Category Archives: 2013 Massacres

Turning mass shootings into a police state and other games

Turning mass shootings into a police state and other games

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Now that everybody knows (cough, cough) the LAX shooter was “anti-government,” it follows as night from day that a) he must have developed his political views from conspiracy websites and b) those sites are culpable…right?

Is JD Salinger dead enough yet? Can we prosecute his corpse because Mark David Chapman read his dreary novel, Catcher in the Rye, and then killed John Lennon?

How about all those young men who found “the good pages” in an embargoed copy of Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and then left home and family, or the later generation of boys who imbibed Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and joined The Beat Generation? Surely some able lawyer can mount a class-action suit against the estates of those two dead authors.

Any day now, I’m expecting the White House to announce the formation of a new cabinet post: the Inflammatory Rhetoric Department.

Hiring: analysts, evaluation experts, and SWAT teams trained for home and workplace invasions.

“What are you contemplating, Mr. Smith? Where did you get your information?”

Mass communication psychologists (aka psyop specialists) are working overtime to forge connections between accused criminals and their prior “influences.”

No longer is it enough to say, “The criminal made his own choices. He did what he did. He’s responsible.”

That went out when the State began taking psychiatrists’ testimony in court seriously.

But recently, things have gotten far more intense. So-called anti-government statements, wherever they are found, are taken to be assaults on Mommy and Daddy.

“How could anyone think the government is bad? It’s absurd. Government Daddy works all day at the office to help us, and at night he comes home and pats us on the head and government Mommy gives us hot chocolate…”

And therefore (against any semblance of logic), if a criminal makes statements against the government, that government and its allied stooges must track down where these ideas came from, and pin the blame there, at the source, where it belongs.

“No, the shooter would never have turned into the shooter had he not read volatile statements on website X. Once he did, he was hooked. His mind was transformed into receptive mush. He was helpless. He picked up a gun and walked into the mall and opened fire.”

The “new analysis” stems from the notion that humans are nothing more than reflex biological machines.

So in the spirit of contributing to this new field of inquiry, I have a couple of choices of my own that need serious investigating.

The Matrix Revealed

First, remember a little outfit called Project for the New American Century? Coming to power after 9/11, their highly influential chiefs lobbied hard for an invasion of Iraq. Talk about inflammatory rhetoric.

Add up the subsequent planes with bombs, the missiles, the soldiers with tanks, the deaths on both sides. Now that was a mass shooting, in full view of the American public.

And if you want to wander back much further into that hated territory called history, you’ll come upon another wild-eyed bunch called the Council on Foreign Relations.

In the early days of World War 2, they were already making plans for the post-war peace. They designated a committee to determine whether the United States could survive as an isolated entity, or whether it needed to go out beyond its borders for vital resources.

The CFR naturally concluded the latter, and doubling down, decided that the US should install, through force and clandestine operations, a Pax Americanus covering the whole globe. Imperial empire.

Those CFR boys knew how to inflame. And they had marvelous connections at the State Department, which in turn had a clear pipeline to Franklin Roosevelt, the President.

As a matter of fact, right now somebody should be investigating what the White House is reading, because with all those drone strikes, with all this non-stop surveillance, it’s obvious they’re on some pretty nasty websites.

One more while I’m at it. I want to know which conspiracy website the US Supreme Court is wrapped up in. Because their decision to allow a corporation or labor union to spend big money to advocate for or against a political candidate…well, those Justices are obviously being driven crazy by some master conspiracists.

Meanwhile, what about the millions of people who absorb their knowledge from the NY Times plus the three clowns anchoring the evening network news? That insane and monstrous influence should be investigated immediately, because the victims are dying, drip by drip, from terminal brain damage.

Whenever Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne (“don’t cry for me, America”) Sawyer speak, neurons are irretrievably lost.

Here are a few more treasonous anti-government people who should be investigated, in absentia:

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost immediately he comes to the conclusion that government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable…” (HL Mencken, 1919)

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” (Mark Twain, 1881)

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

Where are these men? We must curtail their operations. What web sites are they running? Who might they influence to pick up a gun and commit a crime? We must locate these three men and get them to a psychiatrist, so they can be diagnosed with the correct mental disorders and treated with the appropriate drugs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

LAX shooting, the storyline, the agenda, the questions

LAX shooter, the storyline, the agenda, the questions

by Jon Rappoport

November 1, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mainstream media sources are now reporting:

The shooter at LAX, who killed one TSA (?) employee and wounded several others today, is in custody. His name is Paul Anthony Ciancia. He is 23 years old. His weapon was a semi-automatic rifle.

Pete Williams (NBC, who, as chief Pentagon spokesman, covered up the extent of US military killings in the 1989 Panama invasion), states that Ciancia had “anti-government materials” in his bag.

Other sources state Ciancia had a note in his bag which stated that he wanted to “kill TSA.”

Ciancia is a Los Angeles resident. His family lives in Pennsville, New Jersey. This morning, prior to the shooting, Ciancia’s father called the local Pennsville police and reported his son was missing.

The father also stated that his son had written to a sibling “in reference to taking his own life.”

That’s the storyline so far.

Agenda? Another gun murder in a public place, so take away guns from everybody. Semi-auto rifle was used? Ban them. Gun plus anti-government opinion? Terrorist. Step up surveillance, ID, watch, harass, and even arrest people who own guns and don’t like the government.

The Matrix Revealed

And now for the questions. This is a checklist that should accompany every such mass shooting:

Was the accused shooter seeing a psychiatrist?

Had he ever seen a psychiatrist or MD who prescribed psychiatric drugs?

If so, what were the drugs?

Ritalin (or other speed-type compounds) for ADHD?

Antidepressants, in particular the SSRI types (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft)?

Both classes of drugs are known to push people over into suicidal ideation, suicide, violence, murder. (See Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, Medication Madness, and other titles. Also see the website, SSRI stories.)

Had the accused shooter ever withdrawn from, stopped using any psychiatric drugs? Withdrawal, done incorrectly, can cause severe problems, including aggression and violence.

Had the accused shooter ever stated he was under surveillance, was being harassed by authorities, was being targeted with microwaves, was hearing voices?

Yes, there are people who incorrectly believe these things are happening to them; but there are also people who are, in fact, being subjected to such harassment and control.

Has the accused shooter ever been subjected to military indoctrination? Has he ever had connections to military or civilian intelligence employees or assets? If so, what were the specifics?

And finally, was the accused shooter actually the shooter, or was he a patsy, a scapegoat?

I’m not downplaying the difficulty of answering these questions. But I am saying they’re all relevant.

Whereas the job of major media, in these incidents, is relaying to the public the statements of law-enforcement personnel and politicians. That’s their only job. They don’t investigate. They don’t go off on their own. They don’t know what they pretend to know. Pretending is what earns them their paychecks.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Navy Yard shooting: media dump shocking story line

Navy Yard shooting: media dump shocking story line

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The reference here is USA Today, September 17, “Shooting Rampage at Navy Yard Leaves 13 Dead.”

