This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

This is what I want to hear Obama say about guns

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The first thing I want to hear Obama say about guns is what I’d expect from any rational person:

“Here is where gun murders are occurring in the United States. Look at this map.”

Yes, let’s start there. I mean, if we were heading up a campaign to stop gun murders and gun maiming, wouldn’t we do that?

Let’s see where all this gun violence is happening. Is it on Western ranches? Is it in the desert? Is it in the Everglades? On Mt. Whitney? In Scarsdale? Shaker Heights?

Gangs! That’s a good place to start, wouldn’t you say? Especially since gangs can obtain guns whether or not they’re legal. So no new law is going to stop them from what they’re doing.

If Obama really wants to solve the problem of gun violence, why doesn’t he say anything about gangs?

Why doesn’t he say anything about New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis?

Is it because he’s not trying to solve gun violence but only gun ownership? Is ownership what’s really bothering him?

And then I want to hear him say this, too:

“A father is home at night. An intruder breaks in. The father is armed. To defend his life and the lives of his family and his property, he has every right to shoot the intruder.

“If he does that, if he shoots the intruder, he’s a good father.”

This is what I want to hear from the lips of the president, just to make things clear, just to set the record straight. No equivocation.

I don’t want to hear anything about calling 911 or waiting for the police. I don’t want to hear anything about turning on the lights or inspecting the safety on the intruder’s gun to see if it’s engaged.

And then I want to hear the president say this:

“There is no doubt the Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against the possible future tyranny of the central government. That potential tyranny was exactly why the whole Constitution was written as it was. To check the power of federal authority.”

I want that on the record, too.

Then and only then is a real conversation about guns possible.

You see, with all the verbiage about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, many people assume, however, that the real and legal bottom-line reasons for owning a gun in this country are secure.

I don’t agree.

I don’t agree that the president or any of his allies in the White House and Congress acknowledge those basic reasons and accept them.

I hear a lot of talk about “the traditional gun culture” in America. That generalization is meant to be a tip of the hat to hunters in wide open spaces of the West. Oh yes, his father and his grandfather owned guns. Bring down a deer and eat it. Sure. And people love their guns. It’s ingrained in the American spirit.

I’m not falling for any of that. People own guns for reasons other than hunting. They own them to protect themselves against criminals. Which means shooting those criminals. And they own guns to protect themselves against a central government that wants to operate as a de facto monarchy.

Do the president and the Congress explicitly agree? Let’s hear them admit it.

That would be the just the beginning of the dialogue.

Without that admission, however, there is no trust and no good will.

And Mr. President, when you make the admission, you’ll have to go a long way, in your words, in your attitude, to overcome deep public skepticism. That’s up to you. No guarantees.

But without the admission, there is nothing, except the obvious conclusion you’re operating a bait and switch. What you really want is all the guns, and you’re taking a few radical steps in that direction.

You must also explain why law-enforcement agencies have ordered more than a billion rounds of ammunition in the last year. Precisely what are those bullets for? All those agencies operate domestically.

I want to hear the president admit there is a world of difference between an armed citizen defending his life, liberty, and property and the lives of his loved ones…and a criminal using a gun to commit a crime.

I want him to admit that the program to take away guns cannot make a true distinction between these situations. Therefore, the honest and honorable citizen is punished and stripped of legal means for defense, as if he were a criminal.

As a gesture of good will, every wealthy person who declares an intention to grab guns should spell out the precise nature of his own means of protection. This would entail listing the number of security people who guard him and what weapons they carry. It’s called full disclosure. It puts the true cards on the table.

“I’m a limousine liberal. I don’t believe in owning a gun. I wouldn’t know how to shoot a gun if my life depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons…”

Good. Give us their names so their guns can be taken away.

And how about taking guns away from private security companies, the big ones who do contract work for the government? Those people are very easy to locate and inspect. How about grabbing their guns first?

Of course, many policemen in America own guns they don’t use on the job. Those guns should be confiscated immediately, correct?

I want to hear the president say: “Add up the number of guns owned in America. Then subtract from that the number of guns used in crimes. The remainder are not being used to commit crimes. Here is the precise number of guns that are behaving themselves…”

Excuse me for bringing up what may seem to be a peripheral issue, Mr. President, but since the federal government and its corporate allies can now spy on each and every American, 24/7, down to the label on his underwear, and can listen to his every phone call and read his every email and text message and inspect his every purchase, while discovering what may or may not be concealed in his bodily orifices during air travel, don’t you think it’s reasonable to ask for an explanation of all this that goes beyond heading off terrorist attacks?

