The mind-control qualities of Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Scott Pelley

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the wake of the Sandy Hook murders, I’ve been describing how the television coverage is a form of mind control.

Of course, it’s wall-to-wall mind control every day, no matter what stories the networks are focused on.

The best of the best mind control is applied by the three major network anchors: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer.

They don’t do it as well as Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Edward R Murrow once worked their magic, but they’re fairly good practitioners of the art. Brian Williams is the current champion.

Here are the qualities you need to rise to the top of the charts.

You believe and don’t believe in what you’re doing at the same time.

You know it’s all an act, but yet you have firm faith in the importance of the material you’re presenting. You think the stories you’re covering, and the way you’re covering them, is unrivaled truth.

Dan Rather was an interesting case. At one time, he was quite convincing. He was a “trusted voice.” But then he faltered and stumbled over the George W Bush military-service scandal, and he went down in flames. Even before that, you could see occasional cracks in his armor. He was doubting his own faith. He was flickering a bit here and there, like a doubting priest in the Roman Church who had no one to confess to.

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

In this respect, he’s a major surrealist painter. The audience sees objects on the canvas that obviously don’t go together and yet they’re intrigued and mesmerized.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not cold. Scott Pelley is careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a pro surgeon making an incision. And Pelley also used to look down his nose at the great unwashed. He’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wanders into sloppiness. She pours syrup, as if she’s had a few cocktails before the broadcast. And she affects a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams is head and shoulders above his two competitors. You have to look and listen very hard to spot even a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knows exactly how to believe his act is real. He can also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

If none of these anchors could have “pulled the country together” after JFK’s assassination, it’s in part because that country doesn’t exist anymore. America doesn’t want a daddy.

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. Make no mistake about it, this is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car salesman waving a pendulum. This is high-class stuff. It flows with great certainty. It entrains and conditions brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings are higher.

Segueways, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding story every night.

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. Which is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner. Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

For example, pharmaceutical companies sell drugs that cause a few hundred thousand deaths in America every year like clockwork.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, can say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he can’t tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. The anchor ensures and guarantees a clueless missing bottom line. That’s his job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of guilt-and-justice, while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

“More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor has to deal with this. He has to develop memory loss. Yes, if interviewed by Charlie Rose or Brian Lamb, he can bring back details of prior stories left to the inhabitants of Wonderland, but on a day-to-day basis he has no memory.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old.” But if Brian Lamb interviews him about the “time of the bailouts,” he can recall the story in full…and tap dance on the head of a pin for five minutes, indicting no one, without losing a shred of credibility in the eyes of the American public.

And when it comes to the elites the anchor is pledged to? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, government-allied Big Medicine, Globalism, and so on? Nary a damaging word will be said. Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

Conspiracy? “Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Caroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study again to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

“Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer will give you the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

The audience is delivered clues about what they are supposed to feel at every turn in the road, and they respond with their own unalloyed faith.

When Paddy Chaevsky wrote the definitive film about news, Network, he had his anchor, Howard Beale, break from the format and tell people to stick their heads out of their windows and shout, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Most people forget that Beale, with the highest ratings in news history, went on to host his own hybrid program, after the news division was turned over to the entertainment wing of the network. And this new show portrayed Beale as a kind of mesmerizing (wacko) priest, a religious figure.

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

Then, when confronted by a superior priest, Arthur Jensen, chairman of the holding company that owns the network, Beale learns that all of society is organized as one interlocked forever-corporation, and the universe itself wants it that way.

Beale succumbs and falls under Jensen’s spell. The anchor who hypnotizes millions of people every night becomes the hypnotized subject.

Today’s elite anchors have this dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to believe in what they are doing. They don’t need an Arthur Jensen. It’s all self-inflicted. That’s one step better.

No need to censor stories from above. The anchors have a finely honed sense of what is permissible and what isn’t.

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

In early human societies, the story teller was a principal figure. He wove the tribe’s experiences into a coherent whole, and built new layers of cosmology. Later, story tellers formed an elite priest caste and spun official metaphysical doctrine.

Today, people feel the same need for narrators. They are the anchors. Although these front men for the news no longer use metaphysics to control the masses, they do covertly obey the old rule: tell only part of story.

Guard the rest from public view.

In ancient times, the rationale for hiding key secrets was explained in terms of stages of privileged initiations into “the magic.” Today, we are led to believe our news narrators are giving us everything there is. Other than their stories, there is nothing. So in this secular media religion, we have two choices: swallow the reality, or face a vacuum.

Most viewers still accept that premise.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

Dec20

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

American society is now a funnel that slides millions of people into toxic psychiatric treatment. Obama thinks we need a bigger funnel.

At the same time, of course, he’s pushing for greater gun restrictions.

At his December 19 press conference, he said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental-health care as easy as access to a gun.”

“Mental health” is always the go-to institution whenever a mass murder occurs. It’s like “we need more medical research on the problem.” Generalities are spouted by people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

Mental heath in America now means more psychiatric drugs, especially those, like the SSRI antidepressants, that can and do cause violence. Suicide, homicide.

So Obama’s solution to Sandy Hook is empowering and creating more killers. Brilliant.

Could he have chosen a worse idea? No.

Psychiatry is a non-science parading as truth. Nothing abut it is true.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

It also creates violent people, including children.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

As for guns, the grabbers like to point to statistics that compare: numbers of crimes committed with guns versus crimes prevented by citizens using guns.

This is a specious con game. The two situations are not related. On the one hand, we have those people who, with weapons, successfully defend themselves and their families and property from violent criminals. That’s a good thing.

On the other hand, we have people who use guns to commit crimes. They’re called criminals.

The specious comparison is like saying, “Because we can see the Devil is influencing more people than God is, legally ban all religion.”

At any rate, the forced decline of gun ownership and the forced upswing in psychiatric drugging is an elite agenda, at its core. It’s not just a “mistake.”

It’s a plan for the future of this country.

Diagnose and drug more people, take away the guns.

Added together, they produce a prison. But it’s all done under the heading of “we care.”

The agenda can be sold to people in wake of mass killings like Sandy Hook.

Obama is the current mouthpiece.

If you think the fiscal cliff is a long fall to the rocks, this dual-agenda cliff (fewer guns, more psychiatric drugs) is a far more destructive leap.

Now let’s consider the psychiatric babble about Adam Lanza.

Believing in these psychiatric conditions is a loser’s game. There are no definitive diagnostic tests for any of them. No blood tests. No saliva tests. No urine tests. No brain scans. No X-rays. That’s a fact.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

There are menus of behaviors, which are arbitrarily compiled by committees of psychiatrists and given various names, like autism and Asperger’s.

Making delicate distinctions between them is a fraud, since there are no diagnostic tests to begin with.

Now, what was wrong with Adam Lanzer, the accused Sandy Hook shooter, is matter for speculation. He could have had a severe reaction to a vaccine. He could have been poisoned by an environmental chemical, or by chemicals in food. He could have had a severe nutritional deficit. He could have been deprived of oxygen at birth.

Calling it Asperger’s is a way for the psychiatrist to bill an insurance company and impress and assuage parents with his “superior knowledge.” There is no knowledge.

