Category Archives: Matrix Revealed

The “glue” that makes us all average, normal, and clueless

by Jon Rappoport

December 23, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Tragic events, crises, threats are designed to capture our minds and hold us in a state of emergency, whether or not such a state is officially declared by our august leaders.

This “glue” is one aspect of the Matrix.

And of course, when events seem to threaten our very existence, these leaders are all too eager to enact responses and solutions that make the original crises pale by comparison.

We couldn’t be blamed for defining “solution” as “whatever is worse than the problem.”

In this sordid mix, what part of ourselves is being held down? What capability are we unwilling to exercise? What does fear keep us from doing?

It’s obvious that freedom takes a hit. We become more cautious about exercising our freedoms. However, freedom isn’t just an idea or an empty condition. Freedom implies power. Individual power.

If it didn’t, who would care one way or another about freedom? Who would make an issue out of it?

If each one of us didn’t have power, freedom would be no more than a fairy tale with which we could amuse ourselves.

The exploration of power is not something you’ll find in a school or in the workplace or in a community group. It’s a kind of taboo. People don’t talk about it.

Not talking about it makes as much sense as writing a book about the sun and neglecting to mention it gives off heat.

The repressed conversation about power is a cultural artifact. We’re somehow led to believe it’s impolite to bring up the subject. It’s self-aggrandizing. It runs against the grain of appearing humble. It seems to legislate against the mandatory premise that “we’re all in this together.”

What does this taboo conceal?

Power is the capacity to imagine and create.

Rather than being about “the truth,” power is about inventing new truth, in the sense that, when you create, you bring something into the world that wasn’t there before.

After a great artist or scientist makes imagination into fact, others then gather around and analyze the truth of what has just appeared. But the cardinal happening was the invention itself.

Even more important was the capacity to make imagination into fact.

Power.

Flowing from freedom.

This is what crisis and threat and tragedy seem to blanket with despair. But that is an illusion.

Nothing can happen in this world that changes or diminishes your inherent power, unless you decide it does.

Staged crises are also an example of power. They are perverse art flung up on the screen of our perception, designed to make us feel we have to give in. Give in to what? To the sacrifice of our own capacity to imagine and create reality.

“Somebody else made reality for me.”

That idea is also the hallmark of hypnosis. The subject, in a trance, accepts what is already real as the final summing up of his life. His only job is to adjust his actions to the world as it is.

There are many examples. Look at the mesmerizing tonnage of legend launched to convince the population of ancient India that the caste system was a cosmological necessity, given the rules of universal justice and the regulations governing reincarnation.

This “spiritual system” was, finally, a cosmic fascism. It was a work of art designed and managed by the aristocratic and priest classes, to cement their control over the population. In other words, these rulers invented a reality for the masses that thereafter commanded:

“We made reality for you. Your job is now to live inside it.”

Likewise, in recent centuries, the rise of science was twisted and extrapolated into its own legend: materialism.

“There is nothing beyond particles whirling in space. That’s it. That’s what is real, everywhere. You live inside this idea. Adjust. Reject any thoughts that don’t mesh with it.”

And against all this is, if we want it, freedom. Power. The individual capacity to imagine and create reality.

How far does this power extend?

Life on planet Earth appears to mandate against any far-reaching exercise of creative power. That, too, is an illusion.

There are no limits.

The whole repeating covert op of tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, grieving, grieving, grieving, coming together, healing…the whole endless and repeating ceremony is put there to assure us that we are little creatures with nowhere else to go but Acceptance. This, we are told, is our only option for redemption.

This idea has been sold in the marketplace of spiritual commerce since the dawn of time.

It’s a straight-out lie. It’s told, again and again, to serve rulers.

And rulers want to make sure that the number of creatively powerful individuals is kept to a bare minimum. Otherwise, the single monolithic reality they have invented and sold would shake and fall apart.

Drowned in a multidimensional triumph of many powerful individuals creating many brilliant and simultaneous realities.

That is the true unalloyed meaning of an open society.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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.

Five questions you should ask about your destiny

Five questions you should ask about your destiny

by Jon Rappoport

December 21, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

How you look at your life, what you do in life, where you go in life, and with whom…all these decisions are wrapped up in what you think about your destiny.

Granted, this isn’t a subject that pops up on the radar of most people. But you aren’t most people.

The subject of destiny has been defined by various cultures and religions since the dawn of time on this planet. Answers have been supplied. These answers are accepted for a period, and then new cultures and new answers appear.