Aren’t we justified, in fact, in assuming that the federal government views every citizen as a potential threat?

And if so, how would you assess the desire of many people to own weapons?

Please offer a complete and open and honest description of this state of affairs.

You might also enlighten those idiots among us who simultaneously rail about too much government surveillance and yet want the government to take away all our weapons. That would be a bonus.

Again, I apologize for introducing what may seem to be an unconnected point, but I have to ask this question:

Are you the last man in America to find out that many psychiatric drugs induce otherwise law-biding people to commit murder?

It would be ironic if you were. Just asking.

The cat is out of the bag. Everybody and his brother is now aware, for example, that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) have been scrambling neurotransmitters and causing people to go crazy in violent homicidal ways.

And yet, in your speech after the Sandy Hook murders, you spoke of the need to expand mental-health services. Mr. President, do you have any idea what this means?

It means more of these highly volatile and dangerous drugs will be dispensed, and then we will have more murders.

Everybody has figured this out. Step out of the Oval Office bubble and come to your senses. The catch-all phrase “mental health” may make a suitable sound in a presidential speech, but really, it’s a confession of an ignorance so vast as to be stunning, at this late date.

Returning to how I began this article, let’s hear you clarify your position about gun violence versus gun ownership. You really need to do that, since you haven’t shown you intend to stop gun violence, since you’ve said nothing definitive about gangs and those places on the US map where most of the gun violence is taking place.

A commander-on-chief says: “This is the enemy, and this is where the enemy is, and this is where we’re going after him.”

Your failure to do that is a dead giveaway that your agenda is about something else entirely.

Somehow you’ve managed to hypnotize all those fellow liberals into neglecting to see this glaring fact. Maybe they don’t want to stop gun violence, either. They just want to stop ownership.

PS: Brian? Brian Williams? Are you there? Caught you on Letterman the other night. Nice impression of Regis Philbin. You spoke glowingly of the American West and its long tradition of guns. Was it just by a slip of memory you failed to mention the private-citizen use of weapons to shoot criminals? That’s a long tradition, too. Or would referring to it have been cutting too close to the bone? Feel free to retrace your steps on the NBC Nightly News, the nation’s most trusted source of truth.

PPS: Mr. President, just thought of something else. You’ve heard of the name, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla? I’m sure you’ve been getting briefings on him. He’s standing trial in your old city, Chicago.

Niebla is a member of the Sinaloa Cartel (drug gang). For some reason, his trial keeps getting postponed. Niebla and his lawyers state that he has special immunity from the DEA, because there is a deal between the US federal government and Sinaloa.

In exchange for the Sinaloa providing intelligence on rival Mexican drug gangs, the US government is permitting Sinaloa to ship tons of drugs into the US through Chicago.

US prosecutors have been asserting the right to suppress quite a bit of evidence in the Niebla trial, for national security reasons.

Is this perhaps one reason why you don’t mention gang gun violence in your campaign to take away guns? Because guns in the hands of gang members ensure the smooth flow of drugs into Chicago and then into the rest of the US? That’s a lot of gang guns in a lot of hands in a lot of places in the US.

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

Alan Dershowitz is now a Woody Allen parody

Jan9

Garbage time on the Piers Morgan show: Alan Dershowitz is now a Woody Allen parody

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Doing garbage time on Piers Morgan after Alex Jones cut Piers a hundred new ones, “America’s defense lawyer,” Alan Dershowitz, tried to label Alex an “exhibit,” a piece of evidence for gun control.

All Alan needed to do was muss his hair a little and he would have been the neurotic NYC Jewish intellectual Woody Allen played and parodied in five hundred of his early movies.

