Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource

Printer Friendly Version

Particulars of Christianity:
315 Global Conspiracy
(and Freemasonry)

Control of the News Media:
Bernard Goldberg Meets Carroll Quigley

Intro: A Biblical Look at "Conspiracy"
Conspiracy: What does the Bible Say?
Conspiracy Against God in the End Times
Revelation Records the Conspiracy
The Lifespan of the Conspiracy (Part 1)
The Lifespan of the Conspiracy (Part 2)
Mystery: The Religion of the Conspirators (Part 1)
Mystery: The Religion of the Conspirators (Part 2)
Part 1: Mystery Religion in Modern Groups
Part 2: Financial Influence and Freemasonry
Part 3: The Great Merchants and Global Deception
Conspiracy Study Reference and Research Section
Controlling the News: Goldberg and Quigley

It was around 6 p.m. on April 1, 2002. Earlier that day, I had finished the book Bias, by Bernard Goldberg. MSNBC's Hardball, hosted by Chris Matthews, was on the TV. As I watched, Matthews introduced his two guests for the next segment of the show, a segment focusing on the current situation in the Middle East.

The first guest was Daniel Pipes, who Matthews quickly labeled as part of a "pro-Israeli think tank" (the Middle East Forum.) Just as Matthews assigned this label, Pipes' eyebrows raised a little in surprise. And as soon as it was his turn to speak, Pipes quickly objected to Matthews' introduction of him, stating that he "resented" that he "was labeled while his opponent was not." (His opponent was from the Brookings Institute.)

But Matthews missed the point. Instead of labeling Pipes' opponent for the sake of fairness, Matthews simply reasserted that the label he had given Pipes was appropriate. No label was ever given to the other guest, the man from the Brookings Institute, who was of course, there to debate the issue with Pipes and present the alternate viewpoint.

What's the point of this short story from my daily life? Well, first of all let me say that I generally like Chris Matthews. He's one of my favorite commentators. And although I don't always agree with him, I generally find him to be an honest, sincere person. And that is precisely my point.

The result of Chris Matthews' label was that Daniel Pipes was identified as potentially biased and prejudiced against the Palestinians. Pipes' opponent, on the other hand, was not labeled at all, creating by default the impression that, unlike Pipes, this man was unbiased and neutral. This, in turn, produces the unstated but clear impression that his views were more credible than Pipes' views and should be subject to less scrutiny.

It was all very subtle and I'm sure most of us wouldn't have even noticed, myself and Chris Matthews included. If I hadn't just finished Bias, it wouldn't have even occurred to me. But this type of one-sided labeling is one of the items that author Bernard Goldberg brings to light in the book. And, I'm sure Chris Matthews himself probably didn't even notice. He probably wasn't intentionally trying to color his audiences' perception of the two guests. It was just a reflex based upon Matthews' own genuine assessment of the two men and their respective positions.

But we'll come back to Bernard Goldberg's book and its exploration of the subtleties of mass communication later.

A while back, sometime in the last six months, I was watching a special about "Conspiracy" on the History Channel. One of the experts on the program made comments along the following lines. Conspiracy theorists, he asserted, may at first glance appear to base their work on research. However, as he put it, there was, in fact, "no credible scholarship" behind the notion of an ongoing, global conspiracy.

No credible scholarship?

No doubt there is no shortage of cooks and nuts in the camp of the conspiracy theorists. But is there really not a single credible scholarly work supporting the theory of a global conspiracy?

Perhaps, ironically, the History Channel expert who made those comments was none other than the aforementioned Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum. Pipes' assertion was simple. According to Pipes, all global conspiracy theories were hogwash because they were based upon shoddy research.

But is that the case? No, it is not. In fact, there is at least one scholar of very solid repute and credibility that makes a very meticulous record of the history of a global conspiracy and the secret society behind it.

Carroll Quigley lived and died between 1910 and 1977. He was a professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, the very same Georgetown University attended by former President Bill Clinton. During his career, Carroll Quigley had also taught at both Princeton and Harvard. He was also a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological and the American Economic Association as well as a few other historical associations.