“The Asperger’s child” is a fiction. Every child is different.

Having gotten that out of the way, we can see there is no predictive capacity to say whether a boy with “Asperger’s” is prone to violence. That’s a fairy tale.

But we can say something about the drugs used to treat people diagnosed with Asperger’s, because then we know exactly what chemicals we’re talking about, and there are histories of what happens to people who are given those drugs.

We have the SSRI antidepressants and so called anti-psychotics, like Risperdone and Zyprexa. The SSRIs definitely can and do cause violent behavior. Suicide, homicide.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

http://ssristories.com/

The anti-psychotics are brain hammers that tend toward motor-brain damage. (See Dr. Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, www.breggin.com)

So if Lanza really was the shooter, and there are very serious reasons to doubt that, the drugs he was prescribed could have pushed him over the edge into murder.

A neighbor speculates that Adam went on a rampage because his mother was seeking to institutionalize him. Out of revenge, he killed 26 people at the school because she loved the school. So now we have several contradictory accounts: the mother was teacher; no, she was a volunteer; no, the school officials had no knowledge she was in any way connected to the school.

Meanwhile, the psychiatric game is always to “blame the disorder.” If the patient goes crazy on the medications, if he develops serious illnesses from the meds, if he kills himself or kills other people because of the meds, the “worsening disorder” caused it. That’s the con game and the out. Be aware of it.

We still don’t know who Adam Lanza’s doctor was. People in Newtown and Sandy Hook undoubtedly do. They could knock on his door and question him, but apparently they’re too cowed by the “priest in the white coat” syndrome to take the bull by the horns and find out what’s what.

Fifteen years ago, I met the mother of a 15-year-old boy to interview her about an unusual treatment she had opted for, for her son. We sat outside a clinic in Los Angeles and discussed it for a few minutes. Then her son walked up.

His gait was stiff and jerky. He had a big smile on his face. We shook hands. He began talking to his mother. I couldn’t understand what he was saying. His words were oddly pronounced. But his mother could understand him.

At first glance, he certainly fit the definition of “a developmental disorder.” Various psychiatric labels could have been applied. But I knew his real story.

Several years earlier, he had gone swimming in the family pool and drowned. Rushed to the hospital, he was put on machines. The doctors told his mother there was no hope. He had suffered oxygen deprivation and brain damage. He was a vegetable. He was going to die. She should allow the doctors to unhook him from the machines.

The mother refused. She went on a relentless search for help. Eventually, she found a doctor who was a pioneer in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. He said there might be a chance with many treatments in the hyperbaric chamber.

After 50 or 60 treatments, her son was back.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=13987

These psychiatric labels mean nothing. Every person is different, and the causes for their problems vary.

Categorizing people and then making authoritative statements about their “condition”….doing that is a sign of insanity.

So when you Dr. Hognutloonidiot on television, making statements like, “Normally, with Asperger’s we don’t see violent behavior, although in some instances it might be possible,” realize you’re looking at a straight-out con man who is also crazy.

If five or 10 TV anchors said, “The drugs you give for Asperger’s do in fact cause people to kill,” and if they offered evidence and stuck to their guns, the whole landscape in America would begin to shift.

Jon Rappoport

Sandy Hook: Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

Dec20

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t know what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We don’t know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence.

The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.

So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.

The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle. Why? No idea.

Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.

Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.

That old thread is gone down the memory hole.

What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.

This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.

Which is the whole point.

The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”

This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.

At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”

But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer sharp. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.

“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”

“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”

“Or was it really a rifle?”

“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”

All these obvious and reasonable questions have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.

He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.

This is mind control.

The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.

He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.

He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.

And the viewer pays the price.

Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.

Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.

The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.

The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.

Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.

Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.

Interesting how they never disagree.

Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.

What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?

But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.

They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.

And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

Why?

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next shot.

“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. Tell me the beginning and the middle and the end. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

And the anchors oblige.

They deal the drug.

But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

And the drug deal is consummated.

Welcome to television coverage.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segueway that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:

Give up the guns.

In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why law-enforcement agencies are so titanically armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.

Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers subliminally recognize that the television anchors are actually government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable?

Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, Skull&Bones

Dec19

Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, Skull&Bones

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The confirmed discovery that at 1hr:58 of the Dark Knight Rises, Commissioner Gordon is pointing to the words “Sandy Hook” on a map of the Gotham area has caused a storm of interest.

As it should—since 27 people were just killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, and in the Dark Knight film, “Sandy Hook” is indicated as a target for attack.

Unless, of course, one wants to believe this is merely a boggling coincidence, one that accidentally ties the Batman theater massacre to the Connecticut school massacre.

In that case, add to the list of coincidences the fact that Suzanne Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, in which 23 children are ritually sacrificed in arena competition, lives in Newtown/Sandy Hook, and in real life someone(s) just killed 20 children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

This is the familiar “Joker” mode of secret societies, in which little foreshadowing clues are placed in significant places. Michael Hoffman, author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, comments on “The Method”: “…a clown-like, grinning mockery of the victim[s] as a show of power and macabre arrogance…performed in a veiled manner accompanied by certain occult signs and symbolic words…They brag to us about what they’ve gotten away with…”

It’s also a coincidence that the east coast of America sustained horrendous damage from a storm called Sandy recently.

It’s also a coincidence that an island called Sandy, New Caledonia, had been located on many maps until 2012, when an Australian surveyor ship concluded that it had never existed, and it was promptly disappeared from authoritative maps of the area. “Destroyed.”

Then there is the coincidence involving the Aurora theater, just before the massacre there this summer, when during film trailers, before The Dark Knight Rises premiered, a preview of Skyfall was shown, and on a building appeared, in red letters, “Aurora.”

More Dark Knight Rises coincidence: the studio sent out a promotional package before the film premiered this summer. An included map clearly showed Sandy Hook, within, or just south of, “Strike Zone 1,” where an attack would be launched. (Click through to enter site.)

http://www.ugo.com/movies/the-dark-knight-rises-viral-package

More coincidence: there is a book called “The Dark Knight Manual.” In the book, there is a map as well. But on this map, at the very bottom, Sandy Hook is “South Hinkley.” (Click to enlarge.)

http://i.imgur.com/SW8NF.jpg

Does that name Hinkley ring a bell?

Just another coincidence that John Hinckley is the person convicted of attempting to assassinate President Reagan on March 30, 1981.

Hinckley—former psychiatric patient, drugged, and, some say, operated on with mind control techniques to set him up as the patsy in the attempt on Reagan’s life.

Hinckley—son of an oil man who was George Bush the Elder’s big-time presidential supporter. John Hinckley’s brother Scott had a dinner booked at Neil Bush’s house the day after the Reagan assassination attempt. Scott had to cancel.

Obsessed with yet another film, Taxi Driver, and its child star, Jody Foster, young Hinckley, according to received wisdom, planned the attack on Reagan to impress Foster—whom he had stalked, going so far as to take a writing class at Yale, where Foster was matriculating.