“I mean…the man (Alex) is scary. He never read Kierkegaard or Heidegger and yet,…he gives off this flavor, this effluent, of being a real existentialist, but he backs it up with Gatling Guns… This isn’t coming from Columbia or Harvard or Sartre. It’s right out of Mein Kampf or something. He’s like a Norman Mailer from Texas. I refuse to go to Texas. I’m afraid they’ll pump gas into my mouth and feed me to their wild dogs. I hear in Texas, if you read an actual book all the way through, they take you out at night and castrate you on the prairie. A friend of mine once went to Texas and never came back. Just disappeared. A few years later, his sister got his thumb in the mail…”

Alan did the I’m-really-sort-of-scared-of-the-man (Alex) quite well. Concern, worry, a tinge of fear, as if he were watching a tiger on 59^th Street heading toward the Hotel Pierre after escaping from the Central Park Zoo.

Well, Alan’s a high-priced lawyer. He knows roles. In 1986, when Reversal of Fortune, the film about the Klaus von Bulow murder trial, was being cast, Alan, who was a featured character, wanted Woody to play him. Woody declined, and part went to Ron Silver.

Now Alan’s playing Woody on live television.

“Really…I’d be scared to be in the man’s (Alex’s) home. If I disagreed with him about something, he might cook me on the grill in the back yard and call his pals over to chew on my liver. Don’t they have a law in Texas where you can file a petition to suspend cannibalism laws in special cases? I head about a trial where the judge allowed a hunter to eat his neighbor’s leg because the guy lost their deer that was strapped to the roof of his van. They don’t teach Evolution in Texas because there isn’t any. When the sun sets, half the population crawls back into lakes and ponds to breathe through their gills.”

Drum roll, cymbal crash.

Then Piers says, “No, Alan, the thing that really scares me about people like him (Alex), is…”

Then Alan says, “No, Piers, the issue with people like this really is…”

They top each other for several rounds, plumbing the depths of Alex’s fearful demeanor,, and it’s a wrap for another show on CNN, the most trusted name in networks with no ratings.

I’m working on a new petition: Exhume Larry King!

Bring him back. Prop his suspendered corpse in the chair and let him interview OJ’s fourth cousin and Carol Burnett’s costume designer.

If Piers doesn’t want to go back to England and talk about phone-hacking scandals, he can shovel out what’s piled high and deep in the CNN studio every night.

Jon Rappoport

Alex Jones: Best Night of Television Ever

Jan9

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Piers Morgan (CNN) thought he might pump up his horrendous ratings and avoid having to go back to England. So he invited Alex Jones to come east and appear on his show.

They would discuss gun control and the petition to have Morgan deported. It would be good television. An interesting conversation. Perhaps things would get contentious.

But Morgan’s producers and bookers had made a fatal error of judgment.

To say Alex was loaded for bear is a vast understatement.

He crashed the television party in a way it’s never happened before.

You could call it: the internet invades mainstream media. But that doesn’t begin to do it justice.

This was one man attacking the whole rotting corpse of major media, attacking the fascists of the federal government, attacking the psychiatric/pharmaceutical cartel for dispensing drugs that cause people to kill other people, attacking the host of the show for daring to come to these shores with his putrid put-on Brit arrogance, attacking the brain-dead premise that fewer gun murders equals a far, far better nation (England), swearing an oath that the US government will not disarm the citizenry…and Alex made all this happen in just the first seven minutes of the interview.

You could go back in the archives and comb through the history of television in this country and never find seven minutes like this. Never.

It broke through the fake civility of moronic, pundit-driven, stacked-to-the-ceiling-with-utter-bullshit news programs like a car driving through a showroom window at 80mph.

Watch it, then tell yourself you’re not dreaming, because you’re not. It happened.

If you were, by chance, tuned to the BCS championship game between Alabama and Notre Dame and missed the real slaughter on CNN, catch it.

According to Alex, one of Pier’s producers broke down and cried during the interview. Oh dear. Horrid. I hope the producer had friends to console her in their little mutually constructed elite bubble. Cocktails, tranqs, perhaps a visit to a shrink might be in order. No doubt, this is a case of PTSD, and might necessitate a long recovery.

No, the idiots at CNN were definitely not ready for this. They were blindsided. Piers tried to remain calm. That was his only strategy. He would be the voice of reason. Stiff upper lip and all that.

It worked about as well as waving a feather in front of a typhoon.

Which, when you think about it, is how the people of England handle their fascist government and their falling-apart society. “Look at us, we’re clueless with feathers.”

No doubt Piers is telling himself he stood up to the cave man from Texas, revealing to the American people how pernicious gun owners are. But that wasn’t it. That wasn’t it all.