But such collective solutions aren’t necessarily yours. You have to make your own inquiry. And in the end, you decide.

So here are five crucial questions to ask yourself.

One: Is my destiny determined by forces outside myself?

Two: Do I choose my own destiny?

Three: Is my destiny the result of some combination of my own choices and outside forces? If so, how does this “collaboration” work?

Four: Is my destiny inevitably wrapped up in the future of others?

Five: Is my destiny unique to me, apart from the future of others?

In the West, this spirit of inquiry emerged in the Dialogues of Plato, who presented conversations between his former teacher, Socrates, and citizens of Athens.

For the most part, Socrates chose abstract qualities like Justice and Piety to open his conversations; as in, what is Piety? What is Justice? What is the Good?

Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we are faced with a crisis which threatens to obliterate our civilization. Although I could choose many issues as examples of this threat, I select education itself.

For example, by designed omission, the whole question of The Group versus The Individual has been placed on a shelf where it receives scant attention.

Likewise, free will versus determinism has been excised from serious philosophical discussion.

People say, “Well, we don’t have time for all that ‘thinking’. It’s a luxury we can’t afford. We’re just trying to survive.”

But history proves that when the people leave these matters to a few elite thinkers, by default momentous currents are launched. And then the people are pulled along, whether they like it or not.

Ideas aren’t just luxuries or toys. They rescue or drown whole societies.

Of course, if education in all its forms doesn’t prepare people to be able to think beyond the ends of their noses, then the prospect of answering the big questions is rendered moot, because people aren’t equipped for the job.

The word “destiny” itself has mixed messages. It appears to be associated with a pre-fixed outcome. On the other hand, it can be shaped.

The kind of New Age material that was distorted and imported from the East during the 1960s has left a legacy of “surrender.” If you “let go” of enough preconceived perception, you’ll drift upward and connect with a greater universal consciousness. Is this so?

Does destiny involve merging into a larger whole? Does it rather involve extricating yourself from that whole?

These aren’t questions designed merely for the young. Answering them impacts your future and the future of your children in numerous ways. Neglecting to answer them is refusing to have navigational skills on the open sea.

Americans pride themselves on being practical and pragmatic. They opt for “what works” and discard everything else. But that approach has pitfalls. It excludes, for example, pursuing deep desires in the face of long odds. It ends up in shallow materialism, as if that were the totality of life.

John Dewey, the arch-pragmatist philosopher, defined American education for millions of people. He set its course along a stripped-down path that helped produce generations of dumbed-down worker bees.

The Matrix Revealed

Dewey accomplished this by default. His challengers were few, and they were weak. Their supply of counter-proposals was garbled and impotent. Dewey didn’t just win the day through top-down manipulation of the American educational system. He triumphed because his opponents were unprepared to argue that human destiny was far wider and deeper than the next practical decision of the moment.

So consider these five questions and understand that your future is, in a real sense, riding on your answers. It always has. This is the way progress happens. People undertake a significant inquiry and come to conclusions. The inquiry may, depending on how honest you are, take five minutes or it may take a year. In either case, the future comes into focus based on your answers.

One could simply ask himself, “What do I really want to do in life?” A very good question. But, as it turns out, the reply to that question is often obscured by prior unasked and unanswered questions.

In other words, a person’s prior view of his own existence is already limited, because he hasn’t found out what he really thinks about something big. Something like destiny.

These are the famous words Plato placed into the mouth of Socrates: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Americans are suspicious about this statement when they hear it or read it. They think it implies years of useless and even self-destructive internal wrangling that will come to nothing.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. There is productive thought. It’s motivated to take the ceiling off limited perception of what is possible in this thing called existence.

If you choose to, you have the natural right remove ceilings. Doing it is part of what and who you are.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s part of the act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

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

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

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

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

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

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

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

Guard the rest from public view.

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

Most viewers still accept that premise.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

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

 

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

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Does that name Hinkley ring a bell?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No pieces of this connect at all.

 

None.

 

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

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

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

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s called an investigation. Reporters do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What? You mean he was…set up?”

“Maybe he was a patsy.”

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

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

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

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

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

This is Matrix programming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, that isn’t part of the coverage.

It would interrupt the entrainment.

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

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

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

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

It’s a closed system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning.

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Three armed women teachers shot Adam Lanza in a classroom

 

Three Women Teachers with Guns Shot Adam Lanza in a Classroom

by Jon Rappoport

December 17, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

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

 

Take that seriously.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is the nature of THEIR mental disorder?