What and who is at Yale in New Haven, a few miles from Newtown? Historically, exactly the kind of men who, bent on controlling America, engaged in occult rituals, taking blood oaths. Secret society men. Diabolical Skull&Bones men who, for example, supported the Nazi war machine and Hitler, who in turn slaughtered millions. Nazi financiers like Prescott Bush of the Bush-family Skull&Bones members.

But all these things are coincidences and accidents, and there is absolutely nothing to see or think about or connect.

No pieces of this connect at all.

None.

Ask any android. He’ll tell you. “Nothing to see, keep moving, eyes straight ahead.”

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

Dec18

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Mind control. Mass hypnosis. Operant conditioning. Brain entrainment. That’s what we’re talking about here.

We’re so conditioned to how television covers life that we rarely step back and take notice.

In the case of massive disasters and crimes, network news rules the roost.

First, the premiere anchors, who are managing editors of their own broadcasts, give themselves the go signal. They will leave their comfortable chairs and travel to the scene of crime. “It’s that big.”

The anchors lend gravitas. Their mere presence lets the audience know this story trumps all other news of the moment. That’s the first hypnotic cue and suggestion.

Of course, the anchors were not in Newtown, Connecticut, as reporters. They weren’t there to dig up facts. Their physical presence at the Sandy Hook School and in the town was utterly irrelevant.

They could have been doing their newscasts from their studios in New York. Or from a broom closet.

But much better to be standing somewhere in Newtown. It imparts the sense of crisis to the viewing millions.

At the same time, the anchors are also there to give assurance. The subliminal message they transmit is: whatever has happened here is controllable.

The audience knows the anchors will provide the meaning and the official voice of the tragedy. The anchors are, in a way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their elegies to the dead.

This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get.

This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime.

For example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions about contradictions in the official scenario. Suppose that became the primary focus. Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God forbid, the truth.

In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers. What a concept.

No, a priest doesn’t browbeat a parishioner. He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption.

But if, by some miracle, these anchors launched a quest for truth, the whole scene would devolve into uncertainty and even chaos.

“First, there was a man in the woods. You people chased him. You pinned him down and brought him back into town. Who is he? What’s his name? Where is he? Is he under questioning? What are you asking him? What gave you a clue that he might be a second shooter? Come on. Talk to us. People want to know. We aren’t going anywhere. We want some answers.”

This is called reporting, a foreign enterprise to these blown-dried kings and queens of media news.

“Sir, I know ABC definitively reported there was a second shooter. They said you gave them that information. Where did you get it?…No, I’m sorry, that’s not an answer, that’s a non-sequitur.”

Those of us reporting online declare there is something amiss when the second-shooter story is dropped like a hot potato…and we are called conspiracy theorists.

Get it? Trying to ask relevant questions becomes conspiracy only because the major media didn’t do their job in the first place.

“Sir, was it one gun found in trunk of the car or three? Show me the car. Yes. Let’s see it. I want to get the license plate. Excuse me? The car is what, some kind of state secret? I don’t think so. There are twenty dead children in that school over there, and we want to get to the bottom of this. Take me to the car.”

It’s called an investigation. Reporters do that.

“Sir, your newspaper ran a story about a man’s body being found in Adam’s brother’s apartment. Then that became Adam’s mother found dead in her own house here in Newtown. What exactly happened there? A mistake? Wouldn’t you say that was a pretty big mistake? How did it happen? What’s that? Typical confusion in the early reporting of a crime? I don’t think so. Thinking a woman was a man and thinking he or she was found in New Jersey instead of Connecticut, that’s not typical at all. Did police find a man’s body. Speak up.”

Your typical American television viewer would cringe at such demanding questions. You know why? Because he has been entrained and conditioned by news anchors to refrain from digging below the surface. In other words, that viewer is hypnotized.

“Dr. Smith and Officer Jones, we understand that this boy, who was autistic, extremely shy, who had some sort of personality disorder, went into that school and methodically carried out the slaughter of twenty-seven people. In order for him to do that, he had to reload clips at least twice after the first clip ran out. Does that make sense? We’re not just talking about a violent outburst here, we’re talking about a methodical massacre. How do you explain that?”

If these anchors kept on asking questions like this, do you know what would happen? The viewing audience would begin to stir, would begin to break through their hypnotic programming and wake up.

“You know, he’s right. That doesn’t make sense. Maybe there really was a second shooter.”

“Or that Lanza kid…maybe he didn’t kill anybody at all.”

“What? You mean he was…set up?”

“Maybe he was a patsy.”

Yes. Instead of this kind of talk being consigned to “conspiracy nuts,” it actually becomes part of the evening news experience. Because reporters suddenly ask tough questions.

But no. We have to go with grief and shock. We have to lead with it and stay with it.

But that is an artificial construct. Yes, of course people in Newtown feel great shock and pain and loss and grief and horror, but the news producers are consciously moving minutes and hours of it through the tube and filtering out everything else.

They do this every time one of these events occurs, and so the audience expects it and soaks it in and, in that state of entrainment and hypnosis, the audience doesn’t want anything else…because anything else would BREAK THE FLOW and the spell, and the grief would no longer have the same impact.

Newtown is presented as a television event. From the outset, the mood is funereal. It has that tinge and coloration. The audience absorbs it and wants no intrusion on it.

This is Matrix programming.

The anchor is not only the priest, but also the teacher. He/she shows the audience how to experience the event and what to feel and what to think and how to act.

One of the great skills of an anchor is the ability to present the news seamlessly. This is what those big paychecks are for: the blends and segueways and the underlying tone of sincerity that bleeds into every detail of what is being reported.

That is also hypnotic. It sets up a frequency that moves into the brains of the audience. In those brains, it’s an Acceptance-frequency. It’s the mark of a great news anchor, to be able to transmit that and achieve it.

Scott Pelley (CBS) has only some of that. Diane Sawyer (ABC) is decidedly inconsistent in her ability to deploy it. Brian Williams (NBC) is the contemporary master. That’s why he’s been called the Walter Cronkite of the 21^st century.

“Sir, we have a report that police pinned a second man on the ground just outside the school. What is his name? What did you do with him? Where is he now.”

No, no, no, no, no. That would crack the Acceptance-frequency like an egg and send the evening news to hell in a handbasket.

“Sir, I’m glad we finally located you. We understand you were getting ready to go to Bermuda. Now, you were Adam Lanza’s doctor. What drugs did you prescribe him? Not just recently, but going all the way back to the beginning. You see, we’ve compiled a list of possible drugs for Asperger’s and autism and depression, and of course we see that they do, in fact, induce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. Speak up, Doctor.”

The egg not only cracks in that case, the news anchor is suspended the next day, and the network releases a statement that his “breakdown” on camera was brought on by stress.

Pharmaceutical companies put him on their “to-do” list.

Yet, the questions about the drugs are exactly what a real reporter would ask. Not a “conspiracy theorist.” A reporter, on the scene in Newtown.

Anyone who thinks that is absurd and out of bounds is hypnotized, programmed. That’s all there is to it.