This isn’t some little local paper. It’s big-time national media. So one would expect that, when it develops a crucial story line, it would follow up on it, press it, keep digging into it.

Here is the USA Today quote from 9/17:

“A federal law enforcement official said Monday that Alexis, who had been staying at a nearby Residence Inn since late August or early September, legally purchased at least some of the weapons used in the assault within the past few days in Virginia.

“Alexis allegedly drove to the Navy Yard complex with the weapons early Monday and cleared security checkpoints before parking in a lot on the property, said the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly. After leaving his car, it is believed that Alexis was involved in two altercations in which he opened fire, killing one or possibly two people. (emphasis added)

“The official said Alexis then entered the building and went to the third and fourth floors, where much of the assault was carried out…”

This is an entirely different picture of the shooting. It’s not the official version. And now we have video purporting to show Aaron Alexis entering the Navy Yard building, with his bag, without a hitch.

No presentation of credentials at the door. No guards present.

If, as the USA Today federal source describes, Alexis shot several people in the parking garage BEFORE entering the building and killed at least one person, you would assume that would spark an immediate security call and lockdown of the building.

Alexis would have met heavy armed resistance before entering the building. But according to the video, he didn’t.

So what really happened?

No word. No retraction from USA Today. No followup from USA Today or any other major media outlet.

“Just drop it. Who cares? It doesn’t fit with the official narrative. Let it go. Move on. We have a new story line. He never shot anybody in the parking garage. He walked into the building unhindered. So be it…”

Really?

The Matrix Revealed

The public is so used to this kind of press-coverage YES then NO dump-a-story-and-walk-away tactic, they don’t even register it anymore.

“His father was dead in New Jersey? No? His mother was dead in Connecticut? He had to pass inspection from a video camera in the principal’s office before he could get into the school? He got in anyway? He had three guns? No, two? One? There were two other shooters? No, one? No? None? He was the only one? Okay. Whatever they say.” (Sandy Hook)

“What? Two witnesses saw another shooter in the theater? What happened to that story line? Where are witnesses now? Where’s the other shooter? Oh, there wasn’t one. Okay, no problem.” (Aurora, Colorado)

“What? Witnesses say there were shooters besides Harris and Klebold in the school? Where did they go? Where are the witnesses now?” (Columbine; search for “Columbine 101 witnesses What Really Happened” to read what 101 witnesses have to say about other shooters.)

Exit From the Matrix

A federal official tells USA Today that Alexis SHOT PEOPLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE. Are you kidding? And then he strolls into the building a few minutes later and nobody stops him.

An eight-year old with a few active brain cells calls this a contradiction. But USA Today and every other major media outlet call it nothing. Just one of those glitches. Happens in every story like this. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

“They always get it wrong at first. Then they get it right.”

You mean, “Somebody lets the cat out of the bag and then they put the cat back in”?

If indeed Alexis or someone else shot and killed people in the parking garage before the shooting in the building started, then we have the kind of security breach that does far more than inspire a call for a “review of security” at all naval installations.

We have a completely different account of what actually happened at the Navy Yard.

For example: other shooters; doctored FBI video; a planned and coordinated op.

“Oh, don’t be silly. The FBI needed time to put the evidence together, and now they have. Everything’s correct.”

Why?

Because it has to be. Otherwise, reality is not what it seems.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

MKULTRA? Patsy? Aaron Alexis’ portrait: painted for gun control

by Jon Rappoport

September 19, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Mentally unstable man in the military gains legal access to gun, goes on rampage. That’s the portrait.

Heavily promoted details: “Should never have been allowed to buy a gun, but prior red-flag arrests weren’t prosecuted. Slipped through the cracks. Heard voices, claimed he was being assaulted with microwaves that prevented him from sleeping. Obvious nut job. But still, he was able to buy a gun.”

Bottom line: Do whatever is necessary to grab guns from private citizens. Tighten laws. Step up psychiatric interventions across the land, to prevent shootings before they occur.

Perfect. You couldn’t have scripted a better sales campaign for gun control.

And therefore, one can legitimately ask: Did somebody script the word-picture of Alexis for that very purpose?

Until official sources retracted the claim that Alexis had an AR-15 at the Navy Yard, it was: James Holmes (Aurora), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Alexis all supposedly firing the semi-auto weapon. Bottom line: “stop selling the AR-15 and any other semi-auto.”

When it comes to characterizing Alexis as mentally unstable, you need to ask yourself this—if someone was, in fact, deploying available technology to produce the sounds of voices talking to you, and hitting you with microwaves to keep you awake night after night…

What could you do to make people believe that story?

I’ll tell you what: nothing. You’d be sunk.

Let’s assume Alexis was already somewhat unstable. That would make him a better candidate for harassment.

At that point, there would be two ways to go, if you wanted to engineer a mass shooting. Make Alexis an innocent patsy. Or actually turn him into a Manchurian Candidate, an MKULTRA subject who would kill.

If your objective is gun control, you’d achieve your aim either way.

And here is the bonus: in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, you could institute more psychiatric control of the citizenry, which means, when you strip away the baloney, more fake mental-disorder diagnoses and more drugs which CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, including suicide and homicide.

After which you can make an even better case for universal gun banning, because people on those drugs would be committing murders from coast to coast in greater numbers.

Of course, when television viewers pray at the altar of the major news networks, they would never entertain, for a moment, what I’m suggesting here. Why not? Because, as consumers, they’ve allowed themselves to be conditioned, for many years, by the kinds of tales these media outlets tell. If well-known “journalists” don’t speak of “patsy” or “mind control,” there’s nothing to know about.

Meanwhile…

Patsy at the scene? How would that work? Several possibilities. Alexis is there, but another shooter is doing the killing. He kills Alexis, who becomes the focus of the story, the “shooter.” A shotgun and AR-15 are placed near his body.

The problem to overcome: witness statements.

So far, I find two witnesses, Terry Durham and Todd Brundige, executive assistants in Building 197, who claim they saw “the shooter” down a long hallway fire a a gun at them.

In their television interview, which you can find at YouTube (BBC, other outlets) they claim they couldn’t see the shooter’s face. However, the Washington Times reports Durham saying, “I could see his face.” Quite odd, when we have her on camera saying the reverse.

Other news outlets use headlines to suggest these two witnesses did see (“confronted,” “came face-to-face with”) the killer’s face, but the body of text finally confesses this is not the case, despite some slippery language (“came around a corner and saw the killer”).

Obviously, media outlets are trying to make more out of less.

It seems somewhat curious that we don’t have many witnesses who are specifically making positive IDs of Alexis killing people in the building. For example, in the Aurora Theater shooting, a number of witnesses say they saw the shooter. Of course, he was masked.