Instead, this was cardboard television reality taking a dozen torpedoes amidships.

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

Alex did it exactly the way you’re supposed to do it when you want to destroy the whole stinking mess all at once. You give no quarter. You go on the attack from the first moment. You don’t let up.

You ignore the nicey-nice stuff.

I’m sure there are some boomer gun advocates out there who think Alex “presented an unfortunate face of the responsible gun-owner community.” They’re dead wrong. They don’t understand what an attack against tyranny requires. They never have.

You put the fascists on the defensive. That’s rule number one. You put them through the wall into the next county. You hit them with the truth so hard they never recover. That’s the goal.

It happened last night.

I watched the whole curtain of the television Matrix explode. I watched it with a joy that comes from knowing, for a long time, what such a moment would look like if it ever came to pass.

Then it did.

Thank you, CNN. This was your finest moment, your only authentic moment in all your years of building an insane consensus about reality.

Thanks, Alex. You came through like a champion.

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.

One more “long-shot coincidence”: Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises

Jan8

One more “long-shot coincidence”: Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The murders at the premier of the The Dark Night Rises, in Colorado, and the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have yet another bizarre connection.

First of all, in the film, The Dark Knight Rises, which premiered last summer in Aurora, where a killer(s) took the lives of 12 theater goers, wounding 58 others, there is a moment at one-hour, fifty-eight minutes. A startling moment in the Batman movie. Commissioner Gordon is talking about thwarting an imminent attack on “Strike Zone One.”

At that moment, he points to the only legible words on a map lying on a table in front of him. The words are: SANDY HOOK. The scene of the massacre last month at a Connecticut elementary school. The other recent massacre.

And now, by way of an article at BeforeItsNews.com, we have a new tie-in. The unlisted author of that article cites a story from a newspaper in Connecticut, The Stamford Advocate. Dated April 7, 2012, it has so far flown under the radar. It reports a death in an automobile accident, on the Merritt Parkway. The victim was Scott Getzinger.

Mr. Getzinger was the property master on The Dark Knight Rises. As such, there is a chance he, in fact, selected that map with the words SANDY HOOK printed on it. The property master is responsible for all props used in a film.

The Stamford Advocate story mentions that Getzinger’s injuries were, at first, called non-life threatening by the police. But then he died.

The last fact of the story is stunning, to say the least. Mr. Getzinger was a resident of…Newtown, Connecticut.

As I and others have pointed out previously, the production designer of The Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous black-magic British legend, Aleister Crowley, sometimes called The Great Beast 666. Aleister was Nathan’s grandfather’s cousin.

Then we have the fact that Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, a novel in which 23 children are ritually sacrificed in combat by the dystopian state, also lives in Sandy Hook/Newtown.

Jon Rappoport

Sandy Hook: how television takes your guns

Dec29

Sandy Hook: more television brainwashing using guests as fodder

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Somebody has to write about these things. Since I’ve worked as a reporter for 30 years, I know enough about how the game is rigged.

I’m talking about the big mass tragedies. Sandy Hook, the Aurora theater, Hurricane Sandy, Katrina.

Many of the interviews with survivors are done on the spot, with no prep. But the biggest interviews are done in a television studio or a home, by a recognized anchor. The setting is arranged beforehand and lit well. A mood and a framework are established.

The guests are prepped by one of the producers before they go on-air. This is where the brainwashing occurs. A potential conflict needs to be resolved. The network has its agenda and the guest has his.

The guest is swimming in a welter of emotions, in the wake of the tragedy. A family member has died. The environment of the storm or the murders is still chaotic.

The network wants to “edit” these feelings, “to convey something specific.”

The producer says to the guest, “What we want to do here is let our audience know how special your daughter was. How wonderful a person she was. We realize, of course, that you’re grieving. We understand and honor that. We do. In this interview, we really want to give you a chance, though, to tell the world what a special girl she was. Talk about her life, her interests, her hobbies, how she was thought of by the family and by friends at school. Honor her memory…”

Now, this may be the last thing on the guest’s mind. This grieving mother may be feeling angry, outraged. She is feeling absolutely desolate. She is feeling lost. Given the opportunity, she would express these feelings.

But this is not what the network or the anchor wants. The “program” at the moment involves “reflection on the happy moments of the child’s life.” It’s part of the pre-set storyline.