Traditional media are dying in this country. Their money is drying up. They could revitalize themselves in a New York minute if they really started COVERING stories and waking up their audience, but that’s not on their agenda. They would rather die.

They are the hired hands of the elites that own this country. They are the whores sent out every day by their pimps, and they know what their job is and what it isn’t.

The direction of elite television news is squeezed down the path of consciously constructing artificial events, for mass consumption experienced in a state of emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual mind-control. Those reporters who venture outside that framework are labeled fringe figures on the margins.

“Lieutenant, excuse me. Hello. Brian Williams, NBC News. I was wondering: if there had been armed employees inside the school, what are the chances the killer could have been stopped before he shot all those children? You know, people who have been trained to shoot and have concealed carry permits. Strong people who could confront a murderer.”

Oh, people say, that is not a reasonable question. That’s a nutcase question. That question shouldn’t be asked. Why not? You want the real answer? Because it destroys the hypnotic frequency that is being delivered by the television networks. That’s the real answer.

The viewer: “Don’t bother me, I’m hypnotized. Don’t interrupt the frequency my brain is absorbing while I’m watching the news.”

And of course, under those conditions, the very last person who should interrupt the hypnotic flow is the anchor himself. He’s the one who’s inducing the hypnosis in the first place.

That tells you the the anchor is quite definitely NOT there to dig up new facts or perspectives himself.

Entrainment means: the brain is being bathed in rhythms and frequencies that literally train it to accept the information that is being transmitted at the same time.

In the same way, a song can succeed because the melody (carrier frequency) makes the trite lyrics seem important.

Entrainment also makes the recipient feel he is part of something larger. This is a key component. The recipient senses he is a member of a collective that is sharing a moment, an experience.

“I feel this way, and everybody else does too.”

This is what substitutes, in our society, for individual experience and self-sufficiency.

But this collective is not real community. It only appears and feels that way. It is mass hypnosis. You can find that in Gregorian chants and in sermons. You can find it in political speeches.

The brain is bathed in certain harmonies and responds by Accepting.

The Globalists’ language is replete with entrainment. “We are all in this together.” “We are healing the planet.” “All of us must strive to make a better world for our children.”

It sounds right, it seems right, but it is delivered to create a collective instead of a real community. Take a few minutes and read Monsanto’s literature. Read it out loud. Listen to yourself. Try to impart convincing rhythms to the phrases. All of a sudden, you’re in the flow. You’re practicing entrainment.

This is what network television news does. And we aren’t even talking about the hypnotic effects of the physical signals that deliver the picture to the audience.

In a previous article, I pointed out that, if we are to believe the network coverage of the Newtown massacre, there wasn’t one angry outraged man or woman in the town. Because we didn’t see them onscreen.

The networks made sure of that. This was a conscious choice on their part.

“My son died in that school and I want to know why. I want to know exactly how the killer got in there. Who let him in? How did he get in? I WANT TO KNOW.”

Sorry, that isn’t part of the coverage.

It would interrupt the entrainment.

“Sorry, sir, you’ll have to back away. We’re doing mass hypnosis and mind control here. You’re breaking the rhythm.”

Instead, that angry man will be funneled to a grief counselor, who will try to soothe his outrage.

“Sir, we all have to find a way to begin the healing.”

Events like Newtown are extraordinary teaching moments for television. Network newscasts display a constellation of emotions that are deemed “acceptable and appropriate” for the audience to experience. And the audience is thereby trained to mirror those emotions, to feel them, to express them, to soak in them.

It’s a closed system.

This is how, incidentally, gun control works so well. It’s part of the overall message. The audience, existing inside that closed system, in that state of mass hypnosis, can be pointed to exactly the wrong remedy for the tragedy.

All the network anchor has to do is frown and shake his head a little, when the subject of guns arises. That’s all it takes, and the brains of the audience suck it in:

“Yes, of course. Take away the guns. If no one had guns, no one could shoot guns. No one would die. No crimes would be committed. How obvious.”

The capstone that makes this puerile grand solution seem reasonable is: the police are always the good guys; we can trust them; they can have all the guns and then everything will be all right.

That message is also imparted by the big-time network new anchors. These kings and queens don’t ask police the tough questions. They refrain from doing that.

In fact, the anchors ARE surrogate police chiefs. They express what the police chiefs would, if they had the anchors’ skills.

The anchors do stand-ups in Newtown and give us the absolute best of what the police would if they could. And in the process, they transmit:

Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning.

It’s perfect, if you want to be an android.

Jon Rappoport

Three armed women teachers shot Adam Lanza in a classroom

Dec17

Three Women Teachers with Guns Shot Adam Lanza in a Classroom

by Jon Rappoport

December 17, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

When everybody is diagnosed with a mental disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the past.

Take that seriously.

At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about achieving gun control. He said, “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals…[and] those who are mentally ill.”

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/17/keeping-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-the-mentally-ill/

In case you’ve been sleeping in a cave for the past few years, the US government is doing everything it can to create more categories of crimes, and the psychiatrists are expanding the list of (fictional but enforceable) mental disorders, as they also relentlessly promote “more diagnosis and treatment.”

Some estimates state 20-25% of the US population is suffering from a mental disorder. These are absurd and cooked figures, for several reasons, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that huge numbers of people can be arbitrarily labeled as such.

So legally owning or not owning a gun may soon hinge on a broader definition of “mentally ill,” changed to “having been diagnosed with a mental disorder,” because that is one back-door way to execute a massive gun ban.

Simply put: diagnose everybody and his brother with a mental disorder, and then assert that any such diagnosis bars a person from obtaining a gun permit.

Psychiatry, in addition to destroying lives through toxic drugs, becomes a political instrument for gun control.

In the July editions of both Psychology Today and The Psychiatric Times, the same editorial, written by Dr. Allen Frances, America’s most influential psychiatrist, spelled out a clear position:

“Guns do kill people and the number of people depends on the number of guns and the number of rounds they can fire in a given period of time.”

Of course, no mention is made of the psychiatric drugs that induce violence and murder.

Dr. Frances sums up his unequivocal position: “We really have only two choices…accept mass murder as part of the American way of life, or…get in line with rest of the civilized world and adopt sane gun control policies.”

I thought I would explore the issue of mental illness from a slightly different perspective, however: WHY ARE FANATICAL GUN GRABBERS PSYCHOTIC?

What is the nature of THEIR mental disorder?

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the gun-control forces are on the march. Ban this, ban that, go after the Doomsday Preppers and bitter clingers.

The gun grabbers don’t respond to the obvious charge that, when honest people have weapons for self-defense, they can, in fact, defend themselves and stave off crime, harm, and death.

This point doesn’t make a dent.

Neither does arguing Second Amendment. Neither does painting a picture of a society in which the only people who have guns are the government and criminals. The gun grabbers seem to like that picture. At least theoretically.

Here are a few truths you can take to the bank:

If the media in this country (which are notoriously anti-gun) made a big deal out of every case in which an armed citizen successfully defended his home against a violent intruder, and made every such person a hero, we would have a different mood in America. Everybody would see the sense in gun ownership.