Well, what about police statements? We’re told cops killed Alexis in a shootout. How many cops? Unknown. Five, ten, one? I find one report of a canine cop (unnamed) who traded shots with “a gunman” and was seriously wounded in both legs. He was in surgery at the time of the report, and was expected to undergo a number of operations, in an attempt to save his legs.

Perhaps there are other witness statements out there which positively ID Alexis as the shooter. I have not found them.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Turning Alexis into an MKULTRA Manchurian Candidate, who would, as a result of mind control, go into the building and kill people is an entirely different matter.

In that case, the microwave harassment and the broadcast voices would serve as a softening up process. But much more would have to be done.

(I should note here that when Alexis reported the voices and the microwave harassment to the Rhode Island police, he refused to say what the voices were telling him. If his basic story is true, perhaps he was receiving commands and instructions—although in my opinion such commands (“kill,” “attack,” etc.) would be insufficient to program him specifically.)

Although there are patents one could search to try to learn about modern mind control technology, and statements from people who were past victims of mind control, many blank areas remain. This is because the experiments are secret.

Here is a bit of background on MKULTRA secrecy.

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate (1979). This was the book that exposed the existence of the CIA MKULTRA program.

Marks related the following to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent him 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all, in a sense, stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole MKULTRA program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of it. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA had gone darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

To give you just a hint about how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here are two brief excerpts from a piece I wrote in 1995 about human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of his cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

Exit From the Matrix

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

Because “more psychiatric treatment” is a prime agenda, pushed after every one of these mass shootings, people need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture in the name of science.

From a naturalnews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”) we get insight into one aspect of that history:

“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state [mental] hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

Dr. Breggin, in his books, including Toxic Psychiatry and Medication Madness, demonstrates that this “healing profession” is still tilling the same soil. Because of its reach with toxic drugs, it’s more dangerous and deadly than ever. Only its PR has improved.

I obviously can’t prove or conclude that Aaron Alexis was MKULTRA-programmed. But I can say the CIA and other allied agencies have an extensive track record of carrying out horrendous mind-control experiments, concealing them, concealing the technology, and making bland statements to the public and the press denying their contemporary use of mind-control.

If Alexis was, in fact, the man who killed people in the the Navy Yard, and he wasn’t overtly programmed to do it, then recent accounts strongly suggest he was taking psychiatric drugs. The SSRI antidepressants, in particular, have a long track record of pushing patients over the edge into suicidal and murderous violence.

Psychiatry IS a form of MKULTRA. It operates according to a different plan, what I call the Johnny Appleseed approach. Drop enough drugs into enough bodies, and then stand back and watch the killings sprout here and there and here and there, across the land.

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 29th 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.

Navy Yard shooting: Aaron Alexis narrative crumbling

Navy Yard shooting: Aaron Alexis narrative crumbling

by Jon Rappoport

September 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yesterday, I referenced a USA Today piece which cited a federal law-enforcement source (off the record), who states that Aaron Alexis, the accused shooter, cleared a Navy Yard security checkpoint in his car. After parking in the lot, he got into an argument and opened fire on one or two people. He then entered the building where he went on a killing spree.

So did Alexis shoot his way past security guards at the building’s separate checkpoint? Why weren’t the guards waiting for him just outside the building with their weapons drawn, after he, Alexis, had already shot people in the parking lot?

This USA Today account hasn’t spread widely through major media. It’s a version of events quite different from the official, more peaceful “gained entrance to the building by using someone’s else’s ID.”

So that’s two accounts.

Now I have a third, from an unsourced person who appears to be familiar with procedures at the Navy Yard and other naval facilities where computer techs (private contractors) work.

According to this source, Alexis was to show up at the Yard to work. He’d been hired as a tech. This was his first day on the job. He didn’t need two IDs, because these private-contractor techs are issued a VAL, Visitor Authorization Letter, which permits them to enter and work in various buildings. These VALs have an expiration date.

Alexis would have been carrying a VAL to get past checkpoints. Also, these techs typically carry no more than a backpack or small bag for cables and program CDs. Highly unlikely that Alexis could have gotten inside with a shotgun.

So that’s three scenarios.

Then we have the variations. He obtained an AR15 inside the building. No he didn’t. He got hold of two handguns. He fired an AR15 shotgun (CNN), which doesn’t exist.

There were two other shooters. No there weren’t. One of the two was interviewed and released. The third suspect? Who knows?

Somebody’s lying, big-time.

The Matrix Revealed

Have the networks shown pictures of the actual security checkpoints outside the parking lot and at the building, allowing us to infer what really happened there? If so, I haven’t seen them. Neither have I seen pictures of the parking lot, where, if pictures were taken early enough, one would expect to find shell casings and blood, assuming the USA Today story is correct.

The narrative is crumbling. And reporters aren’t picking up the ball, because they merely take dictation from law-enforcement officials.

In view of such a miserable excuse for information, assuming Alexis was the killer is speculation.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Navy Yard shooting: psyop, loose ends, media parrots

Navy Yard shooting: psyop, loose ends, media parrots

by Jon Rappoport

September 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

After covering a number of mass shootings and bombings over the last 20 years, I question the official explanation when a new one occurs. Automatically. Always. Every single time.

They lie. They obfuscate. They parrot. They don’t investigate beyond a comfortable point. They leave loose ends, which are often far more important than the supposed central facts.

And there is always a psyop after the event. It goes like this: “tragedy,” “unspeakable,” “will bring to justice,” “our thoughts and prayers are with,” “this didn’t happen in a war, it happened here,” “vigil for victims,” “grieving,” “closure,” “nation mourns the loss.”

Why is this a psyop? Because the government officials and mainstream media reporters don’t feel what they claim to be feeling. Their “positions as leaders” feel something, which is the same thing as saying it’s an act.

Beyond that, the purpose of the psyop is to divert attention from the fact that law-enforcement officials are bending the investigation, abandoning significant leads, and taking the short path to a “satisfactory” wrap-up.

To boil down the psyop: “it was tragic, and now it’s solved.” One, two. Open wound, closed wound. That’s the government/media formula.

In my previous article, I mentioned the psychiatric drug connection as a distinct possibility that haunts every one of these crimes. Rarely will reporters bother to look into this. It’s dicey for them. Exposing pharmaceutical companies and their horrendously toxic drugs is bad for business.

Imagine this front-page NY Times headline: “Four leading physicians state that, in all likelihood, the shooter was on one of the SSRI antidepressants, which can and do push people over into violence, including murder.”

Sub-head: “The doctors vow to press the authorities until they get to the bottom of the psychiatric-homicide connection.”

Sure. That’s going to happen when a rooster flies a spaceship to the Orion Belt.

If the purported shooter at the Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis (where is/are the other shooters?), was suffering from PTSD, as his family apparently claims, was he seeing a psychiatrist? What was the diagnosis? What drugs were prescribed? What effects do these drugs have?

Perfectly reasonable and legit questions.