Carroll Quigley has also written several books including the thirteen hundred page Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, in which he chronicles in detail western historic events dating back to before the turn of the nineteenth century. Another book for which Quigley is perhaps best known is his work Evolution of Civilizations. And then there is his shorter book, roughly three hundred pages, entitled The Anglo-American Establishment. It is this last work that bears the most relevance to this article.

As if all this wasn't enough to establish Quigley's credentials, he also has the testimonial of one-time student Bill Clinton, who in his acceptance speech on July 16th at the 1992 Democratic National Convention in the state of New York had this to say about the Georgetown Professor.

"As a teenager I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley, who said America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two great ideas: first, that tomorrow can be better than today, and second, that each of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so." - President Bill Clinton, July 16th, 1992, Democratic National Convention

I can attest to this testimonial myself because it's printed among the endorsements on the book jacket for the colossal book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. And (since I own the book) I just so happened to be looking at that book jacket right now as I type these words.

The book jacket also attests to this relationship between the Quigley and Clinton with another endorsement quote from the New York Times. (Remember the New York Times for later. Goldberg mentions it specifically and it'll become more important as we move on in this study.)

"Quigley's...legacy lives on not only in...President Clinton, but among hundreds of other former students and admirers." - The New York Times

I myself first became acquainted with the works of Carroll Quigley during an art history survey class my freshman year at college. One day, the professor of that class distributed to the students a small, photocopied handout of an article written by Quigley.

Being a college freshman at the time, I wasn't particularly intrigued by Quigley's article on cognitive systems and human thought processes in different cultures. In fact, there were only two reasons that the name Carroll Quigley stuck in my head. First, as a somewhat naive college freshman, it seemed odd to me that this man had a woman's first name. Second, my professor seemed to have a strong affinity for Carroll Quigley, an affinity which at the time seemed to be almost comical. And so, the frequent (albeit exaggerated) mention of Quigley became part of our caricature of this particular professor.

Needless to say, Carroll Quigley was indeed a credible scholar. His books were based upon thorough sound research and methodology and his credibility is widely accepted among the educated establishment and elite.

Since we have established Quigley's credibility as a scholar, before we get into what he has to say about the existence of a conspiracy, let's also establish the credibility of Bernard Goldberg, the author of the book Bias.

First let me state that I do not believe that the global conspiracy is exclusively the work of liberals or democrats. While it might be nice to think of a sort of yin yang relationship wherein benevolent conservative republicans combat the evils of malevolent liberal democrats, this type of thinking is completely naive. (Maybe something like the Autobots and the Decepticons, for those of us who grew up watching cartoons in the 1980's.) It is my opinion that the agenda of the conspirators is being advanced by both liberals and conservatives, by both republicans and democrats to one degree or another, some knowingly (although very few) and the vast majority unknowingly. However, it should be said, that increasing government control over both economic and social aspects of life is advanced and necessitated by the publicized liberal agenda quite well.

Having dismissed the notion that the conspiracy is exclusively the work of liberals in the media, I will now go on to discuss how the liberal bias in the media acts as one component of a larger agenda pushing the world toward the goal of the conspirators.

Bernard Goldberg's credibility on the subject of a media bias (or slant) on the news hangs very prominently on the fact that he is not a conservative or a republican or an outsider to the news media that he criticizes. In fact, Goldberg is an admitted liberal (and proud of it), a democrat, and perhaps even more importantly a veteran insider of the news industry.

(From this point forward in the article, since we will be using a fairly sizeable amount of quotes from both Quigley and Goldberg, each quote will be cited simply by the name of the author and the page number on which the quote can be found. All quotes from Carroll Quigley come from his book The Anglo-American Establishment, Copyright 1981, GSG & Associates Publishers, San Pedro, CA. All quotes from Bernard Goldberg come from his book Bias, Copyright 2002, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington D.C.)

