Lester Holt: android, wisdom figure, computer brain

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2016

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

Others have pointed out how many times debate moderator Lester Holt slanted criticism toward Trump, rather than Hillary. Others have suggested Hillary and Holt were a tag-team, with Hillary throwing hand signals to Holt indicating she was ready to hit Trump with a zinger.

On a different level…

Watching the debate-host, Holt, working his way through Trump vs. Hillary, sitting in his chair, bathed in a spotlight glow against a sea of total darkness, eerie metallic glimmers reflecting from his glasses, I was reminded of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the barely human chairman of the corporation that designed androids in the film Blade Runner.

—Holt, the man who had the script and the questions and the facts at his immediate disposal. The brain. The wisdom figure. The synthetic guide with a touch of humanity built in.

Quite an archetype.

As I pointed out recently, the ridiculous notion of a debate with a moderator is modern. When Lincoln and Douglas famously debated slavery for hours at a time, over the course of several weeks, there was no intermediary voice. One man spoke for an hour, and then the other man spoke for an hour.

The moderator is a prop, a pretense of introducing objectivity into the proceeding.

The moderator is the “voice of rationality,” as it were. From that perch, he can, of course, slant the event—and Holt certainly did.

His dry speech patterns, in fact, resembled those of Barack Obama, when the President is reciting script.

Watching Holt operate, I was also reminded of the technocratic wet dream of a human brain hooked up to a computer, from which emanates undeniable wisdom.

Holt adopted the persona of a machine, and he pulled it off.

Which means? This is where the world is heading, if the technocrats have anything to say about it. You “need the best data—and one day soon you’ll get the data from a computer your brain is connected to. All will be well.”

Holt is also NBC’s national news anchor, which means he tells the stories of our time, every night, to millions of tranced viewers who are seeking a voice not their own.

Anchor and debate moderator—a powerful combination.

Hypnotically commanding.

Replay the debate moment when, out of nowhere, Holt’s words suddenly crackled like dry autumn leaves: “[Stop and frisk] was ruled unconstitutional.”

The narrator thus spake.

A brain not their own…a voice not their own…a narrator of reality…a fount of instant wisdom…the answer from on high…there are many, many people who want those things, and they want them embodied in a machine-like structure that assures them of dispassionate “honesty.”

Holt provided.

It’s no surprise that giant television networks have made these debates their own property. After all, the companies consider the events media-moments. Hosting them and appointing the moderators is no different from designing and presenting the nightly news broadcasts.

Of course, when you stop and think about this arrangement for debates, it’s absurd. Why would Lester Holt be more qualified to guide the proceeding than a car mechanic from Peoria?

Why have a guide at all?

Why allow media companies or government entities or even non-profit organizations a place in the debates? The two ruling political parties are the correct sponsors. We’re watching their candidates.

Holt was a well-groomed device. A hint of the near-future. A figure of “just-enough-authority” sitting in the darkness, dispensing voice-of-god to the masses, backed up by a production crew with split-screen, miced-up, podium-on-stage technology to provide a fatuous imitation of a real debate.

Instead, let there be a stage in a glen. Two or three television cameras. Let there be a topic. Foreign policy. Hillary ascends the stage and speaks for an hour. Then she leaves. Trump appears. He talks for 90 minutes. Then Hillary comes back for 30 minutes. The candidates never speak to each other. There is no moment-to-moment exchange of daggers or jokes or gotchas. This isn’t entertainment. It isn’t grins or hair or dress or tie or teeth.

If there is a moderator, he stands down off-stage and to the side, grumpy and frowning, holding an umbrella in case it rains. He reads a book while the candidates speak, he eats a hot dog. He combs and re-combs his hair. He waits. He thinks about his 20-dollar-an-hour salary. He must remain absolutely silent.

He’s an actual prop put there to remind people of a time when things were different, when the so-called news was delivered by media stars, who competed to see which ones were the most clever at inventing reality that seemed factual, but wasn’t.

In a world with a shred of sanity, that’s what Lester Holt would be doing.