The Matrix Revealed

Then we have the drills. In a number of these shootings/bombings, official drills that cover the same kind of event that eventually happens were held at the crime scene. Normal? Or op rehearsals? Desensitization of personnel to the real thing?

It turns out that Navy Citadel Shield security drills were held nationwide, at naval facilities, in February/March of both 2012 and 2013. From dcmilitary.com, Feb. 28, 2013: “…various training exercises with an emphasis on realism to train personnel. Scenarios included active shooters, mass casualty drills, bomb threats, surveillance, and false credential exercises.”

From USA Today, 9/16: Dave Sarr, an environmental engineer, was walking down a nearby street when he saw people running from the Navy Yard. Sarr had seen an evacuation drill a few days earlier at the Navy Yard. “At first I thought it was another drill,” Sarr said. “Then I saw an officer with his weapon drawn.”

usa-today-091613

The same USA article cites a federal law-enforcement source (off the record) who states that Aaron Alexis, the accused shooter, cleared a Navy Yard security checkpoint in his car. After parking in the lot, he got into an argument and opened fire on one or two people. He then entered the building where he went on a killing spree.

So did Alexis shoot his way past security guards at the building’s separate checkpoint? Why weren’t the guards waiting for him just outside the building with their weapons drawn, after he, Alexis, had already shot people in the parking lot?

And then, of course, we have the many reports of one or two additional shooters at the Navy Yard. Where is he/they? Authorities now state one of these suspects has been cleared.

In Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, there were reports of “extra” shooters. They faded out in the repetitive media reports of horror, shock, and grief, never to be mentioned again.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Breaking: US Navy Yard shooting: is it possible to learn the truth?

Breaking: US Navy Yard shooting: is it possible to learn the truth?

By Jon Rappoport

September 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I’ve covered a number of mass shootings. Assuming the people arrested or killed had anything to do with them, one of the top questions is: was the shooter on psychiatric meds?

The mainstream press doesn’t push for answers.

It’s a vital question. In school shootings, we’ve learned that the answer is often yes. For example, Eric Harris at Columbine in 1999 was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant. These SSRIs are well known for pushing people over the edge into violence; and the manic effects can also motivate them to form grandiose plans for destruction. (See the website “SSRI stories” for documented accounts.)

In the last few years, the US Armed Forces have loaded down their personnel with psychiatric meds, which have led to suicides and killings.

Typically, at these shootings, pharmaceutical investigators show up to find out whether their drugs are involved, so, if necessary, they can clamp down on “information leaks” and instead divert the conversation to: “he had a mental disorder,” as if that, rather than the drugs, was the key factor.

Another top question: was it a “random” shooting or was it an intentional op, designed for several purposes:

implementing a further gun grab from private citizens;

a lesson in official control—“obey the instructions of the authorities and shelter in place”;

inducing generalized fear and demoralization in the population;

and distracting the public from ongoing scandals/ops—e.g., Syria, NSA spying, Benghazi.

Two tweets may or not be be relevant here:

Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) (NBC 4 I-team reporter, Washington DC—unless someone has hijacked his twitter account): “Navy ran mass shooting drill in Feb-March at Navy Yard. Part of nationwide ‘Citadel shield’ security program.”

macfarlanenews

Jonathan Feng (@jonfeng1): “There was one active shooter drill during my time at Navy Yard. I was stuck inside a building while getting lunch. Guess which building.”

Jonathan Feng tweet

Several other tweets (unconfirmed info) claim a drill took place at the Navy Yard several days ago.

Several mass killings (e.g., Aurora, Boston bombing) took place at the same time as, or close to the time of, official terror drills, suggesting several possibilities—one being the drills were prepping for an intentional op.

As navy.mil reports, in March of 2012, not 2013, a Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield exercise took place, “designed to test the service’s ability to respond to nation-wide threats to its installations, units, personnel and families.”

Adm. John C Harvey Jr. stated, “Overall, it was a resounding success…”

How did two or three armed shooters enter the Navy Yard and get past security today? Will the mainstream press do a deep investigation on that?

The Matrix Revealed

So far, officials are telling the press that at least 6 people have been killed at the Navy Yard and 10 have been wounded. There are two or three shooters, which suggests some level of planning and coordination. DHS has released a pat statement: “no known connection to terrorism,” which means nothing.

In Washington DC, open or concealed carry of weapons (by private citizens) is illegal. Therefore, aside from armed security guards at the Navy Yard, no civilian workers in the buildings can defend themselves against the shooters. Also, from what I can gather, non-security military personnel working inside the Navy Yard are forbidden from carrying weapons as well.

From 1886 to 1964, the US Navy Yard manufactured weapons for the US Navy. According to a Wikipedia article, it was, by the start of WW2, the largest ordnance naval yard in the world.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I think, at the very least, YouTube should censor them. Well, wait a minute. Not censor, but put up a notice on all their videos:

“It’s come to our attention that these three characters are as annoying as a bad case of fleas. Caution: watch and listen at your own risk.”

The three stooges. Three schmucks in the fountain. Send in the clowns, don’t bother, they’re here.

If people are beginning to get the idea I’m waging a war against against elite media, they’re right.

At the same time, I’m fascinated. How do these anchors do it? How do they lie so consistently, and with such aplomb, day in and day out, without going up in a puff of smoke and vanishing?

The Big Three anchors are a miracle, in the sense that they need a whole construction company to build the walls that permanently separate them from the truth…so they can sit in a television studio in New York and believe they’re in the wheelhouse of Real News.

When you see the Big Three are discussing their own footage, but you find visual clues as big as the moon that their analysis is 180 degrees away from actual fact—as has been happening from Aurora to Sandy Hook to Boston—and the Stooges just sit there and drone on…well, that’s a CSI or a Law&Order you just can’t get if you pay the best scriptwriters in the world to come up with it.

“The bomb was a pressure cooker.”

Right, and the Twin Towers went down because two planes flew into them.

Because the Web has been alive and humming, media coverage of every major catastrophe since 9/11 has been rejected by extraordinary numbers of people.

The elite network anchors have been trying to hold the fort, but they’re failing.

Their long-running stage play is closing down.

Despite their traditional skills and technological backup, they’re coming across like cartoon hacks.

These days, it’s better to be a marginally believable doofus like Diane Sawyer, who chooses to affect a persona based on depression, than to be the eternal boy wonder, Brian Williams. Williams, the smoothest of the smooth, comes across like the biggest liar, because he’s the most dedicated of the lot when it comes to defending the indefensible.

And Scott Pelley is Scott Pelley, the hospital doctor you’d least like to show up at your bedside. He might tell you you need an amputation just because he’s having a bad day.

“Who do we need for the most important anchor’s job in the world?”

“How about Pelley? He’s utterly convinced the lies we feed into the propaganda machine are the last word.. He’s sold. He couldn’t look outside the box if we drilled holes in it and let him see a mountain of gold bars and 50,000 naked bureaucrats running down Broadway at high fucking noon.”