The following facts bear out Goldberg's Credibility.

1. Goldberg is a liberal and a democrat. He has voted for the democratic candidate in the last every presidential election he's voted in. (Republicans and conservatives often point to a liberal, democratic bias in the media. The fact that Goldberg is a liberal and a democrat gives his assertion of bias credibility, particularly since he has no vested interest in this assertion of a bias. In fact, has put his career in jeopardy by writing both the book and the op-ed article, which preceded it.)

"And I had never voted for a Republican candidate for president in my entire life!" (Goldberg, page 20.)

"I didn't vote for Reagan either time. But I did vote for McGovern - twice. Once in the Florida primary and again in the 1972 general election." (page 50.)

(For our under 30 audience, George McGovern was a senator from South Dakota who became the presidential candidate for the Democratic party in 1972.)

Concerning Goldberg's political views, here's Bernard Goldberg in his own words.

"At Rutgers, like most of us on campus in the 1960's, I was liberal on all the big issues. I was an especially big fan of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society." (Goldberg, page 49.)

"I'm pro-choice, with reservations, especially when it comes to minors. And I'm for gay rights, too." (Goldberg, page 50.)

2. When Goldberg returned to CBS Evening News, Dan Rather introduced him with a positive endorsement of his credentials.

"...when I returned to the CBS Evening News after seven years away in prime time, on 48 Hours and Eye to Eye with Connie Chung, Rather looking into the camera and told millions of people in his audience, 'Tonight on the CBS Evening News we're pleased to welcome back to our broadcast a veteran correspondent, colleague, and friend Bernard Goldberg to share his unique perspectives on events of the day.' " (Goldberg, page 32.)

In fact, CBS was so satisfied with Goldberg's performance as a "featured reporter" on CBS Evening News that they gave him his own special segment entitled, "Bernard Goldberg's America." (Goldberg, page 32.)

3. Goldberg worked at CBS News for 28 years.

"Fortunately, I was on the inside as a news correspondent for twenty-eight years, from 1972, when I joined CBS News as a twenty-six-year-old, until I left in the summer of 2000." (Goldberg, page 3.)

From the time Bernard Goldberg began his career with CBS in 1972 until the day his now famous and instantly controversial op-ed piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal, CBS News considered Bernard just as credible and well-balanced as any of their other veteran reporters. Only after that controversial column about a persistent, prevalent liberal slant to the media did CBS consider Goldberg's credibility to be in question.

Still, the op-ed piece came out in 1996. And even though CBS technically could have fired him for writing for another news agency without the prior consent of CBS (Goldberg, page 114), they still kept him on for another four years which included a period of over a year after his contract was up for renewal. (According to the book, Goldberg's contract came up for renewal in fall of 1998 and he remained at CBS until May of 2000, at such time when his pension kicked in. Page 211, 213.)

It is clear that Goldberg's veteran correspondence and track record at CBS unequivocally demonstrate his credibility on the issue of a prominent slant to the news media.

Now that we know Bernard Goldberg is credible, exactly what is it that he's saying?

As Goldberg demonstrates in his book Bias (which by the way was a New York Times #1 best seller), the news media DOES slant the news. And by slant we (me and Goldberg) mean that the media doesn't simply tell the news straight (the who, what, why, when, where, and how.) Instead, from the top anchors like Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings on down, they distort these facts to present and promote a particular social perspective to their audience (which inevitably acts as an attempt to persuade the audience's viewpoint).

"I told Fager I had been complaining privately about bias at CBS News for years, that I always kept it in-house, but this time was different." (Goldberg, page 20.)

"For me, this was about a nagging problem that none of the big shots would take seriously. It was about the liberal biases that overwhelm straight news reporting." (Goldberg, page 21.)

"This bias I'm talking about, by the way, isn't so much political bias of the Democratic-versus-Republican sort. There is that, for sure...For me that isn't the real problem. The problem comes in the big social and cultural issues, where we often sound more like flacks for liberal causes than objective journalists." (Goldberg, page 4.)