What is modern television news (including debate moderation)?

From their perch, anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right.” “You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The anchor is the narrative voice of his time, for all people everywhere. The voice that replaces what is going on in the heads of his audience—all those doubts and confusions and objections in the heads of the great unwashed. The anchor will replace those and substitute his own plot line.

The network anchor is The Wizard Of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own. On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control.

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

The other night, Lester Holt was the machine-like agent of the Cosmic Charity of All Souls dedicated to higher wisdom from an unimpeachable source. That was his role and he played it.

“I take no sides. I have no opinions. I am objectivity personified. I am…The Fact Checker.”

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.

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2016

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

As I wrote before the debate yesterday, it’s all about the staging.

I won’t go over everything NBC moderator Lester Holt did to tilt the debate to Hillary. Others are covering his performance. I’ll point out one vital thing. It happened right at the beginning.

Holt framed the debate by stating that the US economy, particularly employment, has recovered well since the 2007-8 meltdown. Of course, he lied. When you factor in how many people now have low-paying jobs who formerly had good jobs; and when you also consider that people who give up trying to find jobs are eventually no longer listed as unemployed, you get the true picture: the US economy hasn’t recovered. Not by a long shot.

Understandably, Trump was focused, at the moment when Holt lied, on Hillary and the audience in the hall. He was blindsided. From the get-go, he should have pinned Holt and denied Holt’s “facts.” He should have exposed Holt as an errant “fact-checker” and put him back on his heels. That could have changed the whole tone of the evening. Holt’s stone-faced “objective” calm would have been broken. He would have been under the gun.

The tight debate format does not suit Trump. The whole set-up goes against his style. Brief statements, the back-and-forth between candidates, the moderator questions and interruptions—it plays against his energy and rhythms.

Within that structure, Trump tended to talk to Hillary and Holt—instead of directly to the American people.

That created problems for him throughout the evening.

Trump’s whole campaign has been based on him going out there, from city to city, talking to large crowds.

In the debates, he has to maintain that position. He’s still speaking directly to the American people, even though he’s in a small hall, with network coverage, with Hillary standing near him, with a media moderator running the show. He has to make that clear—he’s speaking to The People.

The debate set-up is 2 against 1. Holt (or any network moderator) is the anchor. Hillary, with her polished delivery (she’s spoken these lines hundreds of times), functions, in a sense, as another anchor. That leaves Trump as the “disgruntled guest” on the show, trying to make his points and go against the grain.

An old word describes what Trump should be doing: “oratory.” It’s what elevates a speaker beyond his immediate circumstances and environment, imparting the sense that he’s talking to “everybody.” Forget Hillary. Forget Holt. Forget the people in the hall. Many of them are political pros. Talk to America.

Trump is supposed to be a populist. He’s supposed to be speaking to, and on behalf of, the citizens who feel they have no voice. If that’s true, he can’t leave them out during the debates.

For her part, Hillary was sheer empty perfection. She used all the buzzwords and generalities, while maintaining a cheery and bright attitude. She delivered exactly what she’s been delivering for years and years, straight from memory.

It doesn’t matter what the debate after-polls show. As this campaign moves to its final moments, her anchor-like gloss is going to make serious inroads on Trump, if he continues to be the disgruntled guest on the show.

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.

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2016

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

Watch how tonight’s Trump-Hillary debate is set up.

Are the two podiums the same size? No? Who has the bigger podium?

Is the lighting even, or are there shadows? Where do the shadows fall?

Is there blue color in the background, which exudes a “calming effect?”

How is the moderator, Lester Holt, lit? Is he spotlighted, haloed, to impart the sense that he’s the ultimate authority in the room?

What about camera angles on the two candidates? Are they receiving the same coverage, or is one more prominent? Are there close-ups?

Will cameras impart a sense of distance, in order to reduce dramatic effect and give the impression that the whole event is somewhat monotonous?

Will the audience be allowed to applaud and boo, or will Lester Holt control that?

To what degree will the candidates be allowed to wander off-topic? Will the reins be tight or loose?

