We are in the midst of a rapidly advancing age of communication, but generally without much understanding of what is being communicated, and why.

All intelligent life-forms have simple means of communicating and it is to be expected that the much more highly intelligent human species should have much more complex means. Our upbringing and education is mostly by way of verbal and written instruction and understanding through language, and is the human equivalent of instinctive rearing. Whilst the vitally urgent present task of an enlightened humanity is to thrash out and realise a humantrue future, our most common use of conversation is to exchange comfort and support in the here and now, the equivalent of mutual grooming in nature. Communal communication by way of entertainment and Art has similar informing and comforting functions, but Art also includes intellectual questing, which is the equivalent of the natural curiosity of all advanced species. These are the intellect's logical extensions of instinctive satisfactions to meet its own extended needs. Over and above such satisfactions the intellectual state demands a new social framework appropriate to itself, replacing the existing framework which represents instinct in command of intellect.

Had we a humantrue society, with an established and agreed constitution, we would employ whatever other means of communication were desirable and necessary to its well-being. But we presently have the Machine, are driven by a competitive money economy, and live in confused conflict. So we have evolved a need and desire for information, and an industry has developed to communicate this information. One purpose of this industry is to inform the public, largely through the press, television, internet and radio, and the other purpose is to provide intercommunication between functions of the Machine, largely by post, telephone (these also being extensions of personal communication), fax and e mail. The printing and publishing of books and magazines serves both purposes more or less equally.

The information industry is an existing fact of life but is not what it pretends to be. First and foremost it is not concerned with the inescapable function of fulfilled intellect - fundamental truth. It is governed by restrictive factors that determine the character of its information so that the information is only partially complete, or true, according to the limitations imposed by those factors. In the case of intercommunications between functions of the Machine the character of the information conveyed is straightforward - it is entirely limited to purely automatic affairs and excludes purely human, or any other concerns which, to it, are irrelevant. We are here interested in the communication of information to the public, i.e. to individuals in their private capacities, apart from their direct attachment to the Machine by way of employment.

Those parts of the information industry whose role is to communicate between the world and the individual - the 'media' - are often accused of falsification and bias. Periodically a spokesman comes forward to refute these charges on behalf of the media, and unintentionally shows those with the eyes to see that the accusation is correct because both he and the media are prejudiced against the fundamental truth. At the same time he intentionally demonstrates that the accusation is wrong in that the media are right in being true to their prejudice in favour of the concepts of existing reality - true to the facts of their own actual situation in this reality and that of their faithful readers.

The media are institutions of the Machine governed by automatic lore, yet their output tends towards truth because it is produced as journalism by human minds whose natural, logical, but normally submerged objective this is. But those individuals responsible for media output are employed to think in an automated way. They have to be conventionally realistic because the Machine is everybody's overwhelming reality, and in the political conflict between all its contradictory 'truths' no overall truth can be admitted. So the fact is that in journalism's reporting the widely differing affairs of a competitive society there has to be a bias. There also has to be falsification, not by the committed sin of lying so much as the sin of omitting contrary truth. For example, it might be so that in a war between two nations the people of both believe themselves to be right because their leaders so represent it, whereas in the eyes of each the other must be seen as wrong otherwise the war, declared by leaders according to their personal bias, could not continue for lack of popular commitment. When that war is reported, how it is explained depends on who is reporting it, and to whom. If it is by a neutral correspondent, reporting to a neutral populace, it might be expected to be free of bias, yet how does a reporter get unbiased information when it is not possible to be an eye-witness of all events simultaneously from both sides and neither side can be relied upon for unbiased information? Furthermore, how can the newspaper reader or radio listener be sure of getting a true account when he or she knows that journalism is not the result of an honest individual endeavour to discover the truth but is the restricted report of a mind applied to an adopted or imposed thinking formula?

The truth about our competitively conflicting world affairs, including wars which are their regular culminations, is that they need not and should not be so, and would not be so were we fully awakened to that truth. We are not truly awakened, firstly, because we have never risen above but remain bowed down under the great weight of a false reality. Secondly, we are not fully awakened to the truth because, rather than relying on the pure intellation of our own minds, we depend on the biased media information for our thoughts and opinions and the media are overridden by official acceptance of existing false reality. So the press barons, publishers, governors of broadcasting, reporters, printers and announcers remain harnessed to the automaton and the humantruth which would release us all from harness remains obscured.