However, even though Goldberg is convinced from his years of experience that there is a liberal slant to the news, Goldberg does not believe that this slant is a result of a conspiracy. For Goldberg, the slant is the news results MERELY from the personal biases of the men and women who produce and report it to us. According to Goldberg, these men and women aren't even slanting the news deliberately. They simply think they are doing an objective, fair, and balanced job, when, in fact, they aren't.

"It is important to know, too, that there isn't a well-orchestrated, vast, left-wing conspiracy in America's newsrooms. The bitter truth, as we'll see, is arguably worse." (Goldberg, page 4.)

And Goldberg is even more explicit on this point.

"Conservatives think this is proof that there's a dark conspiracy among the liberal media elites. They're wrong. I have never heard a single reporter or producer or anchor or executive say anything like: Let's leave off the liberal label so we can make so-and-so appear high-minded and objective. And while we're at it, let's make sure we identify the other side as conservative so our viewers will know he or she's a partisan with a right-wing ideological axe to grind. It never happens that way. Never. Not even with a wink and a nod. If it did, we'd be a lot better off. Because that is fixible. That is blatant bias and that cannot and would not be tolerated. What happens in reality is far worse." (Goldberg, page 60.)

On this point I agree with Goldberg. The conspiracy is not in the newsrooms. The conspiracy takes place at a far higher level than that. And that does make it much, much worse. But that assertion will be demonstrated in a little while when we get back to Quigley.

According to Goldberg, there is "overwhelming" liberal bias that twists the facts to support particular, identifiable socio-political views, but there's no conspiracy because no one sat down in a meeting to prescribe this treatment of the news. But WHERE is Goldberg looking? WHERE is it that Goldberg attests there were no meetings? In the news rooms. In the news agencies. Among the reporters, the producers, the anchors, and the executives. And that single fact is extremely significant to this issue. Goldberg doesn't subscribe to the notion of a conspiracy because he doesn't see deliberate meetings AT THE NEWS AGENCIES AMONG HIS PEERS.

So, how does Goldberg's testimony about a liberal slant to the news support the notion of a global conspiracy (especially when Goldberg himself rejects the notion of such a conspiracy)?

Here's where Carroll Quigley comes back into the picture.

Goldberg's definition of a conspiracy is a straw man precisely because it necessitates that the reporters and anchors themselves be aware of the conspiratorial agenda and that these men and women must set that agenda at official company meetings. But that's just not how the conspiracy to distort the news works. And that's not how Carroll Quigley described it working either. In fact, those kind of open formalized company meetings are the exact opposite of what Quigley described when he wrote about the workings of the secret society.

Earlier on in this article, I stated that according to Carroll Quigley, a deliberate slanting of the news was one component of a larger agenda designed to push the world toward the goal of the conspirators. We will now return to that very point.

In his book, The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley spoke of a three-pronged method that would guide the world into the control of the conspirators. Or in other words, to eventually control the world, the conspirators would need to gain control over primarily three spheres of influence.

"The Milner Group was originally a major fief within the great nexus of power, influence, and privilege controlled by the Cecil family. It is not possible to describe here the ramifications of the Cecil influence. It has been all-pervasive in British life since 1886. This Cecil Bloc was built up by Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, Viscount Cranborne and third Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903). The methods used by this man were merely copied by the Milner Group. These methods can be summed up under three headings: (a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from All Souls) and the linking of these men to the Cecil bloc by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the Cecil Bloc in positions of power shielded as much as possible from public attention." (Quigley, page 15.)

Particularly of note to our discussion here is that, according to Quigley, one of the three main methods of the secret society of conspirators is to control three areas of public influence: 1) politics, 2) education, and 3) journalism.

In this article we are specifically discussing journalism. For that reason, we will set aside the other two spheres of public influence mentioned by Quigley (politics and education.) And we will continue to focus on the issue of journalism as a means of influencing and shaping public opinion by presenting a particular slant on events and issues.

