five and nine found that even in families where neither parent was overweight, television was the only significant predictor of girls’ increase in Body Mass Index. A recent study looking at the association between television-viewing and meal frequency adds to the findings that watching television makes both children and adults eat significantly more, even if they are not physically hungry. One of the mechanisms by which television may induce us to eat more is through causing our brain to monitor external non-food cues – the television screen – as opposed to internal food cues telling us that we have eaten enough and can stop. Experiments have found that when distracted in this way humans continue to salivate unnaturally in response to more and more food when normally they would not.
A new study addressing the relationships between how much television we watch during our middle years (20-60 yrs) and the development of Alzheimer’s Disease are concluding that for each additional hour of middle-adulthood television viewing, the associated risk of Alzheimer’s Disease development increases. Watching television was described by the neuroscientists as a non-intellectually stimulating activity for brain function. A study examining the association between soap-operas, talk shows, and poorer cognition in older women found clinically significant cognitive impairment in all measures, including attention, memory and psychomotor speed.
If it is indeed the aim of the Powers That Be to breed a global population of ‘useless eaters’ who neither possess the physical energy or mental ability to identify and react against an impending totalitarian World Order, then the above results would only serve to heighten fears that the power of TV is a vital tool in achieving this. Earlier this year, ‘Conspiro Media’ reported briefly on how television is capable of controlling our minds and actions subliminally, citing the work of respected researcher Herbert E. Krugman to illustrate this. From 1967 to his retirement in 1983, he was manager of corporate public opinion research at the ‘General Electric Company.’ He was also president of the ‘American Association for Public Opinion Research,’ of the ‘Division of Consumer Psychology of the American Psychological Association,’ and of the ‘Market Research Council of New York.’ He was also director of the ‘Advertising Research Foundation’ and chairman of the ‘Research Policy Committee of the Association of National Advertisers.’ In his document titled, ‘Brainwave Measures of Media Involvement,’ Krugman claimed that,
It was William James who came to the rescue. This turn of the century Harvard psychologist had been the primary American exponent of the study of conscious experience. As a student of the process of attention, he is still acknowledged as master by contemporary scholars.
James defined two types of attention: voluntary and involuntary, and he noted that voluntary attention cannot be continuous; it is a continual returning of the attention to it’s object when it wanders away. He said, “voluntary attention is always derived; we never make an effort to attend an object except for the sake of some remote interest which the effort will serve and there is no such thing as voluntary attention sustained for more than a few seconds at a time. What is called ‘sustained voluntary attention’ is a repetition of successive efforts which bring back the topic to mind. No one can possibly attend continuously to an object that does not change.”
James’ distinction between voluntary and involuntary attention means that much of thinking, learning, and reading represents a sequence of successive efforts to attend, while much of the viewing life around us – films, TV, and other changing stimuli – are far less likely to require effort. In other words, the change, the switching, or the rhythmic process goes on inside man when he is working at the job of attention, or it goes on outside man and inside (e.g.) the moving film as it relieves man of that work.
Krugman describes television “a communication medium that may effortlessly transmit into storage huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure, but much of it capable of later activation.”
In another paper, ‘Passive Learning from Television,’ Krugman states,
The most special way of passive learning (through television) is, by definition, an absence of aroused resistance to what is learned; resistance is exciting and a corollary, therefore, of active learning. This means that passively learned material has an important ‘advantage’ which some have also associated with so-called subliminal perception, extrasensory perception, or hypnotism. This advantage, however, is not a property of the stimulus, but of the respondent; i.e. he can learn passively so long as the material is acceptable to him, without conflict.
One of the prime ways in which the human mind can be passively influenced, is via Alpha-waves, which are electromagnetic oscillations that predominantly originate from part of the human brain known as the occipital lobe. This acts as the visual processing centre. Krugman concludes that,
It is possible that the relaxed and successful character of passive learning can be enhanced by the artificial induction of Alpha rhythm, this with the aid of a flickering light. For example, if a person wants to give up smoking and welcomes suggestion on this problem, then he may respond more successfully if the suggestion is made during Alpha-induced condition.