In the case of the Newtown killings, the media would be saying, “Now here is a tragic case in which no one in the school was carrying a weapon.” And everybody would see the sense and the truth of that.

So really, it’s a matter of what the media cover and how they cover it, and what they ignore. That’s all it is. It isn’t anything else. In other words, they’re running a psyop.

Point two: the government doesn’t want private citizens to own and carry guns because that would diminish the role of government.

The people in charge hate it when private citizens take over a self-appointed government function. It’s insulting. It’s people saying to the government, “We don’t need you.” It’s proof that government acts in many, many ways that are intrusive and preemptive.

“No need to worry, officer, I caught the thief as he was leaving the liquor store. I pulled my weapon and put him down on the ground and cuffed him. He’s in the back of my car.”

No, no, no. no. The government must be in charge of everything that pertains to showing or using a gun. No outsiders allowed.

“Yes, Mrs. Smith, I’m sorry we’re late, and I’m sorry your husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder, but we have other crimes to process. We have to man speed-traps. It’s better that your husband didn’t have a gun, let me assure you. Why? It just is. Now, let me call an ambulance. I hope they get him to the hospital in time.”

Imagine what the response would be if you asked an IRS executive what he thought about a flat consumer tax on bought goods that would replace the whole IRS code.

We’re talking about government jobs here. Jobs and money and pensions.

Private citizens must not do what the government does.

In case you hadn’t noticed, this spills over into the health field. The FDA certifies, as safe and effective, every (poisonous) medical drug before it can be prescribed for public use.

The FDA therefore controls drug treatment.

If somebody comes along and cooks up, in his kitchen, an herbal brew that knocks out the flu like a ridiculous little sissy in two hours, that’s a threat. Suddenly, a private citizen is miles ahead of the FDA (and the drug companies). No, no, no.

If home schoolers educate their kids better than government-run schools do, that’s another sore point. That’s bad. It expose the government factories that manufacture illiterate children.

Third point: if enough citizens were well-armed, it would take a full-scale federal invasion to overcome them in case of, oh, secession from the federalized United States.

The feds, of course, would win in the long run, if they killed enough people, but the publicity would be devastating to the government. Think Waco multiplied by a thousand or a million.

And in the process, word would get out about these well-armed private citizens’ grievances against the central government. The grievances would make sense to a lot of people watching the carnage unfold. Can’t have that. No, no, no.

Fourth point: A lot of people in this country grow up thinking they have to take care of other people. That’s really all they know how to do. This goes far beyond any understandable humane impulse.

This is meddling. It’s moving in on other people’s private business. The meddlers turn out to be vicious little scum. Well, where else are they going to be able to exercise these cheap impulses, other than in government jobs?

The corollary to this is: “I’m the hero. I protect you. I…you what? You protected yourself? No, you’re not allowed to do that, because then I can’t be a hero. You’re supposed to be the helpless citizen on my watch. If I can leap tall buildings, you have to be grounded. Otherwise, my life is in vain.”

Fifth point: Elites want to continue to own America. They want to have sway over the land and resources and people and money. Their minions and agents are the official people with weapons. That’s the way it works. It has to be a one-sided game. If millions and millions and millions of private citizens owned guns and knew how to use them, the tin gods wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.

Sixth point: So-called liberals hate people who own guns. For them, guns are symbols of everything else they hate. Religion, land ownership, property rights, fences, and boundaries. Unless, of course, those fences define the liberals’ land.

Corollary: Many conservatives hate people who own guns, too, when they perceive those people are ready to decentralize power away from an overarching corporate-government control- nexus.

These are all elements of a true psychosis. It needs to be treated.

Short of mandatory sedatives, or a sudden attack on a lonely street at night by armed thugs, I recommend mandatory gun ownership for every non-felon adult in the US. This would solve the problem expeditiously.

I especially want to see all members of Congress packing heat in their chambers. If, once in a while, there is a shooting, well, we can catch it on C-Span. It won’t be lost to history.

I also want to see Chris Matthews in his MSNBC studio with a .45 strapped to his leg, the one that tingles.

There is one caveat to my proposal. In order to create a fully armed population, that population must be responsible, which is to say they must understand inviolable private property rights. They don’t have to own property, but they have to know that such a thing as private property exists. Why? Because property is one of the things an armed citizen has a right to defend.

Unfortunately, we’re losing the concept of private property like water leaking out of battered rowboat. It’s part of government’s plan, because government wants to own everything that isn’t already nailed down by its partner mega-corporations.

And government’s thinking goes this way: “Since we own everything, our cops defend it with guns; there is no reason for private armed citizens to defend it; it isn’t theirs.”

Meanwhile, I have to get going. I just got a message that three armed women teachers shot a guy named Adam Lanza in a classroom. I’m heading over to check it out.

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Two movies, two mass murders

Dec17

Newtown: Two Movies, Two Mass Murders, and Questioning All the Facts. Torrid Political Implications are at Stake.

By Jon Rappoport

December 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The Dark Knight Rises and The Hunger Games.

We’ll get to them in a minute.

This article is in the interest of full disclosure. The easy way out is to accept the basic facts given to us by the police and media. So let’s take a breath, back up, and take a wider view.

Multiple media sources state Adam Lanza, the accused Newtown mass murderer, wore a mask while he killed 26 people in the Sandy Hook Elementary School. So who IDed him as the killer?

Obviously, the police, after the fact, when Lanza was dead.

In any crime with such torrid political implications (“take away the guns”), we have to question all the facts.

Presumably, the police found Lanza dead with a bullet wound from a gun lying next to him. They saw he was wearing a mask and body armor. They assumed he was the killer.

Later, the gun was traced back to its owner, Lanza’s mother. Bullet analysis of the victims revealed this was the murder weapon.

So it was a murder-suicide.

Unless there was a different person who did the shooting (cops found and arrested a man wearing camo in the woods near the school…what happened to him?). And who was the man police had “proned out” near the school?

An alternate scenario: Lanza was the patsy. The actual shooter(s) in the school killed him with the murder weapon.

Oh, well, that’s impossible.

Really? Why?

Because “everybody knows” Lanza did it?

Because the media report what the police tell them?

Because the police drew the “obvious” conclusion when they found a masked and body-armored Lanza dead with the murder weapon next to him?

It all comes down to this. Conventional reality vs. extraordinary reality. The overwhelming majority opt for the former every time.

Lee Oswald was the lone shooter (the majority don’t even believe this now). Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK (the evidence says he couldn’t, because he standing on the wrong side of RFK).

Lanza would be the perfect patsy. Loner, shy, vulnerable, behaved strangely, Asperger’s Syndrome; MOTHER WAS AN AVID GUN COLLECTOR, had taught her son to shoot; relative of the family tells CBS News the mother was worried about collapse of the economy, wanted weapons in case she had to defend her home and family (DOOMSDAY PREPPER)…and there you have just the right scenario for the gun grabbers, who have been going at it full-bore in the last two days.

“These kids would be still be alive if the mother wasn’t a doomsday prepper.”

On top of that, as I wrote in my previous article, we now have the boggling connection to The Hunger Games. In that sci-fi novel and film, 24 children are picked to take part in a competitive, national, blood-sacrifice, killing ritual…one child survives at the end and 23 die.