So, from Quigley's meticulous chronicling of the activities of the conspirators we learn that they most certainly sought to gain control over the channels of journalism and to use that control to shape public opinion in such a way as to advance their own agenda.

In fact, Quigley has more to say on this subject. Speaking of the organizations remarkable ability to conceal itself from the public, Quigley states the following.

"This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda. It plotted the Jameson Raid of 1895; it caused the Boer War of 1899-1902; it set up and controls the Rhodes Trust; it created the Union of South Africa in 1906- 1910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group; it has been the most powerful single influence in All Souls, Balliol, and New Colleges at Oxford for more than a generation; it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years." (Quigley, page 5.)

Notice, in particular, that this group established two periodicals, The State and The Round Table and it assumed control over The Times all for the purpose of propagating its agenda, even to the point of causing political skirmishes and wars.

But Quigley continues.

"It publicized the idea of and the name 'British Commonwealth of Nations' in the period 1908-1918; it was the chief influence in Lloyd George's war administration in 1917-1918 and dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference in 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affaris in 1919 and still controls it; it was one of the chief influences on British policy toward Ireland, Palestine, and India in the period of 1917-1945; it was a very important influence on the policy of appeasement of Germany during the years 1920-1940..." (Quigley, page 5.)

Keep in mind as you read all these things the impeccable credentials Quigley has. He was a professor at Georgetown, Harvard, and Princeton and was so well liked and admired by President Clinton that Clinton paid tribute to him upon receiving the nomination of the Democratic National Convention in 1992. So, Quigley is no nut. With credentials like these, Quigley's record of the activities of the conspirators is beyond reproach.

But we might ask, how is it that Quigley was able to write about this group? Would any group with that much power allow a scholar of Quigley's note and credibility to chronicle their activities in such detail?

This is a good question and Quigley himself answers it for us.

"But, agreeing with the Group on goals, I cannot agree with them on methods." (Quigley, Preface page xi.)

"I have been told that the story I relate here would be better left untold, since it would provide ammunition for the enemies of what I admire. I do not share this view." (Quigley, Preface page xi.)

In short, Quigley was permitted to write about the group because he was friendly to it. He was not an enemy but an admirer who felt that their work was so important to human history that it must be recorded.

"It is not easy for an outsider to write the history of the a secret group of this kind, but, since no insider is going to do it, an outsider must attempt it. It should be done, for this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century. Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where to look. This evidence I have sought to point out without overly burdening this volume with footnotes and bibliographical references. While such evidences of scholarship are kept at a minimum, I believe I have given the source of every fact which I mention. Some of these facts came to me from sources which I am not permitted to name, and I have mentioned them only where I can produce documentary evidence available to everyone. Nevertheless, it would have been very difficult to write this book if I had not received a certain amount of assistance of a personal nature from persons close to the Group. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the names of such persons, so I have not made reference to any information derived from them unless it was information readily available from other sources." (Quigley, Preface page x.)

While this is indeed a rather lengthy quote, it answers several important questions for us. First, Quigley was not only "permitted" to write this account of "the Group" but persons close to "the Group" actually assisted him at times.

Second, Quigley believes that the evidence for this group is not obscure and difficult to find, but is readily available to all, provided that one knows where to look for it (and presumably HOW to look at it as well.)

Third, the question might arise, "wouldn't such a book pose a threat to the Group and so cause it to prevent Quigley from writing the account?" Obviously not. This book was published well over two decades ago and the public, by the mast majority, is still blissfully ignorant of the existence of this conspiracy, and blissfully ignorant of Quigley's book as well. The Group was no doubt aware that the danger of the public discovering there existence through Quigley's book would be minimal. As Quigley put it, it was simply a matter of "knowing where to look." This book has largely been OVERLOOKED, marginalized, and ignored by the mainstream academic and journalistic circles, who, quite relevantly, are controlled by the very "Group" Quigley chronicles in his book.

Now that we've covered the how's and why's behind Quigley's writing the book, let's return to the question at hand. How does Quigley's book relate to Bernard Goldberg's book?