The time may come when the mass-media may create special programs to help people modify certain attitudes or behaviour. For early education there may be an opportunity to accept the fact that children fidget in class, and this this interference with their attention is not to be blamed on parents, teachers, or the child. Mild drugging of these children, or training in relaxation through Alpha driving, may be dramatically helpful to their educational achievement.
In his 2007 book, ‘Remotely Controlled – How Television is Damaging Our Lives,’ Aric Sigman writes, “research by Professor Herbert Krugman found that within 30 seconds of turning on the television, our brain becomes neurologically less able to make judgements about what we see and hear on the screen. Our brain treats incoming information uncritically. Our brain-waves switch to predominantly Alpha-waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention. What surprised Krugman, however, was how rapidly this state emerged. Further research revealed that our brain’s left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while we are watching television. This tuning out allows the right hemisphere of our brain, which processes information emotionally and uncritically, to function unimpeded. ‘It appears,’ wrote Krugman, ‘the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium. Television is a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.’ This is the long-winded way of saying that the medium of television brainwashes you.”
As Krugman has suggested, information we’re exposed to by the TV whilst in this state of mind is drawn into our subconscious where it influences our thoughts and actions without our knowledge, and media manipulators are aware of this. For example…
’Thinkbox’ is the marketing body for commercial TV in the UK including Channel 4, ITV, Sky Media, and UKTV. According to it’s official website, it represents “over 90% of commercial TV advertising revenue through their owned and partner TV channels.” It states that it “works with the marketing community with a single ambition: To help advertisers get the best out of today’s TV.” ‘Thinkbox’ published a study on it’s site, which investigated the role of the television in the new ‘multi-screened’ culture of lap-tops, tablets, and hand-held games, and also, how all this impacted on the effectiveness of advertising. The viewing habits of 1,000 “nationally representative UK adults with internet access” were examined and CCTV cameras were also fitted into 20 homes that consisted of over 60 individuals in order to capture all their television-watching activity over the space of a fortnight. It’s findings were telling…
Multi-screeners are like meerkats. Although we rarely stay fixated on one thing for any length of time even when we’re not multi-screening, we very much bob in and out of content when we are. We flick our attention to whatever is most compelling at any given moment. In fact, further analysis showed that multi-screening barely had an effect on attention. Using general TV viewing as a benchmark for eyes-on-screen, multi-screening hardly had any impact at all. In fact, multi-tasking was a far bigger distraction during the break. People did pick up additional screens during the ad breaks but they continued to face the telly. TV was still the focal point of the room.
It became clear that we rarely focus wholly on the second screen. Instead we pay attention to different devices but our mind’s eye – and ear – is constantly open to TV ads. This highlights the human aptitude for ‘accidental learning’. Things regularly sink into our brains without us consciously processing them or paying them direct regard. This is why TV ads still have an impact even when we appear to be in a reduced state of attention. (This is one of the benefits of being an audio-visual medium – you don’t have to pay close visual attention in order to know what is going on.) In fact, our memory still stores them and brings them into play automatically when we make decisions.