So journalism reports events (just as stories are told) as they happen, or are judged or appear to happen, in automatic reality, and are accepted as reasonable according to the concepts and facts of that reality. Events are not commented upon as part of a critical campaign against an insane reality. They are usually shown as normal against a background of acceptance of the insane. Even events that are viewed as abnormal and unacceptable are not addressed with the intention of finding and rooting out their deepest causes but as horrors to be registered on the debit side of violently fluctuating human experience. Our reality comprises past, present and automatically continuing fact, being interpreted according to its own false concepts and purveyed to a public having none but this reality to live in, and very little else on offer to believe in. In this condition we may look at the pure truth without recognition, so that badly as we need it we can dismiss it without a qualm.

Consider again why human minds do not come out in open revolt against this reality, although having true reason to do so. Whilst the mind is the paramount element of human being no independent mind has the power to give public expression to its true thought, and that which gives this power also robs the mind of independent ability to discover the truth. The people who wield this power - the servants of the media and those with approved access to them - have their selves in consciousness, open to automatic dictation and closed to their own true intellects. Whilst human mental activity is growing this automatic use of the intellect is the general norm that keeps us tied to the Machine, whereas awareness draws the individual away from automatic domination and towards supraconsciousness. The longer humans delay giving their minds independence the more difficult it is likely to become, for as the Machine grows more dominant it will become harder for the independent mind to find a voice as the media journalism increasingly conforms to automatic thinking. It is true that radical views are permitted a certain broadcast time and space but it is doubtful whether this represents more than a controlled safety valve for dissent. In any case such views as we are allowed to hear do not go deep enough to shake the foundations of our overshadowing reality which merely shoulders them out of the way.

As with politics, so with journalism. Everything hinges on attitude, and at present the media support and play up to the attitude of our outer shells - that this is our inescapable reality and we must adapt to the here and now. They feel justified on the grounds that they are supplying our demands. The public demand what they are used to getting, despite what their inner selves may say, simply because they believe it is all they can get, with no alternative. This is an easy way out that people take rather than refusing to conform, because such refusal, by introducing radical ideas, can ruin their conversations, upset their community life, detract from their enjoyment of newspapers and TV, and expose them to opposition, threat, or real danger.

In many ways the public mind is preformed by the media before it is capable of critical judgement. For example, it seems that 'Dallas', a TV drama series about the life of the American jet-set, was exported to the unsophisticated people of third-world countries presenting, as desirable, admirable and relevant, values that are quite the reverse. Similarly the Vietnam war was reported on Western TV in such a biased way that for years the public had no clear idea what was really happening, or why. Again, the meaningful current of life in both Russia and the West was very much coloured by the mutual antagonism of their governing ideologies, which so imbued their respective media journalism as to implant this unreasoned antagonism in the minds of people, a self-escalating process.

Re-consider the reasons why thinkers who do protest against and oppose this reality are not heard; why the media do not support a revolt of reason, as they seem well placed to do. Firstly, all parts of the information industry are units in the money economy whose success depends on profitable sales. They have to be able to pay their expenses, including the wages of staff on whom they depend but who themselves depend on this employment for survival and reward to the extent of subjugating their morals to their employers. Secondly, these units of the media are institutions of the Machine. If they identify with extreme non-conformist views they not only risk unpopularity but also the wrath of the whole establishment of other interdependent institutions which, being strongly biased in favour of the automatic norm, regard radical reason as subversive, however honest and true it may be, because it does not conform to the normal bias, or as irresponsibly arrogant because it contradicts universal opinion.

Furthermore the media are engaged in an ongoing process of commenting on affairs, journalism, with an obligation to fill up the pages and viewing slots but with none other than the affairs of existing reality to comment on, and none but the accepted concepts of existing reality meaningfully to interpret them with. If they are to continue successful these are the affairs they must keep abreast of in this familiar, approved or popular way, following where the automated norm leads. What the media say is heard by the millions and believed by most. In general the individual with something to say may be heard only by way of the media and only by saying what they will consent to publish or broadcast, and as a result the media output, although contributed by humans, always fundamentally toes the Machine line. It is not a matter of deliberate censorship so much as an automatic consensus as to what is realistically germane.