To be sure, we have already covered this in part. Quigley wrote about a conspiracy that sought to control journalism as a means of shaping public opinion in order to advance its agenda. Goldberg has written a book substantiating the theory that modern American news is deliberately slanted to favor particular social issues and views (thereby, consequently propagating those views to the American audience).

Goldberg, as we have stated, does not believe this media bias constitutes proof of the existence of a conspiracy because there are no meetings between reporters, anchors, producers, and executives to deliberately set protocols to slant the news.

But what does Quigley have to say about this?

"I have tried to solve this difficulty by dividing the Group into two concentric circles; an inner core of intimate associates, who unquestionably knew that they were members of a group devoted to a common purpose; and an outer circle of a larger number, on whom the inner circle acted by personal persuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure." (Quigley, Preface page x.)

"The Society of the Elect, continued to exist and recruit new members from the outer circle as necessary." (Quigley, page 4.)

"This group, held together, as it is, by the tenuous links of friendship, personal association, and common ideals is so indefinite in its outlines (especially in recent years) that it is not always possible to say who is a member and who is not." (Quigley, page 5.)

"Milner had become a Fellow of New College in 1878 and held the appointment until he was elected Chancellor of the University in 1925. With Edward Cook he began a practice which he was to repeat many times in his life later. That is, as Fellow of New College, he became familiar with undergraduates whom he later placed in positions of opportunity and responsibility to test their abilities." (Quigley, page 12.)

Quigley then goes on to list a series of examples all of which involved appointments to positions of significant influence over journalistic institutions including the Pall Mall Gazette, the Westminster Gazette, the Daily News, the Daily Chronicle, the Cape Times, and of course, The Times.

And later, Quigley writes.

"The realization is increased when we see that these persons with the power to obtain renewing appointments are members of a shadowy group with common undergraduate associations, close personal relationships, similar interests and ideas, and surprisingly similar biographical experience." (Quigley, page 22.)

And Quigley writes even more explicitly a little later on.

"In his 'Confession of Faith' Rhodes outlined the types of persons who might be useful members of this secret society."

Then Quigley places a rather lengthy insert from Rhodes.

"Men of ability and enthusiasm who find no suitable way to serve their country under the current political system; able youth recruited from the schools and universities; men of wealth with no aim in life; younger sons with high thoughts and great aspirations but without opportunity; rich men whose careers are blighted by some great disappointment." (Quigley, page 34.)

This description sounds remarkably like Goldberg's description of himself and the liberal crowd in general whom Goldberg defines in terms of their compassionate idealism and which just so happens, according to Goldberg, to overwhelmingly populate the news media.

"At Rutgers, like most of us on campus in the 1960's, I was liberal on all the big issues. I was an especially big fan of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society." (Goldberg, page 49.)

It was exactly this type of idealistic people that Quigley says the conspirators sought to use, many of whom did not even know they were being used, let alone that such a "Group" existed. People working on the outer circle, according to Quigley, were not actually members. And, because the members surrounded themselves with people of similar ideals that were engaged in similar activities, it was impossible to tell the members from the non-members.

"It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society." (Quigley, Preface page x.)

Now, while a few of today's news media may indeed be aware of the secret society, how much the better if as many as possible could be brought on with the right ideals and do their work to further the cause according to those ideals, without ever being "conscious that they were being used by a secret society." (Quigley, Preface page x.) Individual awareness on the part of the majority of reporters is NOT a prerequisite to their usefulness to the conspirators.

In short, the types of formal meetings that Goldberg sets forth as a prerequisite for the existence of a conspiracy are wholly unnecessary precisely because, instead of holding these types of formal meetings to set protocols and keep every reporter to executive on the same page, the conspiracy is set up in such a fashion that from reporters to executives men and women are hired who already hold to the relevant ideals necessary to propagate the agenda of the conspirators.