How much time will each candidate be given to make statements? Will either or both of them be pinched, so they can’t say anything of substance?

Ah yes, substance. Context. Network news is famous for thin context:

The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time…

Let’s consider some general background on the news:

The network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style. The overall effect: hypnotic, yet stimulating.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the (thin) context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the recent school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns.”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

The average viewer, having been entrained through years of watching the news, is going to come to tonight’s Presidential debate ready for thin context and no depth.

That’s the subconscious expectation.

Can this expectation be reversed in 90 minutes, regardless of what either candidate says?

And if either candidate suddenly punches a hole in that expectation, will the average viewer welcome it, or will he feel shocked and disturbed by the intrusion? Will he resent it?

Or to put it another way, which candidate more closely resembles a network news anchor—the familiar words, the familiar generalities, the thin context.

The networks that will broadcast the debate consider it a media/news event.

They will try to keep it within that space.

They think they own that space, which includes the viewer’s mind.

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.

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

—assuming Hillary shows up—

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2016

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

I didn’t invent the liberal press. If the MSM were overwhelmingly conservative, I’d be writing about how they’re going to game Monday night’s debate.

Here’s the problem the MSM faces. Most Presidential debates are snoozefests during which the two candidates float high-flying, empty, vapid, brainless generalities. The press can then easily pick their favorite person, in the aftermath, because neither one said anything. But here we have something different:

Trump is famous for potent wise cracks; dismissive comments aimed at his opponents and the media; and sharp-tongued critiques of policies (e.g., Globalism) which are never aired during election campaigns. He’s a fast-talking cowboy who starts shooting as he’s walks through the door of the saloon.

So the MSM will have to scramble, to slant perception away from Trump and for Hillary.

It’s quite possible that, during the debate itself, a little army of liberal fact-checkers will analyze a Trump statement, decide it’s false, and relay the information to Lester Holt, the moderator, who will frame an accusatory question for Trump on the spot, hoping to catch him up and expose him.

Holt may also try to pop Trump for interrupting Hillary; portraying him as a rude, over-weaning, coarse jackass.

And if Hillary criticizes Trump on a foreign policy issue, and he comes back with one of his patented bombs—“You should talk, Hillary, you destroyed Libya and turned it into a hellhole”—Holt could insist Trump is going off the reservation and not replying directly to Hillary.

“Mr. Trump, I keep trying to bring you back to the subject at hand, and you keep wandering away from it…” (The MSM would replay that clip hundreds of times.)

Holt could do a lot of things to try to upset Trump’s rhythm and tempo and cast him in a negative light. You can bet Hillary’s people have been sending messages through to Holt, urging him to keep Trump on-topic, “so the debate doesn’t turn into an unseemly circus.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will certainly refrain from mentioning that many of Hillary’s remarks were substanceless generalities (her stock-in-trade). They’ll actually fill in the blanks for her. They always have.

If Hillary shows up and endures the full 90 minutes, without collapsing or leaving the stage in a coughing fit, the liberal press will automatically claim “she looked strong and fit” and her health is not a problem. “Apparently, those questions have been answered.”

If Hillary energetically pushes back against Trump just once, during the whole evening, even if she’s telling an egregious lie in the process, the MSM will seize on it, play it over and over, and crow about her “toughness.”

If Trump decides to tone it down and look and sound “Presidential,” the MSM will say he was “subdued” and off his game. If he attacks, they’ll say he was “un-Presidential,” as well as “sexist.”

If Hillary physically survives the debate, the MSM will say she’s “on track” to becoming the next President, “as the polls have indicated, despite Trump’s recent surge.” In other words, they’ll try to make it look as if she’s been running a seamless and successful campaign all along, based on her “vast experience”—instead of ducking reporters, hiding out, canceling events, and trying to find enough energy to carry on.

If Trump stumbles at any point, the MSM will punch that up, highlight it, run the clip over and over, and claim it shows he’s really unprepared for “the major leagues.” “He was exposed.” “He’s really an amateur, as many critics have warned all along.”