The Big Three strut their stuff on the evening news, executing well-oiled, high-priced transitions from one completely false/basically deceptive story to another completely false/basically deceptive story.

Recall the often-quoted George Burns pearl? “In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” But suppose the sincerity isn’t faked? Then, the schmuck becomes king.

My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, described the television-news audience: “Mind control is accepting what you know to be false. You do it because you think the only other alternative is a vacuum: you either buy the news or you’re left with nothing.”

The Matrix Revealed

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet, is featured in THE MATRIX REVEALED. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages. That is just a faction of what THE MATRIX REVEALED has to offer.

Once in a while, you can see cracks. Scott Pelley, stewing in his juices, looks like he’s ready to pull his uncle’s old revolver out of his pocket and fire a few rounds at the teleprompter.

Diane Sawyer appears to be on the verge of sagging to her right and collapsing out of her chair, on her way to a fit of copious weeping.

Brian Williams wants to say, more than anything, “Live From New York, it’s Saturday night!” Then a few coiled springs pop out of the top of his head and he winds down and stops moving.

Subliminally, the three stooges are announcing: “We’re showing you the most important stories of our time, and each one has a television lifespan of ninety seconds, after which they no longer exist.”

Television news is really all segue all the time. That’s what it comes down to.

The word “segue,” pronounced “segway,” refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.

Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends, because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times, and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.

Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can’t handle segues is dead in the water. He’s a gross liability.

The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.

Brian Williams can say, “The planes were recalled later in the afternoon. And a man was castrated in a horrific accident in Idaho today…” And no one says, WHAT? WAIT!

You take an elevator up to the 15th floor in an office building. The door opens and you step into a medieval dungeon. That doesn’t compute in real life, but it does on the news.

The networks basically have, on a daily basis, fragmented stories, and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow.

So the audience doesn’t say, “This is just an odd collection of crap.”

The news is all segue all the time.

Not just nationally. On the local level, too. The pounding lead-in music at the top of the show is a segue, to prepare the audience. A) Music. B) “Tonight, our top story: a man ate a hot dog and died …”

The voice of the anchor is the non-stop blending machine that ties all news stories together. That’s why the elite network stars earn their paychecks.

Good segue people are stage magicians. They can move the viewer’s attention from item A to item B without a tremor or a doubt.

It’s often been said of certain actors, “He could read from the phone book and you’d listen.” Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer’s mind as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook, and a fourth from a funeral-home brochure. Without stopping.

And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.

The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool’s gold to begin with; and they’re unrelated. They’re rocks lying around on the floor. The anchor picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.

This is what the audience wants. It feels like a story. It feels like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. It feels, when all is said and done, good.

The anchor (as his title suggests) holds the fragments together in one place. For the audience, he’s the focus. He’s the maestro. The hypnotist.

You can’t pull anyone off the street and have him describe car crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation, genitalia picture tweets, and the dedication of a library, while placing and keeping millions of people in a light trance.

Katie Couric couldn’t do it. People were waiting for her to break out into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Diane Sawyer does it poorly. She seems to be affecting somber personal grief as her basic segue-thread. Scott Pelley is competent, but he sits like a surgeon ready to signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face, before he cuts into your stomach.

Brian Williams is the current king of segue. He does smooth-serious-affable-employee-of-the-month-I-know-all-the-news-is-true.

None of these elite anchors can hold a candle to Cronkite or Chet Huntley, the past masters. Ed Murrow was the first star-practitioner of the television-news form. He was working a kind of sepulchral spin-off of Hemingway prose.

Murrow got his first break, right out of college, working for the Institute of International Education, a pathetic front for what they used to call “internationalists” (aka globalists). Elihu Root founded the organization. Root was also founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In other words, one world together actually meant: all you peons down there and we wise men on top…

Anyway, all anchors can do segue. They are dedicated to The Blend. They put their souls, such as they are, into transitions.

“What do you want to do when you grow up, Brian?”

“I want to take people from A to B.”

Whereas, a true version of the news would go something like this: “Today, in fact just now, I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on condom sales, and I’m blending into penguins in Antarctica. I’m doing Salvador Dali and you’re not noticing a thing.”

What does all this tell us? The news, if it were taken apart into its component pieces, would look quite surreal. And the anchor, by blending, manufactures a hypnotic illusion of interconnection.

The audience wants to be put in a trance. Even a several-day event, like the Boston bombing, with all its twists and turns, doesn’t mitigate that basic big sleep. Television news, with a good anchor, with the television screen itself, with the electromagnetic emissions and frequencies, can attain and hold the hypnotic state.

Therefore, the content of the news sinks in below the level of the rational mind.

But with each shift in story line, with each new breaking bit of revelation, with each disturbing image, the anchor must be there to execute the segues.

He is basically saying to the audience, “I’m a few feet inside your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the river, and I’ll always be here, so things are all right…”

Elite anchors invent and maintain certain tones of voice, certain rhythms, certain cadences, certain variations of musical pitch, throughout the stage play, in order to sustain the sense of continuity.

They’re mechanics of voice.

They use their skills to report the false facts handed down to conceal ops and staged events.

They need to believe in what they’re doing. They need to be that stupid. Talent search: 130 IQ, inherently stupid.

They can know they’re actors on television, but they have to believe they’re acting out the truth. Ends justify the means. Of course, “truth” often means to them: that which will bind us all together.

What is the role they’re cast in? It’s: Normal. It’s a heavy part in the play, because this joke of a society has a prime-cut value called Normal.

Exit From the Matrix

“Okay, look,” the Broadway director says to the veteran actor he’s interviewing for the lead, in a billion-dollar production. “This may sound strange, but you’re going to have to do Normal as it’s never been done before. That’s what the audience wants. You’ve got to come across as very, very smart and very, very Normal. Get it? I mean, you can emit a few rays of Elite here and there, but you have to do that Normal dance. The audience has to believe you somehow fit in with being a solid American, whatever the hell that is. You can be the news boy down the street, riding his bike, tossing papers on front porches (Brian Williams), wholesome as Wonder Bread, or you can be a socialite on the Upper East Side teetering on the verge of a nervous breakdown (Diane Sawyer), or you can be a doctor moving briskly through his morning hospital rounds telling the interns trailing behind him what incompetent assholes they are (Scott Pelley)…but it has to be Normal at the same time. You’re the brain of every other brain. You’re the conscience of every other conscience. You’re just as walled off from the conspiracy to own every inch of America and grind down the people into dust-bowl hell as all Americans are walled off from knowing about it. You know as little as they do. You’re just as clueless as the great unwashed, but you put your stupidity on display with some measure of grace and style. Got it? You’re clean, sanitary, loyal as a dog, dumb as fog but very smart. You spew absolute nonsense every second of your time on stage, but it sounds plausible, and again, Normal. You constantly change subjects, and the subjects are in no way related to each other, but you make it all seem sensible. It’s a joke. But you’re serious. And you have to Believe, as if you’ve always believed, from the moment you emerged out of your mother’s body.