In other words, it is not necessary to hold a meeting to tell journalists to slant the news because the vast majority of journalists are already biased themselves and will, therefore, automatically slant the news as a mere function of human nature. (That is, unless the overarching management prohibits and prevents them from doing so, which Goldberg demonstrates is clearly not the case.)

The fact that a journalist's tendency to color their reporting with their own biases is one readily attested to by Goldberg himself.

"And perhaps on Planet Bizarro in some parallel universe their personal views about life and the world really wouldn't matter. But they do here on Earth, because even though some would take issue, reporters and editors really are only human, which means they bring all their biases and life experiences to their stories." (Goldberg, page 118.)

"Does anyone think a 'diverse' group of conservative journalists would give us the news straight? I sure as hell don't. They'd be just like the Left. Except, they'd let their conservative biases slip into the news, and they'd let swear on a stack of Bibles that they were mainstream...just as liberals do now. It's the human condition." (Goldberg, page 120.)

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters." (Goldberg, page 13.)

It is not necessary to hold meetings in the newsrooms. By hiring (almost exclusively) reporters, anchors, producers, and executives with a uniform set of biases, you are bypassing the need for such meetings. You are ensuring an unbalanced, one-sided slant to the news simply by hiring the vast majority of your employees possessed of the same, single ideological persuasion.

Given that Goldberg so completely believes that people will automatically assert their own biases into their reporting as a function of human nature, Goldberg's own notion that it would be necessary to hold meetings to enact such a bias becomes obviously extraneous and absurd.

In fact, as Quigley puts it, it was well understood by members of the Group that it is better, as often as possible, to use men and women to advance their cause who had no knowledge that they were being involved in the agenda. Once again, I want to restate this quote from Quigley because it is very important to our study.

"It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society." (Quigley, Preface page x.)

So, in other words, to hold meetings to set the protocols for how to use the media to distort the news and reshape public opinion was expressly contrary to the methods of the conspiracy and, therefore, in no way does the lack of such meetings disprove the existence of that conspiratorial group. In fact, the existence of entire profession (journalists) populated by people with the same ideological perspective itself demonstrates the existence of a conspiracy to distort the news in favor of a particular social outlook PRECISELY BECAUSE it is human nature for an individual to insert their biases into their reporting. People of a single socio-political persuasion are hired exclusively for the specific purpose of advancing the conspiratorial agenda without having to have meetings, which set formal protocols on reshaping public opinion.

The existence of a uniform (or overwhelming majority) of reporters, anchors, producers, and executives of the same social-political perspective on life proves the existence of a conspiracy. Bernard Goldberg simply has to reset his sites a little higher from the news room meetings to those who set the tone for hiring and filling out the news industry with reporters and executives from an overwhelmingly uniform political view. No one knows exactly who is setting that tone because the system was designed for anonymity, just as Quigley stated.

"This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members, satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power, are unknown even to close students of British history." (Quigley, pages 4-5.)

To say that a conspiracy cannot exist unless we know whom the conspirators are is absurd because one of the primary goals of the conspirators would necessarily have to be to conceal their identities. And Quigley understood this completely.

For the purposes of this article it is not necessary to delve into the specific subtle ways in which the mainstream press distorts and colors the news to cover to create the desired picture and reshape public opinion to match their own (through carefully chosen descriptive words, one-sided labeling, the selection of experts, and even the very selection of what topics, etc.) Nor is it necessary to go into the depth of examples documented by Goldberg in his book where he chronicles in detail the media's distortion of such issues as poverty/homelessness, AIDS, identity politics (a.k.a. the politics of division), family life, and the Middle East. For the details on these items, I invite you to pick up a copy of Bernard Goldberg's book Bias at your local library or bookstore where you can review them for yourself.

And one last important item before we go. In our previous articles on the existence of a conspiracy, we examined the interlocking relationships found among the board of directors of major commercial and journalistic companies. In that article we demonstrated that control over the major public media outlets was not only possible but quite plausible given these interlocking relationships.