Twenty died in Newtown.

And the author of The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, lives in Sandy Hook, next to Newtown.

And this means? This is just the kind of bizarre and insane op secret societies are reputed to enjoy. Ordinarily, I would ignore this sort of thing and just call it a coincidence, but it’s too improbable. I can’t prove the killings in Newtown were part of that kind of op. But I can’t disregard it, either. The “coincidence” is just too stunning.

And if The Hunger Game connection is real here, then all bets are off.

If you recall, there was another recent mass murder in which a film played a part. Batman. The Dark Knight Rises. The Aurora theater. The Joker. James Holmes, also masked.

There are serious questions about exactly where he was arrested. At the theater exit, as the media reported? Or as other witnesses say, in his car. Was Holmes a patsy, set up to take the fall for murders committed by pros?

Corbin Dates, a purported eyewitness in the theater, and at least one other unnamed witness, spoke on camera to the media about a second shooter in the theater.

Yes, we want answers. We want them quickly. We always do. But it’s better to open up all lines of questioning, rather than chase a cooked-up scenario down the rabbit hole and end nowhere.

Of course, in the Newtown murders, we have all sorts of contradictory reports that surfaced early on. These “errors” have been attributed to “typical confusion that always accompanies” the first stories from a scene of chaos. We always write off these mistakes. But why should we?

There was the confusion about weapons. The killer used a hand gun. No he didn’t. It was a rifle. There was a rifle found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons were found. The killing weapon was Sig Sauer pistol. No, a rifle, It was a Bushmaster rifle. No, it was a Sig Sauer rifle.

Were all these early errors made in the heat of a chaotic scene, or were some “errors” put out there to confuse a true investigation and possibly delay media and police, while the real killers escaped?

Inferring from the medical examiner’s statements, Lanza, if he was the killer and if he was using a Sig Sauer rifle, would have employed at least three clips in the killing spree. He would have had the persistence to reload that many times and continue the shooting?

A violent outburst, to which Lanza might have been prone, if he indeed had a developmental disorder called “Asperger’s” is not the same thing as the methodical murder of 27 people, reloading three or more clips in his rifle.

And now let’s back up again, to the scene of the crime, as police were inside the school. From reports, the police entered the school after the carnage was over.

They found Lanza’s body. They saw the mask and body armor. They inferred he was the shooter. But what would have prevented the real pros, the killers, from killing Lanza and dressing him in a mask and body armor and leaving him there?

Oh, that couldn’t happened. People wouldn’t do that.

Really? Why not?

The two movies, The Hunger Games and The Dark Knight Rises, provided a backdrop of dystopian chaos and violence, and a society in which coherence has broken down. Criminal forces, winning. The vision of a peaceful and prosperous nation in which institutional justice stands a chance, shattered.

Whether you call “them” the Globalists, the secret societies, the Illuminati, the elites, the Bilderbergs, the CFR, the Trilateralists, you come up with the same game plan:

Destroy America, destroy the idea of individual freedom, destabilize the webs of community, engender fear, make it seem necessary for top-down control to be exerted, “to save us all” from rampant chaos.

These two movies, with tremendous advance publicity and anticipation, bolster the premise that American is too far gone to save.

Now, on top of that, we have two horrendous mass murders connected to these films, and the murders seem to prove the point: we are, in fact, too far gone…unless our wiser leaders step in and make great changes in the way we live.

What changes? Take all the guns. Restrict freedom. Spy on all of us 24/7, no matter where we are, no matter what we are doing.

Then and only then can we have peace. Then and only then can we live side by side in a Matrix of happiness.

“If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.”

Yes. Be good little boys and girls. Obey all the rules. Accept new rules, whenever they are dictated. Keep your eyes straight ahead. Think good thoughts. Be positive.

But even then, be warned, as in Newtown, the perfect little American community, we can experience the murder of innocence. That’s the lesson that is being imparted.

Even then, we learn, there will be a struggle to establish this happy Matrix we all desire. Therefore, all the more reason to surrender our rights and freedoms, so our leaders can work their overarching solutions without resistance and interruption.

From chaos, order.

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Newtown murders: astonishing Hunger Games “coincidence,” and killer’s mother now a Doomsday Prepper??

Dec16

Newtown murders: astonishing Hunger Games “coincidence,” and killer’s mother now a Doomsday Prepper??

by Jon Rappoport

December 16, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

CBS News gives us this sizzling report:

(Source): the CBS Evening News, broadcast (on network TV) Sat. 12-15-2012.

Segment begins at 7 minute point in online version of the TV broadcast:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50137189n

Program anchor Jim Axelrod (live in Newtown, CT): “You’re also learning more about the guns used in the shooting, that belonged to Lanza’s mother?”

Senior Correspondent John Miller sets us up for the punch line: “It’s about the process. She had to go to an awful lot of trouble to get these guns. CT has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. That meant going down to the state police, filling out the forms, getting finger printed, and then waiting to hear back that she was approved for a handgun permit. Then it meant going down to the store and getting an FBI background check, waiting for another period and picking those weapons up. So it’s not one of those things where you just show up with your driver’s license and make a purchase. She made an affirmative effort to get these weapons and as we learned from the landscaper, enjoyed shooting.”

Ready? Here is John Miller’s punch line: “We spoke to another relative who also said she was worried about the defense of her home if there was a collapse of the economy [on screen – close up casual photo of Mrs. Lanza]. She wanted to have weapons on hand to defend them which of course only underscores the irony that those were the guns used by her own child to kill her and so many others.”

Boom.

And there we are. The circle is complete. Now the gun grabbers can really take off and run with this. “The doomsday preppers are responsible for the murders of 20 children! That’s where this whole thing is coming from! Get their guns!”

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out where this is going!

But then there is THIS. The SGT Report cites a “coincidence” that will leave you thinking about a planned scenario at Newtown, just the kind of operation secret societies are reputedly famous for.

http://sgtreport.com/2012/12/a-startling-fact-gigantic-coincidence-about-fridays-mass-shooting/

In The Hunger Games, many times called a model of predictive programming, the ritual sacrifice of 23 children is carried out. Twelve districts, two children from each district; they fight in pairs and kill each other until one winner is left. 23 children are killed.

In Newton, Adam Lanza killed 20 children.

The author of The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, is listed by Wikipedia as one of the famous people who lives in Newtown.

You take it from there. Call it whatever you want to. I try to avoid winging big stretches, but this is too stunning to omit. WTF.

…Meanwhile, the police in Newtown are lying. Here is how that plays out.

We are entering another familiar phase of the standard mass-murder scenario.

It goes like this: “A portrait is beginning to emerge of the killer…”

With Adam Lanza, it starts with “loner, shy, awkward, different, very smart.” It now proceeds to “goth, computer nerd, carried briefcase not backpack, played video games.”

The latter terms are meant to connect the audience, the public, to the 1999 Columbine School mass murders, the touchstone of school shootings, the gold standard. The so-called “trenchcoat mafia”; Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the “goth shooters.”