American activist and author, Jerry Mander spent 15 years in advertising, five of which were as partner and president of the San Francisco firm ‘Freeman, Mander & Gossage.’ In the late 1970s, his book, ‘Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television’ was published. In it, he wrote about his own personal experiences in the ad industry and how television is used as a mind-controlling instrument on the masses. In an interview with the website, ’Nancho.net’ he said, “most criticisms of television have to do with the program content. People say if there is less violence on television or less sexism on television, or less this or less that, television would be better. If there were more programs about this or more programs about that, then we’d have ‘good television.’ My own feeling is that that is true – that it’s very important to improve the program content – but that television has effects, very important effects, aside from the content, and they may be more important. They organise society in a certain way. They give power to a very small number of people to speak into the brains of everyone else in the system night after night after night with images that make people turn out in a certain kind of way. It affects the psychology of people who watch. It increases the passivity of people who watch. It changes family relationships. It changes understandings of nature. It flattens perception so that information, which you need a fair amount of complexity to understand it as you would get from reading, this information is flattened down to a very reduced form on television. And the medium has inherent qualities which cause it to be that way.” When Mander was asked whether his views on the power of television had changed in the years since his book was published, he replied, “no, nothing has changed. I think, if anything I see television as more negative now than I did before. It’s gained power in that time. It’s done that not so much here in Japan or in the United States. The power that it has gained is that it applies itself all over the world in the same way. Satellite communications, for example, which came along and were celebrated as something which was going to democratise information elsewhere in the world, has turned out to homogenise knowledge and experience and culture. Television is being used as an instrument to destroy indigenous culture all over the world. Places in Indonesia and South America and the Arctic Circle and the jungles of South America where there aren’t even any roads, there are people sitting around in front of their grass houses or next to their dog teams in the ice and they’re watching Dallas! And they’re turning into Americans. They’re being hit with a thousand commercials. Their culture is not surviving that. Television is really an instrument of cloning in the world. It’s taking variety, diverse mentalities and diverse cultures and homogenizing them into the American, or at least the Western industrialized nations’ format. So it’s very dangerous. It’s Orwellian in its implications when used in underdeveloped areas of the world. And its power has been magnified as a result. Their indigenous cultures are being sacrificed. They’re being made into workers that will fit into the system and, hopefully, someday consumers. The World Bank is in there giving them the money to make it all work. The idea is to make people compatible with the dominant economic system. And that’s what’s taking place.”
Mander now utilises his former experiences in the advertising industry to promote social causes, and in 1971 founded the first non-profit ad agency in the US. Whilst speaking to ‘Nancho.net’ he said, “I wasn’t a rebel when I got into advertising. I became a rebel through advertising. It was by being in advertising and realising what advertising does in the system. I mean, I can’t explain why I, unlike other advertising-men, saw that as a big problem. But I became involved in using techniques to help, you know, environmental groups and anti-war groups and civil rights groups, using advertising as a technique to help them. So using that medium is what awoke me to the power of the medium and the power to use it in the reverse, against the system as well.”
One way in which advertising is said to have been used to implant suggestions into our psyche is via subliminal messaging. Perhaps the most widely reported example of this occurred during the US Presidential race of 2000 in a 30-second TV campaign ad for then White House hopeful George W. Bush. The film, which attacks opponent Al Gore and his healthcare plans, features a frame where the word “RATS” appears in white capital letters for one 30th of a second before the line “BUREAUCRATS DECIDE” is shown. Bush and his team denied the word was placed there intentionally and pleaded ignorance, although the ad’s creator Alex Castellanos later admitted it was “a visual drumbeat designed to make you look at the word ‘bureaucrats.’”
Dr. Howard Shevrin is professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and has spent over fifty years studying the effects of subliminals on the subconscious mind. In the 2011 documentary ‘Programming the Nation?’ he says, “we were the first to demonstrate that you could detect responses from scalp electrodes where we had a group of words that were clearly negative and words that were clearly positive – and the words are sort of mixed up together and they’re presented at a thousandth of a second – so, I wanted that to be no-nonsense, you know? No question about whether people were aware – one thousandth of a second – you ain’t seein’ nothin’. And the basic finding was that the negative words when they were presented subliminally would have a bigger voltage of brain response than did the positive words… this goes back to the whole general scientific question: Can a subliminal stimulus in and of itself cause a person’s behaviour to change and to change in some significant way?… And the evidence there is problematic. There are some that say ‘yes,’ others that say ‘no.’” A similar study at University College in London in 2009 showed volunteers a mixture of positive and negative words subliminally (i.e. “flower,” “peace,” “murder,” “agony”). The leader of the research team later concluded, “we have demonstrated conclusively that people are much more attuned to negative words. Negative words have a more rapid impact. ’Kill your speed’ should be more noticeable than ’slow down.’ More controversially, highlighting a competitor’s negative qualities may work on a subliminal level much more effectively than shouting your own selling points.” Dr. Shevrin warns, “to really intend to make people anxious – and you don’t know how that person deals with anxiety… that to me is outrageous. For me, the bottom line; ya don’t mess with the unconscious, ‘cos you don’t know what the effects might be.”