This article finishes where that article left off. We now know, thanks to a quick review of Carroll Quigley and Bernard Goldberg, that someone does, in fact, exercise control over how the news is presented. They exercise that control in the same way that control is best exercised, through the subtle method of hiring and promoting those with similar ideas and like minds.

But just to drive the point home, consider this fact. No less than 5 times does Bernard Goldberg assert (somewhat casually, in fact) that all TV News takes not only WHAT it reports but HOW it reports from the New York Times. This is just as Carroll Quigley described back in England with The Times (The London Times). It would appear that the same group is doing the same thing here in the United States.

"The problem is that so many TV journalists simply don't know what to think about certain issues until the New York Times and the Washington Post tell them what to think. Those big, important newspapers set the agenda that network news people follow." (Goldberg, page 18.)

"One thing to remember about network news is that it steals just about everything from print. So if the New York Times is against the flat tax, and the Washington Post is against the flat tax, the networks can't and won't be far behind." (Goldberg, page 25.)

"All of these reports were aired after the New York Times the Holy Bible that TV journalists normally consult to find out not only what they should cover but how they should cover it..." (Goldberg, page 70.)

"In 1999 he wrote a column about the homeless and about a Village Voice study that showed that in 1988 the New York Times ran fifty stories on the homeless, including five on page one. But a decade later, in 1998, the Times ran only ten homeless stories, and none on page one. And since the networks take their cues from the Times, their coverage dropped of sharply, too. The conservative Media Research Center found that in 1990, when George Bush was president, there were seventy-one homeless stories on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN evening newscasts. But in 1995, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, the number had gone down to just nine." (Goldberg, page 73.)

"And since the Times sets the agenda for the networks, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings would have all fallen into line and run big stories later on their evening newscasts, too, saying exactly the same thing." (Goldberg, page 201.)

And, of course, Goldberg also clearly establishes the liberal persuasion of the New York Times as well.

"This is a newspaper that consistently editorializes in favor of affirmative action, of all sorts of abortion rights, of strict-gun control laws, and is against the death penalty. The editorials are well written and well reasoned. But they do represent liberal points of view. This is a newspaper that has endorsed for president Al Gore, Bill Clinton twice, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter twice, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy. You would have to go back to Dwight Eisenhower to find the last time the New York Times came out in favor of anyone even vaguely resembling a conservative." (Goldberg, page 59.)

"This is the more surprising when we learn that one of the chief methods by which this Group works has been through propaganda...it created the Union of South Africa in 1906- 1910; it established the South African periodical The State in 1908; it founded the British Empire periodical The Round Table in 1910, and this remains the mouthpiece of the Group...it has controlled The Times for more than fifty years." (Quigley, page 5.)

"The Times is nothing if not a monument to political correctness..." (Goldberg, page 186.)

"The Times is a newspaper that has taken the liberal side of every important social issue of our time, which is fine with me." (Goldberg, pages 221-222.)

I conclude this article with what is an admittedly over-used quote by conspiracy theorists.

"Who Controls the Past, Controls the Future. Who Controls the Present, Controls the Past." (George Orwelle, 1984.)

The fact is, Bernard Goldberg, a veteran insider of the news industry has chronicled in detail not only the existence of an overwhelming liberal bias to the news (particularly with regard to social issues) but also the deliberate, persistent refusal of those inside the news media to correct or even address this problem. And, just as the esteemed Georgetown professor and mentor of President Clinton, Carroll Quigley, demonstrated in his book, the Anglo-American Establishment, the use of journalistic institutions to distort the news and reshape public opinion to advance their agenda is one of the primary tactics of the conspirators. Bernard Goldberg's book provides clear evidence that this kind of control over the public news media did not end in the days of Ruskin and Rhodes and Milner but persists, molding public opinion, to this very day.

Just as Quigley said of the conspiracy, "evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where to look." (Quigley, Preface page x.) The question is not whether the conspiratorial view of history is correct. It is most certainly correct. And it is most certainly going on right now. The question is, are we strong enough to accept that fact?