As usual, based on zero evidence, the MSM will claim Hillary played well to certain voting blocs: the young, unions, minorities, the elderly.

Any sort of vaguely competent performance by Hillary will be hailed as a major victory, as if a coma patient in an ER suddenly sat up and spoke a few complete sentences.

The MSM are well aware of her fragile health (“fragile” is an understatement), but they’re trying to sit on the information, despite huge pressure from independent reporters all over the Web. At this point, the MSM is like a starving dog that will seize on any bone in its vicinity and make it into a full-course banquet: “She walked, she talked, she was coherent. Therefore, she’s a genius.”

“Despite her recent bout with pneumonia, she appeared strong and in charge.”

If Hillary can’t finish the debate, if she has to leave the stage or collapses, the MSM will try to blame it on Trump.

Who will be in the house Monday night? Will we see a stacked deck? Will people shower Trump with boos? If things get very rough for Hillary, will a protest break out against Trump to give her cover?

Anything is possible, including lights in the hall going out; spotty audio; cutting the televised feed, due to “technical problems” or even “a mysterious hacker.” The MSM are quite aware that Trump has no respect for them. They’re terrified that, if Trump is scoring heavily at the debate, their status as dispensers of truth for the masses will take another major torpedo. They know the public’s regard for them is already plummeting.

I have reason to believe media honchos have been in touch with the Trump campaign, on the issue of “credibility.” They’re telling Trump people the debates must be conducted in a dignified manner, in order to preserve the reputation of the office of the Presidency.

Obviously, this effort is aimed at toning Trump down, convincing him to behave. In other words, the media are trying to get him to abandon his most popular approach and turn him into another android candidate.

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

You can be sure, as well, that people inside Trump’s own campaign (infiltrators and typically standard fools) are urging him to back off, act Presidential, and consolidate his gains. They’re telling him his best hope is to build better trust with voters by “acting normal.”

“Too many people are still scared of you, Donald.”

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

They may as well be telling him, “Act more like Hillary.” Hillary has a patent on that act. He can’t match it.

On Monday night, the MSM will be looking for any possible Trump sliver they can use to claim, “The man revealed himself as dangerous.”

That’s their hole card. That’s what they want to sell: “People all over America are feeling fear and disgust. They’re reluctant to believe what Trump is saying—and they doubt his ability to perform competently as President.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will try to take that position, based on something Trump said or did.

Trump can view all these obstructions as a mine-field he must navigate carefully.

But if he does, he’s done.

This is a national debate. For many, many viewers, this will be their first lengthy exposure to the candidates. Hillary will keep (vaguely) emphasizing her experience and credibility as a political leader, versus Trump’s complete lack of real knowledge. She’ll try to act like a frontrunner, a fount of confidence. Trump has to crash that celebration and ruin it.

And the liberal media have to characterize his attacks as something on the order of childish tantrums.

“Trump offered little in the way of substance. He was mostly bluster, and people could see it. Hillary, on the other hand, displayed restraint befitting a veteran who, certainly, based on the record, knows foreign policy like the back of her hand…”

Hillary, on stage, will have a few zingers ready to go, if things start to turn against her, if Trump’s energy is overwhelming her. Something like, “Donald, I know you. I’ve known you for years. How you can even think about running for President? The whole world is watching. Millions of people know you and your campaign are a sham, a fake. Why don’t you make everybody happy, pick up your marbles, and go home. Go back to your Tower and forget about it!”

Applause will break out in the hall, and the liberal press will hope and pray it spells the end of the Trump fantasy.

They’ve been trying to put this guy away ever since he announced his candidacy, and everything they’ve done has not only failed, it’s backfired.

Hillary should be their ultimate backup. She should be the one to seal his fate. After all, she’s supposed to be the next President, isn’t she?

Does she have what it takes to be a closer? Or is she so burned out and ill she can barely make it to the show?

According to reports, Gennifer Flowers, one of Bill’s former girlfriends, has accepted Trump’s invitation to sit in the front row at the debate. If so, it appears Trump is doubling down, and remains in full attack mode.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.