Interestingly, subliminal messages were spotted by TV viewers during the ad-breaks for ‘Two and a Half Men’ on the ‘Comedy Central’ channel last year and some of them were extremely intriguing…. such as this one:
There was also this one:
IF YOU ARE READING THIS THEN YOU HAVE PASSED.
YOU ARE NOW PART OF A CULTURAL ELITE.
YOU HAVE TRANSCENDED THE SHADOWY WORLD OF THE FLESH,
RISING FROM THE ASHES OF SOCIETY LIKE A SHIMMERING PHOENIX:
BEAUTIFUL, IRIDESCENT AND EMPOWERED.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CREED, RELIGION NOR CULT, MERELY THAT YOU HAVE SEEN PAST THE GOSSAMER VEIL OF THE SUPERFICIAL AND UNCOVERED THE TRUTH. NOW THE WORLD IS YOURS FOR THE TAKING, GRIP IT, SQUEEZE IT FOR ALL IT’S WORTH AND LET THE JUICES DRIP DOWN YOUR THROAT.
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE IN YOUR LUMINOUS RADIANCE. EXCEPT FLY. YOU CANNOT FLY. DON’T EVEN TRY. IT’LL END IN TEARS.
Some of the banners were fairly innocuous in content, for example, there was one that reflected upon the apparent senselessness in advertising fridges on TV when, surely, everybody owned one. Another took a critical swipe at careless bus drivers. However, certain key words were highlighted which – when connected together – formed an interesting message all of their own…
Another subliminal banner from earlier this year criticised the Iraq war…
To date, no one representing ‘Comedy Central’ has stepped forward to explain the intent behind the messages. Were these banners merely a cheap comical attempt to rustle up some attention and publicity, or was there something of a darker nature at play?
The mainstream media has largely failed to investigate Angus’s views on how television can affect the brain, or his claim that what we watch on TV is “bad news.” Instead, it’s focused a lot of energy on labelling him a hypocrite in all but name by informing us that he’s chosen to stay on in a sitcom that pays him handsomely for each episode, despite pleading with the rest of us not to watch it because it’s “filth.” Hypocrite or not, it should come as no surprise that the major media outlets haven’t seized the opportunity in the wake of Angus’s comments to initiate an intelligent and informed debate on modern-day culture and the role of television. However, ‘Conspiro Media’ did find one columnist who stepped up to the plate. Under an article titled ‘TV’s Air Pollution’ and dated December 3rd, the ‘New York Post’s’ Andrea Peyser writes,
Admit it. Angus T. Jones was right. TV shows present teenage virginity as a curse, human intelligence as a disease, and promiscuous sex as the norm, while average attention spans are as alien as the martian landscape. Jones has apologised, sort of… and yet, Jones has not for a moment taken back his message: “Watch my show and your brain will rot.” Consider the latest episdode:
Jones, who plays army recruit Jake Harper, giddily tells dad Alan (Jon Cryer) his girlfriend “gave me the clap!” Jake’s thrilled. Now everyone knows he’s having sex!
“So, you’re telling people?” his dad asks incredulously. “I don’t have to,” responds Jake, “because I scream when I pee.”
That’s not to say ‘Two and a Half Men’ is alone. Far from it.