At this moment, for this grieving mother, the happy moments are the farthest thing from her mind. But who cares? She’s just fodder for the network’s agenda.

And if the producer is skillful enough, he can gently convince the mother that she should devote four minutes of commercially sponsored national television to “a celebration” of her dead child’s life.

Suddenly, it makes sense to the profoundly confused, profoundly searching mother. Yes. Why not? Why not go along with the program? She’ll have a video clip about her wonderful daughter forever. A scrapbook memory.

Under no circumstances, of course, will the producer or the anchor permit the mother to go on camera and show outrage and anger. That’s verboten. That cuts too close to the bone. That doesn’t fit the mandatory sequence of horror, shock, loss, grief, healing, resolution, celebration of a life lost.

The whole sequence is artificial. It’s imposed. It’s orchestrated. It’s a stage play, produced in great part through interviews with guests who have suffered loss and who are “real.”

Except they’re not. They’re programmed to deliver what the networks want.

And behind all this? Behind the mandatory spooled-out story line, which takes days to reveal in full, on television? The concealed anomalies and lies and contradictions in the commission of the crime and the ensuing cover-up.

The network story line hides as much of that as possible.

This is why the interview-prep is so important. Here is where the guests, before they go on camera, are nudged into the right slot, are shown what to focus on, are brainwashed into doing something they would never do.

Programming guests is a skill. Networks need people who can do that well. They have them. They pay them.

Anchor: I understand your daughter liked to make airplane models. Did you think that was unusual?

Mother: Well, at first we did. But she was good at it, and she enjoyed it so much, we became very enthusiastic about it. My husband introduced her to a buddy of his from the Air Force, and Cindy went up in a jet.

Anchor (smiling broadly): Really? A jet?

Mother: When she came home, she was overjoyed.

Anchor: Did she want to become a pilot?

Mother (laughing): For a few days. But her love of making models led her to want to be an artist. Our son is a graphics person. He taught Cindy to make computer pictures of our whole extended family. (laughing) We have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles. Cindy put their pictures all over the house. She knew everybody’s names when she was four…

Completely wacko. But that’s what the television audience sees and digests and accepts. And the anchor moves it right along. A fabricated story. Intercut, of course, with Cindy’s pictures and Cindy smiling and playing and drawing and sitting at the computer.

And when the dust settles and the mother is being chauffeured home from the interview, her mind wanders and she begins to think about the revenge she wants to visit on the killer of her daughter. As many good mothers would. But it’s too late. She’s already had her four minutes on television. She feels like a fool, but it’s too late.

She’ll never get to say to Diane Sawyer, “You know, Diane, I wish somehow I was there at the school, and I had a gun, and I shot that killer dead.”

No, that will never happen.

And mothers across America, who are feeling that they, too, would have wanted to be there, in the school, if their child was in mortal danger, and would have wanted to have a gun and shoot the killer dead to protect their child at all costs…those mothers will be, to a significant degree, reprogrammed by the Diane Sawyer interview, and they too will begin thinking of the happier times and the old days and the smiles and the laughter.

This is how a handful of television interviews with skillfully prepped guests can make all the difference in the world. Especially, in the case of Sandy Hook, when gun ownership is now at stake. Do I have to draw a picture for you?

Because, admit it, if you were the father or mother of a child who was murdered, wouldn’t you have at least a few serious thoughts about revenge? Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you think about the .45 you have in the closet upstairs?

Television, though, teaches you what to feel.

If after watching a number of these tragedies play out on television, you are completely reprogrammed into some grotesque version of “love everybody all the time and forgive everything,” and you need an outlet, a way to vicariously and subconsciously experience what you REALLY feel, you can always:

Go to the movies. The movies give you a different slant. You can be Mel Gibson killing people to get his kidnapped daughter back. You can be Charles Bronson wiping out street scum to avenge the loss of his wife. You can be Stallone or Arnie. You can roam the countryside spilling blood at every street corner.

The movies give you vicarious license to destroy evil. Television news takes it away.

It’s called the whipsaw effect, and it’s modern mind control, and it puts you in the “excluded middle,” where nothing happens and you remain locked up and passive.

Where the powers-that-be want you to remain.

Have a nice, nice day.