“And if you need a model for all this, just watch the news every night on the three major networks and focus on these geniuses.”

See the bomb exploding, the one that emits a puff of smoke straight up in the air? The one that was built in a pressure cooker? The bomb that didn’t tear the flags to pieces and didn’t shred the blue canopy right next to it? The bomb that didn’t cause the men in yellow jackets standing in front of it to even blink? That bomb vectored at a very low angle and took out people’s legs in the Boston street. That right, America. It did. I swear it did.

See the purple and pink pigs flying over the White House? They’re bringing food from Mars for all the bureaucrats who push paper in the city every day, the people who can’t be fired during the Sequester, while flights all over the country are delayed. That food from Mars keeps the paper pushers going. It does. It has special vitamins in it. See how fat the pigs in the sky are? How do you think they got that way? They ate the food. It’s so healthy. It’s mystical and magical. It’s just part of the largesse coming to you from your eternal government. Wait a little while longer. It’ll be here. There are lots more flying pigs. They’ll drop off little bags of Martian tasties on your street any week now. It’s the new Normal. Get used to it. We know what you want, and we’re going to give it to you.

We know what you want and we’re going to give it to you.

If you have any doubts and need more information and assurance, just watch Brian, Scott, and Diane every night. They’re narrating the Days of Our Lives. They’re from Mars. They’re the advance scouts for the pigs.

Brian’s the happy pig. Diane’s the sad pig. Scott’s the cold pig.

They’re America. The best of America.

This is why the Colonies fought a revolution against the British. So you could suck up stories, like a vacuum cleaner, from the three little pigs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Ministry of Truth makes Boston bombing suspect disappear

Ministry of Truth makes Boston bombing suspect disappear

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The boy. Abdul Rahman Alharbi. He was here, then he wasn’t.

He was featured in major stories, then he wasn’t.

The Ministry of Truth (controlled media) has no further concerns.

For a few hours, Alharbi was the prime suspect in the Boston bombing. Then he was a person of interest.

Then he was no longer a person of interest, he was severely burned and in the hospital.

Then Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud. Obama met with Saud, too, and with the Saudi ambassador.

Then Alharbi became a witness who wasn’t severely burned. He’d received minor injuries.

Then DHS took away his travel visa and prepared to deport him.

Then, poof.

Where is he? Was he deported?

No one seems to know.

Since 2009, though, and long before Michelle Obama visited him in a Boston hospital a few days ago, Alharbi had been to the White House seven times. On several occasions, those visits lasted several hours.

Ten members of the boy’s extended family are named on a Saudi terror list.

According to Glenn Beck, who produced a copy of a form from the US Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center, Alharbi is designated a 212-3B. This classification translates to: “terrorist connections.” At the least.

The Ministry of Truth doesn’t seem to care what he was doing at the White House.

George Orwell, 1984: “…to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again…consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

Janet Napolitano now says the boy was never really on a terrorist list, he was just on a no-fly list for a few hours, when the FBI thought he might be a person of interest in the Boston bombing.

Then when the FBI realized he was entirely innocent, they took him off the no-fly list.

But changing that 212-3B status of someone has nothing to do with no-fly. It’s more complicated and serious. A panel has to convene, and evidence has to be presented. Worse yet, it appears Alharbi was tagged with 212-3B because of a prior (unnamed) act that had nothing to do with the bombing in Boston.

But, you see, he’s old news, because the Ministry of Truth concurs that the Boston bombing case has been solved.

The following questions, therefore, don’t need to be asked by incurious reporters:

What was Alharbi doing at the White House? Who was he seeing? What did they talk about?

How and why does DHS allow a person with a 212-3B tag to enter the White House seven times?

How and why does DHS allow the president’s wife to meet with a 212-3B?

If DHS is making these designations and categories of threat re Alharbi, why are they reversing their own assessments?

Why did government officials decide to let Alharbi drop from the suspect list in the Boston bombings, only to say he needed to be deported on April 23rd?

Was he deported?

Is he still in the US?

The Matrix Revealed

The Glenn Beck aspect of this story is interesting. Major media can simply reject everything he says because he’s Glenn Beck. However, Beck was presenting a document on The Blaze. The cover page is posted there, and other reporters could, if they wanted to, substantiate it as genuine or fake, independent of Beck or anything he asserts.

They could find out if it lists Alharbi as a 212-3B, and if it describes him as “armed and dangerous.”

But they don’t. They stay away. They know better than to venture into deep waters without a green light from their editors and producers. Obviously, that green light is red.

“The relationship between America and Saudi Arabia is complex.”

Yes, yes, of course, so let’s forget the whole thing. Let’s drop it down the memory hole and go elsewhere:

The Red Sox are off to a good start.

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner says there may be more penis pictures out there.

CNN is reviving its old show, Crossfire, and Newt Gingrich may be one of the stars.

The polar icecaps are receding, or possibly expanding.

So in bars tonight, and for the next few days, reporters will chew the fat about the Saudi kid, about the interesting story that might have been. But they know they can’t go there.

It doesn’t bother them. They’ve been through this kind of thing many times. They cover what they can cover, and they talk about the rest. “One, two, three, oil…Saudi oil. It’s gotta be about oil, right? Everything is. We’re in the wrong business, boys. We should have gone into shoes or women’s wear.”

At the top of the broadcast ladder, where Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer live, the story is dead. Unless someone from upstairs comes down and tells them it’s alive again.

“I was just talking to John Kerry and he says the way DHS handled this kid was strange. He wants to know if we know anything.”

Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go!

“I just talked to the White House. They say it’s a non-starter. The kid was never a suspect. It was some kind of mix up.”

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop!

And the White House, in turn, was just talking to three defense contractors who own half the Senate, and there was a discussion of new Saudi weapons orders:

“Unfortunate confusion with this Alharbi kid. Are the diplomatic channels all clear now?”

“Yes, we’ve ironed out the blip. It’s gone.”

Somewhere in America, there’s a reporter for a big paper who’s sitting at his desk in the middle of the night thinking about Alharbi. He knows there’s something there.

He’s wondering how he can cajole his editor into letting him off the leash. Trade one story for another? Promise to train the moron who covers film and can’t string two coherent sentences together?

No, it won’t work. There are red lights and Red Lights and this one burns bright.

Still, it would have been fun. Who knows what foul creatures would have emerged from the swamp?

The lone reporter also knows that all stories are interchangeable; they only last for a little while. A thing is hot, then it’s cold. It’s the way the business works.

Orwell/1984: “…it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another.”

So even if he could dig down past the Saudi kid and find the masses of rotting truth, there would be no traction. It would all slip and slide into the next big thing. And Glenn Beck? Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while, but that form he was waving around? Could it really be important? A few of Hillary’s people at the State Department might know something. See what they have to say. All that Saudi money invested in FOX. Maybe Beck’s just trying to get a little revenge on his former employer.