In a sad attempt to be “edgy,” HBO went misogynist. It’s soon to start the second season of Lena Dunham’s series, ‘Girls,’ a show that explores in all it’s dimpled ugliness, the sexual debasement and unplanned pregnancies of four 20-somethings who supposedly represent genuine hip New York females.
‘Glee’ is a ‘Fox’ series I once thought superior, with it’s cool depictions of high-school misfits. Then an episode a while back showed two girls, played by adults, getting rough with each other. Brittany (Heather Morris) wanted to kiss. Santana (Naya Rivera) talked about “scissoring” – a term that sent me rushing to ‘UrbanDictionary.com.’ (You don’t want to know).
“What’s that?” my then 11-year-old daughter asked.
Another show banished from my house.
As many eminent researchers within the ‘Alternative’ arena will agree, the segment above is a perfect example of how the media is playing it’s part in a long-term plan devised by think-tanks and social engineers to debase morality in preparation for a New World Order by promoting and ‘normalising’ promiscuity, single parenthood, homosexuality, and drug-use to an ever-increasingly young and impressionable audience through films, TV and music. Of course, Christopher Hudson (A.K.A. ‘The Forerunner’) shares this view, and he firmly lays much of the blame on the influential neo-theosophical occultist, Alice Bailey who first rose to prominence during the early 1900s. She’s now regarded as one of the founders of the New Age movement, which some of her detractors argue, hides a dark “Satanic” doctrine from it’s millions of followers, and which will form the blueprint for a supreme, ’one-size-fits-all’ global religion in the event of a New World Order. These fears have been reinforced somewhat by an organisation that Alice formed in the early 1920s. Known as, the ‘Lucis Trust,’ it housed the ‘Lucifer Publishing Company,’ although it was later re-dubbed, the ‘Lucis Publishing Company.’ Suspicion has also been directed towards the ‘Lucis Trust’ creation, ‘The World Goodwill’ which works closely with the much maligned Illuminati entity that is The United Nations as a non-governmental organisation. Veteran journalist and author, William F. Jasper has covered first-hand many of the major UN conferences, including the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, the 1998 Rome Summit for an International Criminal Court, and the September 2000 UN Millennium Summit in New York. In his 1992 book, ‘Global Tyranny… Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order,’ he claims the UN “is steadily becoming the centre of a syncretic new world religion, a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism, atheism, Communism, Socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism.” Meanwhile, The World Goodwill’s website states that it seeks “to help establish right human relations and solve humanity’s problems through the constructive power of goodwill,” and that “there is no group so likely to ensure that humanity achieves this most difficult goal as the men and women of goodwill. Provided they can overcome inertia, they are in a key position, requiring only courage to express goodwill and to initiate action to prepare for the new world order.”
Hudson states in his video ‘Media Matrix,’ that occultists within the shadows of the New Age movement are hoping to introduce global control by ‘indoctrinating’ us “into their belief-system.” This, he states, is being achieved by purifying and morphing their abstract symbols, metaphors and numbers into forms simple enough for the masses to understand, embrace and ultimately, desire. He says, “it’s like a mother feeding her child vegetables. They’re mixing their belief-system with something sweet and they’re making it slide right down our throats.” Hudson accuses the mainstream media of promoting this agenda by creating “mass opinion that is receptive to these values,” and by debasing all The Arts such as music, poetry, and painting through obscenity, immorality and occultism. He also singles out the celebrity Oprah Winfrey for particular criticism, claiming she has “fallen under the deception of the Devil” for proudly championing New Ageism on her TV programmes. In another series of videos, Christopher argues that President Obama’s support of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender rights is secretly a plot to implement a number of Alice Bailey’s goals in order to establish a New World Order. He says these include the breaking down of “the traditional Judeo-Christian family concept… which, by the way, is a union between a man and a woman,” and “to promote man’s freedom to express sex in all forms including homosexuality.” He then goes on to claim that the occult symbols on display in the accompanying video of the Beyonce and Lady Gaga song ‘Video Phone’ is not only portraying this agenda subliminally, but also supporting it and promoting it. Although Forerunner insists throughout that he regards the victimisation of homosexuals as unacceptable, in ‘Media Matrix,’ he says, “the Bible tells us that homosexual practises are unnatural. But what we’re talking about here is nothing more than sin. To practise homosexuality is a sin – the same way that lying is a sin, the same way that stealing is a sin, the same way that killing is a sin, and the same way that entering into physically intimate heterosexual relationships prior to marriage is also a sin.” According to The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official position which can be found on it’s website, “sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman.” It continues, “this was the design established by God at creation. The Bible makes no accommodation for homosexuality or relationships. Sexual acts outside the circle of a heterosexual marriage are forbidden.”