Next, we may hear Adam Lanza was bullied.

These are all synthetic descriptions about Lanza, manufactured to cue the audience to make certain assumptions about a person they don’t know at all.

The “emerging portrait” is a necessary step in the media presentation. It assures the public that they can make at least partial sense out of the killer.

It’s also a false trail, if in fact the killer was on psychiatric meds, because then all bets are off. The drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, Adderall, etc.) do things to the brain that result in actions entirely beyond any description of Lanza, even when that description comes from family and friends.

Now, the police are getting into the act.

Connecticut State Police Lieutenant, Paul Vance, dangled a carrot in front of the press today: “Our investigators at the crime scene…did produce some very good evidence in this investigation, that our investigators will be able to use in, hopefully, painting the complete picture as to how—and more importantly why—this occurred.”

A note from Adam Lanza, found at the scene? A recording of a confession? Vance didn’t say. Perhaps his punch line will come tomorrow.

Here’s why this is a lie.

Killing your own mother, and then breaking into a school and killing 26 people, most of whom are very young children, doesn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, resolve by assigning a motive.

There is no motive that can explain such a crime.

Lanza was bullied, so he killed 26 people, including little children?

He had a very bad experience when he was in school?

His mother was brutal toward him?

But the media and law-enforcement presentation requires some sort of motive. It’s part of the planned sequence of events that occurs in the aftermath of mass murders. It needs to be there. The public is supposed to digest this motive and either accept it or grudgingly acknowledge it might have played a role in the killings. It’s better than a vacuum.

The public is not supposed to be left with a vacuum.

Of course, the television anchors button the whole thing up with their somber, high-minded, and world-weary bottom-line reminders that “we may never understand what really happened here on the morning of December 14^th.” That’s folded in to provide the “helpless factor” that’s now engraved on every mass murder.

“We’re all victims and we have to accept what cannot be explained.”

We’re talking about multiple vectors of explaining a killer. Planned vectors.

“Well, he was this way and he was that way, and so-and-so person said he was this way, and at the end of the day all this helps but there is still an underlying mystery about the human mind that researchers are only beginning to probe, and here is Dr. Such and Such, who has been researching the deep corridors and channels of the brain for thirty years at Harvard, to try to help us make some sense of out of all of this…Doctor?”

Smokescreen.

Meanwhile, if Adam Lanza was on psychiatric drugs, the answer is obvious. HE HAD NO MOTIVE FOR KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE.

There was no motive.

That’s what the drugs do.

Yes, a person might be angry, might be resentful, might feel put-upon, might fantasize about revenge, might wish that people were dead…but he would never act on those feelings and thoughts.

That’s the whole point.

And then he takes the drugs, or dangerously withdraws from them from them, and THEN he kills people.

He does what he would otherwise never do.

In fact, some people who feel absolutely no desire for revenge, after taking the drugs kill others or themselves or both.

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about the case of Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “five of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso.”

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

Keep in mind that a person doesn’t have to be severely “down” to be given one of these antidepressants. He or she could just be going through a temporary disappointment, but upon recommendation, a visit to a psychiatrist is made…and then life takes a radically different and extremely dangerous pharmaceutical course.

As far as motive for murder in the Adam Lanza case, everything is backwards. First, the police should be investigating whether he had been under the care of a physician. If so, what drugs were prescribed?

If the psychiatric meds are positively established, then all the rest of the mumbling and hinting and explaining and writing script is completely irrelevant. Lanza went crazy from the drugs and he killed. He took the drugs and he killed.

This is not an excuse. It’s a fact.

It doesn’t change the tragedy, but knowing it can prevent more mass murders, if the people trying to cover up what these drugs do can be pushed out of the way and shelved, along with all the other medical liars in this country.

Meanwhile, we’re getting the full dose of media mind control out of Newtown, Connecticut. The planned sequence is playing out.

Here’s the capper: Newtown USA is the perfect town. Everybody is happy there. It’s the best place to live. People are friendly. There is virtually no serious crime. It’s so safe. It’s Christmas season. Decorations have already been hung in the streets. It’s the wonderful holiday in the wonderful community. Everybody likes everybody.

What’s the takeaway?

If this horrible, horrible thing happened in Newtown, no one is safe in America, anywhere.

Who wants to promote that message?

The same people who promote the imminent threat of terrorism, in order to wipe out freedom, to install wall to wall surveillance of everything we do and say and write, 24/7, to remove guns from citizens, to increase dependence on government for life and survival.

One young man, on one or two medicines, goes on a rampage and kills, and the planners advance their heinous cause: Operation Newtown.

As long as we stay asleep.

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Lanza, Bloomberg, Obama, guns, psychiatric meds, and mass hypnosis in Newtown, Connecticut

Dec15

Lanza, Bloomberg, Obama, guns, psychiatric meds, and mass hypnosis: the TV script

by Jon Rappoport

December 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mayor Bloomberg is leading the charge to take away guns in the wake of the Newtown child murders. The pressure is on.

Apart from grandstanding, which Bloomberg knows how to do, this is all about deflection from the main event: the killer himself.

Last night, I watched network coverage, wherein, of course, the anchors were in Newtown, standing on the street, “trying to make sense of the whole thing.”

If they’re so interested, along with the public, in figuring out why Adam Lanza killed all those children, you would think, with their enormous resources, they would find out who Lanza’s doctor-psychiatrist was in five minutes and ask him about his patient.

Of course, that’s sacred ground. Patient-doctor confidentiality.

Except the patient is dead.

So much for the networks wanting to know who Adam Lanza really was. It’s all a sham. They just want to keep asking the question over and over, pretending to be in the dark about the whole thing.

They want to “deepen the mystery” and emphasize how futile it is to get into the mind of a killer. They’ve got that rap down. They use it every time one of these mass murders happens.

They know about the psychiatric-drug connection to murders and suicides. But they won’t say the magic words. They’ll just keep biting their tongues.

And “out of respect for the victims,” the drug companies aren’t running ads anywhere near this media coverage. Translation: the companies don’t want to encourage the public to make the connection between meds and murder.

Prozac, murder. Zoloft, murder. Paxil, murder. Ritalin, murder.

Bloomberg is playing the shill for new gun control. He’s the point man of the moment, insisting “the president do something meaningful” right now. It’s an orchestrated little play.

“Let’s ask Michael Moore what he thinks.”

“Oh good, Rupert Murdoch is weighing in against guns.” Yes, he’s providing the “balanced” in “fair and balanced,” so people stop associating FOX News with “right-wing gun advocates” for a few hours.

And the Boston mayor is chiming in, too.

Meanwhile, the public is under the spell of mass hypnosis. Can’t stop watching the tube. Never stops to think, “Hey, why don’t they put Lanza’s doctor on the screen and have him talk about his patient?”

There are other elements of this mass trance. People bolster their belief that what happens in life is out of their hands. “See, it’s just like I thought. We have no power. I have no power. All we can do is grieve and try to heal. Light a candle.”

Notice another odd thing. No one in the tightly bound Newtown community is saying, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this. We’ve got to find out what this killer was.” If they are saying it, you’re not seeing it on camera.