So the media reflect the public feeling that to conform to the norm is not only easier but better than opposing it, because the norm presently embraces all the circumstances of life including most of its stimulations and rewards. Whatever its state, the human mind requires stimulation in order to maintain or enhance that state. Maximum stimulation is synonymus with fulfilment of the mind, which shall be achieved by a supraconscious humanity living in a humantrue society. Nobody can yet achieve that optimum level and most of us fall short of the high-flying excitements of the Machine, finding much of our stimulation at second hand. For instance, battles, conflicts of all kinds and natural or man-made disasters instinctively attract us in the absence of greater interests. The media select the most exciting, intriguing, shocking or horrifying events and purvey them to us as factual news, in the name of public interest. This is part of their business and their logical function, given our circumstances and reluctance seriously to doubt or question, but it is the humanly unworthy function of one institution of a society that is built on false logic, and an abdication of our true responsibility.

The information industry's public output of journalism serves to affirm automatic reality, and the danger to children from the media, especially television, is not only that it teaches them violence but that it confirms as valid the false values of that reality. It teaches them competition, which arouses their instinctive aggressiveness and leads to violence. The upbringing of children is normally begun with a diet of fantasy. They are not introduced to the real horrors until old enough to cope with them, that is when they have been sufficiently conditioned to life's horrors as to tolerate them or have become so involved in self-interest for survival as to deny, or ignore, or become indifferent to them, or themselves involved in them. There is a case for showing very young children just how inhumanly cruel and uncaring reality can be, but this is valid only if they are also given to consider as vital the need to eradicate the causes of violence and aggression by changing to a non-competitive humantrue society - to see the Machine as the real dragon to be slain.

There was a view that the evolving communications network is a global brain that could become equal to the human brain in complexity by the year 2000. But can this network be likened to the living brain when that organ, in any other creature of nature, has the one purpose of caring for the well-being of that creature and prompting its survival and, at the level of human intellect, has the supreme purpose of fulfilling truth, neither of which purposes is being pursued nor looks likely to be pursued in the future by journalism - by the world's entire communications system as it stands. It has to be remembered that both we and this rapidly expanding system are in the firm grip of the Machine. What is the system's purpose, and what information is it passing to and fro? How many of us are, or shall be, fully intercommunicated? How can beings of unequal status, knowledge and understanding be in true communication? How can a global brain be said to represent us truly unless every human being takes equal intellectual part? If we were to reach such a state of equality could we possibly accept this system, as it is and promises to become? The present foreseeable world communications network is the Machine's brain, which is engulfing human minds. It calculates accordingly - a thinking process dominated by the automaton in the same way that presently normal human thought constructions are dominated by conscious will. It is only when consciousness seconds itself to its higher postconsciousness that a mind becomes supraconscious, and thus humantrue. The global brain does not have a postconscious faculty and never shall have because its automated aims can not be served by truth. It is in that sense mindless, and if we remain submissive to it we shall never achieve collective supraconsciousness. Only by having the global brain submit to our postconscious minds, just as our conscious selves, in the supraconscious state, submit, shall we be able to make our world humantrue.

So our means of communication is the mouthpiece of processes of thinking that are not truly our own. Like politics, these means tell us nothing about humanity and its affairs that is wholly true. When you boil it down, the essence of what they give us is automatic commentary on theMachine, and on ourselves as its automatic adjuncts.

The dominant Machine ethic is one thing, and private individual human intellation is another. The former, being dominant, has always monopolised the communications system, as would be expected, and the latter - the true reasoning of the human postconscious mind - has been isolated, muted, and virtually unheard. There are two comparatively recent developments of the communications system which offer the possibility of changing all that. Firstly, the number of private individuals owning and operating computers, all over the world, has increased dramatically. Secondly, the Internet system makes it possible for those individuals, by means of a modem, to communicate with each other freely and independently (apart from the language difficulty) So the Internet could have an enormous humantrue effect, as a means of by-passing the normal channels of communication and spreading supraconsciousness, by way of co-operative intellation, a vital alternative to the normal 'Machine-speak'.