Of all his videos, Forerunner is perhaps best known for his 2009 documentary, ‘The Jay-Z Deception’ in which he claims the rapper’s trio of ‘Blueprint’ albums are symbolic indicators marking his progress through the first three degrees of Freemasonry over a period of eight years. In fact, a significant number of the outspoken pastor’s films on his ‘Forerunner Chronicles’ channel investigate the occult elements within the Hip Hop and R&B world, and perhaps that should come as no surprise given his claims that he worked in the entertainment industry when he was 19-years-old writing storylines for music-videos. He’s also hit out at A$AP Rocky, a Hip Hop artist who’s no stranger when it comes to rumours of Illuminati affiliations. Much of the speculation has been directed towards the video of his track, ‘Wassup,’ not only because it depicts a man enjoying the trappings of a glamorous yet debauched lifestyle that comes easily to those willing to trade in their morals, but also due to the occult symbology throughout, most notably when he’s seen sitting inside an upside-down pentagram preparing to summon up demonic entities…
A$AP Rocky explained the meaning behind the video during a radio-interview with DJ Premier. He said, “it was just basically a storyline of me sellin’ my soul for jewels, girls, and stuff like that and – you know – gettin’ the riches and fame and everything and then I woke up ‘cos that’s not what I want out of life. I woke up, it was all a dream.”
Earlier this year, Forerunner provided viewers with his own take on A$AP Rocky…
When A$AP Rocky was asked to comment on Forerunner’s video in an interview with DJ Drama earlier this year, he said, “when I watched it, it looked so convincing. I was like, ‘oh, yo! I worship the Devil. Yo! It’s crazy – what I’ma do?’ Nah. When I seen that joint I was laughing.” He added, “when they accuse you of Illuminati, that means you made it. I’m glad. I’m flattered.”
In another film, Forerunner shifts the focus onto the Hip Hopper Rick Ross during an interview with a former model who recalls her experiences working as an extra in the music-video for the Sean Garrett single ‘6 in the Morning’ and in which the rapper features as guest. She claims the director ordered the cast to repeatedly chant “666” whilst filming on the set, and that it was incidents such as this that eventually led to her leaving the entertainment industry altogether. She reflects, “since then, I guess the more that I read and the more that I give in to the word of God… I see that everything that I was doing and everything that I was standing up for… if it doesn’t line up with God’s word, then I believe that we shouldn’t be doing it. And I think that what I was doing was wrong because I was participating and I was surrounding myself with people that were not doing The Will and not doing what is right by God.” In ‘Media Matrix,’ Hudson tells his viewers that, “we must give up our worldly entertainment. We must give up our worldly fashions. We must give up our worldly music and give ourselves wholly to the service of God.” This is in keeping with the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which states that, “our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognising cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit.” Given that Angus has openly praised the information in Forerunner’s videos and absorbed himself in Adventist teachings, one might wonder how seriously the actor will heed these moral guidelines when it comes to the future of his TV career. His mother, meanwhile, is concerned. She fears her son is being exploited by the church. Charlie Sheen, his former co-star in ‘Two and a Half Men’ has also expressed his own misgivings comparing Angus’s video testimony to a “Hale-Bop-like meltdown.” It’s clear the actor is referring to the ‘Heaven’s Gate’ religious cult which believed that Earth was about to be recycled and that the only chance of survival was to leave the planet immediately. One day, the movement’s founder and leader, Marshall Applewhite, told his followers that this could be achieved by committing suicide, at which point, their souls would board a spacecraft that was trailing the comet Hale-Bop. In March 1997, 38 members of the group – Applewhite included – killed themselves by ingesting cyanide and arsenic.