The reporter leans back in his chair. What’s the use? He’ll never make it past the gatekeepers.

Orwell: “Orthodoxy is unconsciousness…Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.”

There is another watch list few people talk about. It’s the list of reporters and commentators the elite media refuse to recognize as legitimate, under any circumstances. Glenn Beck is certainly on that list. You can fill in other names yourself.

It works this way. If X, who is on the list, comes up with a true blockbuster of a story, he is ignored, because were he believed and acknowledged, he would move up in official status…and then, other stories he breaks would have to be recognized as well.

And who knows what other stories he would come up with? Surely, some of them would challenge firm boundaries the elite media place on what they will cover and what they won’t cover.

Orwell: “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.”

Exit From the Matrix

John King, one of CNN’s stars, may have inadvertently gotten himself mixed up in the Alharbi story. Prior to the FBI naming the Tsarnaev brothers as the Boston bombers, King announced the FBI had a suspect in custody and were ready to announce who it was.

Was that Alharbi?

For five minutes, before the FBI realized they were bumping into protected connections that flowed on a much higher level, had they decided the boy was the bomber?

King had two sources, people he trusted, who told him the FBI had an unnamed suspect in tow. So King went with the story on air.

Then, the FBI said there was no suspect. There never had been a suspect.

King bit the bullet and issued a public apology. He said he would be more careful in the future.

Of course, he was fuming. He could have struck out on his own, determined to prove he’d been jacked around. He could have tried to prove the FBI was lying—they really did have a suspect in custody but then somebody far higher on the food chain issued an order to release…Alharbi?

King knows how the game is played. You take your medicine and shut up. You don’t wander off the reservation. You pretend to believe the FBI. You have to. Otherwise, you’ll wind up looking like the Mad Hatter and your own network will dump you out on the street.

“Remember John King? He was a star. But then he tried to prove the FBI was lying. He lost it. He went nuts going after the Bureau, and it turned out he was wrong. There never was a suspect in custody. It was just bad information. CNN had to let him go. It’s a shame…”

King immediately becomes an object lesson for other reporters. You want to stay in the game? Stick your tail between your legs and waddle back to your job. Say you’re sorry, and then on top of that, say that apologizing is your duty to your audience, because the truth is at the heart of the news, blah-blah.

Orwell: “How easy it all was! Only surrender, and everything else followed.”

The elite media have discovered a marvelous thing. The human mind works just like television news. The mind can decide something is important, then decide it isn’t, forget it, and move on.

Unless the owner of that mind is awake.

Television cop shows mirror this situation. Inevitably, after the first suspect is arrested for the crime (at the 20-minute mark, too early for a wrap-up resolution), one detective points out there are still unanswered questions.

The missing gun, the witness who saw another man fleeing from the crime scene, the stained glove on the fire escape.

His partner, a goofball, says, “Hey, there are always unanswered questions in a case. Who cares? We have a confession (obtained under pressure). Call the DA.”

Then, later in the show, the smart cop proves he’s right. The witness and the stained glove are crucial. A different person committed the crime.

The lesson? Keep asking all the questions. Keeping digging.

But that’s only true on television.

To be more precise, what’s overtly labeled fiction on TV gives the viewer hope. Television news takes hope away.

You know, the old whipsaw effect.

There’s an app for anything you want. On TV. Inside the bubble.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Television news is shriveling. And it’s under attack from a new breed. You can call them counter-programmers, video freaks, whatever.

But they’re winning.

Every dollar and inch of technology the networks employ move toward an irrefutable image on the screen. “Here it is. Look.”

And counter-programmers say, “Look again. See those guys in the yellow jackets standing right near the bomb when it goes off? They don’t move at all. They’re fine.”

There is something very powerful in that response, because people are addicted to images. When the image you’re watching blows up, because somebody forces you to see something new, you start to wake up and effect a cure, even if you don’t want to.

Image-addiction is sacred to people.

No one goes to the movies and comes out saying, “You know, images don’t really add up to anything. It’s a waste of time.”

No one walks into the Sistine Chapel, looks at Michelangelo’s ceiling, and says, “Why did they bother? They could have just written down a message to explain what the ceiling means.”

No one asks, “Why did they have the president sit there in the Oval Office and address the nation? He could have written a statement or talked on radio.”

Image.

Unbeatable.

So when major media cover a monster of the story, on television, they’re producing images by the ton, day after day, and the anchors are telling us what they add up to, and most viewers soak it all in and accept the force of it as irresistible truth.

If television presents Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston, and if it pours thousands of impact images at us and tells us what they mean, what are the chances television will, upon learning new facts, reverse course?

What are the odds?

Virtually zero.

Of course, the networks are unwilling to admit mistakes or lies. But at another level, this is television’s unwillingness to injure the medium itself and what it does.

“We showed you all those images and we burned them into your brains, to program you, and now we’re going to say that was an illusion?”

Never happens.

The people who own and run television never turn around, on a huge story, and endanger their medium by admitting that the images were deceptions. Because they’re drug dealers, and their drug is Image.

If the Constitution were written today, people would want to watch it being done, in the room in Philadelphia. They’d want to watch the men at work. They’d want to make up their minds about the Constitution as they would any other television show.

“Well, today, amid long-winded arguments about the proposed Bill of Rights, audience share dropped eight points.”

Why does Obama take the Sandy Hook parents around with him, as he promotes his gun agenda? So audiences can hear them speak? So audiences can see them speak.

Why do the networks lay on those interminable news-talk programs, with hosts and guests? Why don’t they consign them to radio? Because people want to see the participants talk.

Image.

“Here, let’s sit down and watch these six people talk. Let’s see what they look like when they talk.”

“I love watching Chris Matthews talk.”

Now, when a person gets on (Internet) TV and blows up major media and exposes it and tears it from stem to stern, that’s different. That’s counter-programming. People start to come out of a dream-state and realize they’re finally watching something they’ve been longing for:

“Here’s a television image. See it? It’s a lie. It’s not what you think it is. Let’s do this in slow motion, one frame at a time. Look at the corner over there. Do you see the yellow glare suddenly appearing at the top of the screen? Just beyond the plume of smoke? At the top left? That yellow glare isn’t connected to the burning fertilizer factory in the center of the screen. It’s separate! It’s coming in from the left. And then, less than a second later, the whole building explodes! See it? So what was that glare at the top left? Think about it. Consider the possibilities. For example, the burning building wouldn’t have blown up all on its own…something came in from the left and blew it up…”

Taking an image apart.

It’s the beginning of the end of television.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now, 24/7, wherever videos are posted on the Net. The assault is well underway.

“Look at that gas mask on the ground behind the Aurora theater. Who does it belong to? Was a second shooter wearing it? And there on the pavement, is that a trail of blood leading into the theater?”

Don’t worry about the fact that some of these counter-programmers are making mistakes or unwarranted leaps of judgment. The overall force is taking down television.

Impaling it on its own sword: image.