Jon Rappoport

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, interview freak-show, police audio

Dec28

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, interview freak-show, police audio

by Jon Rappoport

December 28, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve been listening to a stream of police dept. audio during the initial response to the Sandy Hook shooting.

This link has most of its action in the first four minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uVR7TifS

At roughly 2:38, a police voice says: “Party in custody.”

Then at 3:49, “We have a suspect down.”

This next link, for me, was somewhat clearer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E-Ix_aaDhg

Starting at roughly 3:13, there are relevant police comments:

“A teacher reports two shadows running past the building past the gym.”

“They’re shooting.” (??)

“Yeah, we got ’em.”

“They’re coming at me down Kurt’s (sp) Way!”

“Got ’em (?)…proned out.” (at 5:34)

We get the distinct sense there are multiple shooters.

Whoever is proned out, whoever is in custody, whoever is “coming at me,” whoever is down…we don’t know what happened to them.

Reporters on the scene have, as far as I know, provided no information, and neither have police. The suspects have disappeared down the memory hole.

Then we have these television interviews with families of the victims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmdXR3TtOvM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddF6UzgoPiY

It’s astounding. Parents are smiling. They’re actors from Central Casting? One thing is for sure. They’re androids, if you measure their responses against reports of what happened in the Sandy Hook School.

And as androids, they’re only matched by the TV reporters who are interviewing them.

If you’re tempted to say the parents and family members are in shock, or they’re reacting to being on television, forget it. Their attitudes don’t match a massacre by any stretch of the imagination.

Is Sandy Hook/Newtown a Stepford Village? Are these people all programmed to be pleasant and accommodating No Matter What?

It’s about as bizarre as the purported video footage of the Aurora theater during the shootings there this summer. As people exit the lobby and come out on to the street, there is no sign of blood and no one is coughing from the reported tear gas inside the theater.

With these Sandy Hook parents, we’re looking at a level of conditioning in which Being Nice can completely overwhelm even the murder of one’s own child.

Tears? Not one person in these interviews has actual tears running down his or her face.

One of the fathers, Robbie Parker, has had his interview played and replayed all over the planet on YouTube, and you can watch him smiling and grinning, for all the world looking like he’s just been appointed CEO of a company he works for…and then he steps to a podium to make his statement, and as one poster succinctly describes it, “gets into character.”

This isn’t just an internal event. You can watch Parker huffing and puffing and pushing himself into what he thinks is a tragic and grief-stricken state of mind. He does it so badly you wonder why no one in the room calls him on it. It’s beyond strange. Yet reporters later talked about Parker “struggling through tears and suffering to make a heartfelt statement…” The reporters are just as deranged as Parker is.

This boggling show isn’t confined to Sandy Hook. A commenter below a Deseret News article on Parker replied: “Brave young father, wise to forgive early and choose to move forward—nothing can be gained by dwelling on what cannot be changed.”

At times, watching these interviews, I wondered whether the parents had been conditioned to believe, in the face of ANYTHING, that good and nice children all take a choo-choo train to heaven and there is nothing to regret about their murders at all.

In an earlier article, I pointed out that, indeed, at 1hr:58 of The Dark Knight Rises, Gary Oldman, talking about an impending attack on “Strike Zone 1,” is pointing to the words “Sandy Hook” on a map in front of him. These are the only legible words on the map.

By happenstance, the production designer of Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous British black-magic legend, Aleister Crowley, who was sometimes called The Great Beast 666.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/An-arousing-display-at-the-Met/8583

In an interview, Nathan said, “Yes, Aleister Crowley is a direct relative, he’s my grandfather’s cousin, but we were never allowed to even mention his name because we were a very Quaker family.”

Nathan is also the production designer of Lady Gaga’s video ad for her perfume, Fame.

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/ad-day-lady-gaga-fame-142761

In terms of “the dark side,” the full 5:41 version of the video-ad makes Dark Knight Rises look like a Disney cartoon by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az1-oLmxhHQ

But not to worry. What happened at Sandy Hook was exactly as the major media portrayed it, and nothing more. Sure. You bet.

Jon Rappoport

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

Dec21

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 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

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.

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: 2012 Massacres

This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

Alan Dershowitz is now a Woody Allen parody

Alex Jones: Best Night of Television Ever

One more “long-shot coincidence”: Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises

Sandy Hook: how television takes your guns

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, interview freak-show, police audio

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