There’s no hard evidence to support the view that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a cult, although it’s entirely possible that Angus’s mother’s fears are warranted. After all, her son is a very wealthy celebrity, and as such, a potential target of nefarious elements within the movement. Hudson has responded to this unease insisting that, “I respect his mother and the love she has for her child and her need to protect him. She is concerned about his well-being as are many other people. But Angus has not had a breakdown and I am not manipulating him. He said, ‘let’s do an interview’ – and I turned on the camera. Angus is a very educated, thoughtful young man. What was expressed in the video was from the sincere heart of a young man.”
Angus’s journey towards spiritual enlightenment was a gradual process that began as a child when his parents sent him to study in Christian-based schools, although he didn’t begin to actively seek religion until after he found fame in ‘Two and a Half Men’ and at a time when he claims he became a weed-smoker and Acid taker who was wrapped up in his material possessions with little interest in anything but himself. It was through a friend that he was finally introduced to the Seventh-day Adventists, and of course, Christopher Hudson’s videos. Now baptised into the Church, the actor takes an active part in regular prayer meetings, and is currently learning to give Bible studies as well as studying lay evangelism.
Whether intentionally or not, the mainstream media has unfairly sensationalised certain aspects of Angus’s so-called ’YouTube’ “testimony” with The Forerunner. For example, the actor’s half-hour one-on-one with the pastor has repeatedly been labelled a “rant” by countless reporters and commentators.
How utterly preposterous this is.
According to ‘OxfordDictionaries.com,’ “rant” is defined as: to speak at length in an angry, impassioned way (verb), or is, a spell of ranting; a tirade (noun).
Please… if you haven’t yet watched the half-hour conversation, then do so and then try to direct ’Conspiro Media’ towards the exact point where this “rant” occurs, because we’ve yet to spot it. What we see and hear in his ‘Testimony’ bears no relation to the majority of portrayals of him in news-pages and celebrity gossip-columns right across the world. Far from “ranting,” Angus is calm. He speaks with Hudson – not to or at him – and does so sensitively and articulately. In fact, to quote the words of Les Moonves, the boss of CBS network which broadcasts ‘Two and a Half Men,’ “after going through what we went through with Charlie Sheen, this is a piece of cake.”
He’s not wrong of course. Angus’s former co-star was a rambling, confusing mess when he appeared as a guest on Alex Jones’s radio-show last year. During the broadcast, he hurled derogatory comments towards the hit comedy’s producer, Chuck Lorre and was eventually sacked as a result. Although the actor had been experiencing substance abuse issues for a number of years, he denied that drugs were the cause of his bizarre behaviour, even going as far as to undergo a number of urine and blood tests to prove it – and all of which he passed.
His ‘meltdown’ occurred at a crucial moment. Sheen, a long-time public campaigner for 9/11 Truth, was all set to participate in a documentary with Alex Jones investigating the anomalies surrounding the September 11th attacks. However, it would appear that the fallout from his headline-grabbing radio-interview put an end to this intriguing and potentially powerful project. Was it possible that Sheen’s mind had been manipulated in order to bring about this outcome?… The star was a regular resident in rehab centres, a long suspected prime location for ‘altering’…
And what about his car which was mysteriously stolen and driven off a cliff – twice… in five months?
But, hey!… That’s another story for another time!