Television desperately needs events like Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Boston. When the big tragedies hit, and the elite anchors go on the road and show up in the towns where the blood is spilling and the people are in a state of extreme shock, the television audience at home gets another deep injection of mass mind control, through image-insertion.

But now, within days, even hours, counter-programmers are striking back, by playing network broadcast footage and pointing out flaws and contradictions and mistakes and deceptions, and posting these findings.

“You thought image was the end-all and be-all. All right, look at this!”

Crash a picture, take it apart, re-explain it, and you make people think.

This is the formula that’s burying television.

It’s exactly what surrealists did a hundred years ago. Max Ernst, Andre Breton, Alfred Jarry, Dali. But today, it’s happening to the news, to television. Right now. Story by story. For all to see.

The Matrix Revealed

Among many other reasons, this is why we’re witnessing the effort to censor and control the Internet. The news networks want to assert a propriety of copyright on their footage and punish those who use it against them.

Backed by billions of dollars, Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer say this and show that, and one guy in Ohio says NO and I’LL PROVE IT TO YOU WITH YOUR OWN IMAGES.

The hounds are loose.

These hounds are sitting in rooms making the networks and the greatest law-enforcement agencies in the world look like cheap hawkers at carnivals.

Frame by frame.

Umberto Eco, in 1979, wrote: “A democratic civilization will save itself only if it makes the language of the image into a stimulus for critical reflection—not an invitation for hypnosis.”

No, Umberto, there was never any chance of that happening. Not as an official program of the culture. Instead, we have a new breed now. And they’re buzzsawing those images, splitting them open.

Big newspapers have so-called television critics who size up shows and comment on them. The Internet has television critics who magnify news footage and point to what nobody saw in it.

“Watch this Sandy Hook father who just lost his child come to the podium to speak. Watch. See him smiling and laughing? Watch it again. Here it is. What do you make of that? Keep looking. See him get into character all of a sudden? See him make himself grieve right there? Are you kidding? What’s really going on here?”

“See the puff of smoke from the first bomb in Boston? It goes straight up. Not out into the street. See those people near the explosion? Do they look bothered by it in any way? They’re just standing there.”

These counter-programmers are cracking people’s junk-image-addiction by showing them a “higher order” of those images.

Remember Wag the Dog, that splendid movie about inventing a fictitious war in order to get a president re-elected? The president had to have a war. He was sagging in the polls. So the war was put on television.

But there’s another layer to the story. Television needed the fake war, too. It always needs staged events. Without them it would shrivel and die.

Except the events have to look exactly like “real life.”

When counter-programmers get busy, they reveal the staging, and the whole business falls to pieces.

“Hooked? Do you feel like you’re going to die if you don’t turn on the TV set? Sign up for our ten-day cure. We’ll turn you into a counter-programmer. We’ll take you through our wake-up course in image analysis, and you’ll come out the other side as a meta-wizard, ready to take on the world of false news.”

To say this is corrosive to network television news is a vast understatement. It’s a Waterloo.

Against the citizen video-analysts, television would have only one solution: stop broadcasting footage.

Exit From the Matrix

Here is a fragment from a short story I wrote a few days after the Aurora theater massacre. It illustrates the potential effect of a counter-programmer:

I sat in my private cabin and watched wall screens displaying decks on the slow-moving airship; I understood there were seven levels.

On Deck Three, I saw Mr. R. Smith-Jones, a fifth-generation android, who was occupying two rows. He was propped up on a wheelchair-couch.

He was growling and snarling at a doughy flight attendant turned out in a jeans tuxedo and a sombrero made of balloons and artificial peacock feathers.

Smith-Jones’ infamous three-year case, tried in the Superior Court of Newfoundland New York, had ground to a halt, when Judge Sleepy Shigitz decided Smith-Jones had earned the right to multiple classifications of Life Disabled.

On the screen, Smith-Jones was waving two objects which, to me, looked like cataclysmic salt shakers. They were spewing crystals that emitted smoke when they hit the air. Passengers started coughing.

Then I realized Smith-Jones was holding patterning cylinders he’d pulled from his innards. These cylinders played a major role in what his Alamo designers called Repetitive Accommodation. I knew this because Smith-Jones had pulled the trick a number of times, on each occasion subsequently filing suit for environmental incursion. Once, as porters were pushing him up the Matterhorn in his wheel-chair couch, he’d yanked out the cylinders, asserting the thinning atmosphere was slowing down his speech-recognition faculty; he’d won a major settlement in a Swiss tribunal.

All in all, over the course of a hundred years, Smith-Jones’ lawsuits had earned him more than twenty billion dollars.

Now he was foaming at the mouth and spitting. He doubled over and a siren went off. It was amplified by a speaker in his skull. A security guard appeared with a riot baton and sent a blue fork of electricity into his genitals, quieting him somewhat.

Smith-Jones was the majority stockholder of NBCCBSABC Networks, Inc. As such, he had at his disposal the InZap technology.

He deployed it now.

At horrific high speed, he began broadcasting images of a flaming city and people dying and crackling in the heat. Then, black tanks appeared. Soldiers dressed in combat gear moved in and sprayed streets with chemical retardant from wide hoses.

The flames died. Other soldiers ran down and arrested two fleeing suspects, and the InZAP emitted waves of relief throughout Smith-Jones’ cabin. People wept in their seats.

Smith-Jones said, “Thus we are rescued.”

“Thank God,” one passenger said.

A scruffy boy stood up and aimed his cell at a white wall. Pictures appeared there. “As you can see,” he said, “ people actually fried and died, but over at the far right of the street, a soldier is setting the initial fire. See him? The two suspects they caught later were patsies.”

Everyone looked, and everyone froze.

Smith-Jones said, “You don’t understand. I can take all those images away, as if they’d never existed. I own them.”

“Right,” the boy said. “But then what are you going to put on television? Giraffes? Peaceful streets at night under a warm moon?”

Three days later, I would learn that: reclining in his suite at the Ritz Hotel in Beverly Hills, sketching out yet another cause-for-action, this time for improper Hotel tech support on his (merely decorative) breathing apparatus, Smith-Jones stopped functioning.

He entered a state of paralysis. He shut down. According to Hotel employees, he wore an unchanging expression of sadness.

On his night table, he’d left a note:

“My existence is zero. I seem to be employing an unending string of morons who can’t plan and execute a disaster without exposing themselves.

“It’s a bit ironic that the desecration of IQ I’ve fostered all these years, through the medium I own and control, has also been my undoing. Operatives are now unable to perform. I hire them; they fail me.

“The entire population has brains of oatmeal. Yet, when some nobody points out a fatal flaw in my news stream, they all begin to wake up. How is that possible?

“I could sue and sue and sue and gain all the money in the world, but it appears I’m incapable of placing humans in a trance whereby they forget I’m just a machine, a heartless bastard of a machine.

“And that’s all I ever wanted. To make people think of me as one of their own. But I never will. And now I am Not.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th 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