The people of Newtown can find out in an hour who Lanza’s doctor was. They can march right up to his office or house and knock on the door and tell him to come out and talk.

Why don’t they do it?

They’re still in shock, yes. But they’re also in a hypnotic state, when it comes to doctors. Don’t question the high priest in the white coat. He lives in a different sphere from the rest of us.

Ignorance=grief=healing=being a good citizen.

Here’s a phrase you’re hearing all over the tube from politicians and officials. “We have to come together.” What the hell does that mean? I even heard the police chief say it, in reference to “resolving what happened.” Garble. Pure garble.

No, “coming together” means giving up. It means abject helplessness. It means, above all, no outrage.

Have you see one person on television express outrage?

That’s verboten. They won’t allow that. Perhaps they’ll put a few citizens of Newtown on, if they want to say it’s time to take the guns away. A little bit of outrage on that score is all right.

Who knows? Maybe Newtown will become the center of a national movement to ban guns. Maybe a few PR agencies will tap in and go for it.

We’re looking at operant conditioning here. It’s acceptable to feel grief, confusion, pain. It’s acceptable to feel helpless. But outrage? No. That’s not in the playbook.

And the public, glued to their TV sets, absorbs the message. “This is the way I’m supposed to feel in the wake of one of these tragedies. This is what I can feel.”

And it’s all “in deference to the victims and their families.” That’s the capper. Anger is covertly being framed as an insult to the children who died.

This is the show we’re watching. It’s scripted and sculptured.

Part of mass mind control is defining for people what they can feel in a given situation. Left to their own devices, people feel all sorts of things. But because television is the sticky substance that binds the collective together, it becomes the counselor and teacher. It tells people how to experience an event.

It’s powerful. It parades people across the screen who suddenly have special status because they’re on the screen, because they’re being watched by millions. And those key characters, who get their thirty seconds and two minutes are proxies, who instruct the public about emotion, about range of allowable emotion.

This IS mind control.

It’s like an eight-year-old at a funeral. He doesn’t have a clue about what he’s supposed to do, what expression he’s supposed to have on his face, whether he’s supposed to say anything, where he’s supposed to stand, what he’s supposed to feel. So he looks around at the adults. He picks up their cues.

This is the public, watching television. Picking up cues from the citizens of Newtown USA. And those citizens are screened by the producers of the network news shows, before they’re brought on camera.

We’ve got a father who’s pissed off, who wants to go to the home of Lanza’s doctor and ask him questions? Forget it. Sorry, sir. Maybe we’ll get to you later.

The network anchors themselves exude an air of sober respect and somber “humanity.” That’s what they get paid for. Not everybody can do that and keep track of what’s being said in their ears by the producers. The somber tone is the money.

The anchors are the priests at the funeral, before the funeral happens. They set the stage. They convey to the public the meaning and atmosphere and essence of the whole event.

And having done that, there is simply no room for anything that would intrude on this sepulchral mood.

All this occurs while Barack Obama sits in the White House, conferring with his advisers, debating the political upside and downside of issuing an overriding executive order that would limit citizen access to guns.

“Sir, I think the sentiment, at this moment, would be a flood in your favor. This is the time. We’ve got all these dead children. Congress has refused to act in the past, so you do now. You take the whole matter into your own hands, as the nation’s leader in a time of crisis. Sir, you say, ‘Enough. We’ve had enough. All these children, cut off from the rest of their lives and from their loved ones. I refuse to stand by and do nothing.’ I tell you, sir, it would work. We can drum up enormous support from our people, our supporters, and from the press. They’ll say you’re showing great courage. We can pull it off. We can do this. It’ll set the whole stage for your second term. We’ll drown out the opposition…we’ll organize candlelight marches in the inner cities. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will come out of their homes and walk down the streets. Mothers holding photos of their dead children. The networks will be there in full force. We’ll put this on television 24/7, and overwhelm our enemies…”

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Here come the grief counselors, over the hill, pouring into Newtown, Connecticut

Dec15

Here come the grief counselors, over the hill, pouring into Newtown, Connecticut

By Jon Rappoport

December 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

You may as well say that, from this point on, the rest of the events in Newtown, Connecticut, will be brought to you by Merck, Glaxo, and Pfizer.

Media outlets are already reporting that “a raft of services” will be available for the children of Sandy Hook Elementary school, and the Newtown community, where Adam Lanza killed 26 people yesterday.

This is phase two. It always happens at these mass murder events. The grief counselors. The social service workers. The psychologists.

They pour in. And they end up referring people to psychiatrists, who will in turn prescribe some of the very drugs that trigger murder and suicide.

The drugs that cause people to kill.

This is one way the psychiatric drug industry spreads its heinous influence.

The sequence is always the same, because it’s set up that way. After the mass murders and the shock and the horror, the grief industry arrives, and then come the referrals to psychiatric drug pushers, along with the memorials and the “healing.”

The entire mass-shooting aftermath is laid on as a cover, to deflect REAL investigation into what happened.

So here is the first real question.

WHO WAS ADAM LANZA’S DOCTOR?

I kept asking this question about James Holmes, the accused Aurora theater shooter. Finally, it emerged that, indeed, he’d been seeing Lynne Fenton, a psychiatrist at the U of Colorado.

Now, in Newtown, Connecticut, it’s Adam Lanza, whom his brother describes as having had a personality disorder.

If the school shooter was seeing a psychiatrist, we want to know who the doctor is, now. We want a list of all medications Lanza was taking, now.

We know these drugs’ effects. We know a number of psychiatric drugs cause brain storms that push people into committing suicide and homicide.

Newtown is a small community. Somebody there can step up and say who the doctor is. Do it now. The police can’t be depended on to do it. You people in Newtown want to save yourselves from another horror down the line, get the name of the doctor and make it public.

What are we waiting for? Do you think the major media are going to tear away the curtain and tell us anything important? We don’t need official confirmation that the drugs, like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin are causing people to go crazy and kill. It’s in the literature. I’ve cited the references time and time again. We have to have a public uproar. This killing has to stop.

Expose the drugs, once and for all. Expose the doctors who prescribe them knowing full well what effects they have. Expose the pharmaceutical companies that sell them knowing what they do. Expose the FDA for permitting the drugs to be given in the first place.

Do we need a hundred more of these insane shootings before we wake up? Do we need to stand by and let the government blame it on guns?

Who was Adam Lanza’s doctor?

Who was his doctor?

The op is to keep the people in Newtown in shock, grief, and “we’re all in this together” long enough to avert a true investigation.

Jon Rappoport

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

The mind-control qualities of Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Scott Pelley

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

Sandy Hook: Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, Skull&Bones

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

Three armed women teachers shot Adam Lanza in a classroom

Two movies, two mass murders

Newtown murders: astonishing Hunger Games “coincidence,” and killer’s mother now a Doomsday Prepper??

Lanza, Bloomberg, Obama, guns, psychiatric meds, and mass hypnosis in Newtown, Connecticut

Here come the grief counselors, over the hill, pouring into Newtown, Connecticut