 

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

 

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

 

This point doesn’t make a dent.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Private citizens must not do what the government does.

 

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

 

The FDA therefore controls drug treatment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

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

Yes on Prop 37’s biggest supporter was…Monsanto

 

YES ON 37’S BIGGEST SUPPORTER WAS…
MONSANTO: How Political Elites Win In The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

We’ve all heard about hidden agendas, divide and conquer, controlling the narrative, and problem-reaction-solution. These are certainly time-honored and effective strategies for political elites.

 

To get simpler, we could just say lie-cheat-steal-kill.

 

But let’s approach all this from a somewhat different angle.

 

A powerful elite group first forms a goal, an objective. It clarifies that goal. For example: domination of the global food supply.

 

With that goal in mind, and with the technology to genetically modify food crops, huge corporations like Monsanto, along with their politicians firmly in their pockets, decide to patent every kind of food seed possible.

 

Soon, they own food. They license/sell food seeds. They expand the number of GMO food crops.

 

But they also realize they have to deal with opposition.

 

There are many people who oppose GMO food. These people expose this food as nutrient-deficient and dangerous to human health. They expose the fact that much more toxic pesticide is sprayed on this new Roundup Ready food. They expose the fact that actual ownership of the food supply is passing into the hands of these elite corporations. They expose the fact that the inserted genes drift from crop to crop, field to field, and contaminate non-GMO crops.

 

What to do?

 

Monsanto and its allies have a time table. They believe they can accomplish, in a relatively short time, a fait accompli. There will be so many licensed GMO food crops and so many drifting genes, the very idea of ridding the world of GMO crops will be seen as impossible.

 

In the meantime, they need to stall. They need to divert attention away from the one action that could torpedo all their efforts: BANNING GMO CROPS.

 

This is the one thing that must not happen.

 

So…Monsanto covertly develops a plan: channel its opposition into lesser goals.

 

For example: labeling of GMO crops.

 

This is acceptable.

 

Monsanto “develops” two levels of labeling. There is voluntary labeling (preferred) and mandatory labeling (less preferred).

 

It plants agents into large organizations who are directed to debate the labeling issue. Debate it for a long time.

 

One such organization is the notorious Codex Alimentarius. Created by the UN in 1961, with the mandate of guarding the health of consumers, Codex eventually became a go-to group for the World Trade Organization, whenever disputes between trading nations arose that impacted health issues. Codex is also friendly with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

 

So for the past 20 years, the issue of labeling GMO foods has been debated at Codex. This in itself has been a remarkable victory for Monsanto.

 

Finally, in the summer of 2011, Codex decided that labeling was acceptable if it was voluntary. This grossly diluted standard was, of course, hailed as a victory by some anti-GMO activists.

 

With serious reservations, a huge non-profit called Consumers International, whose goal, like Codex, is “protection of consumer rights” weighed in: yes, this Codex victory was important, but not enough.

 

The labeling debate was going according to Monsanto’s plan:

 

Endless talking, exceedingly minor achievements. And NO MAJOR BANS on GMO crops.

 

Both sides in the debate were operating as Monsanto wanted them to operate. Labeling was the diversion. It was the distraction sucking up huge amounts of time, energy, effort, and money…all along the wrong path.

 

The press was framing the whole GMO question in terms of labeling, reporting on the Codex debates, reporting on statements from Consumers International, reporting on activists and scientists who wanted labeling or claimed that labeling wasn’t necessary.

 

Then came a major effort to make GMO labeling mandatory in California. It was called Prop 37. Should all GMO food sold in California be labeled or not?

 

The world was focused on this battle. Activists were focused on it.

 

Monsanto, quite satisfied, stood off to the side and poured major dollars to their PR people, who in turn campaigned against labeling.

 

But the victory was already in hand for Monsanto, before a single vote was cast. One way or another, labeling was going to continue to be the only real issue under debate.

 

If Monsanto lost the Prop 37 election, they would acknowledge the defeat “graciously,” as they did in England, and support labeling. Meanwhile, they would continue to spend millions of dollars, or even billions, convincing Californians that buying (labeled) GMO food was an easy decision: buy it; it’s healthy; there are no problems; who cares.

 

Another aspect of Monsanto’s master plan needs to be understood. Monsanto encouraged the labeling debate at Codex and almost certainly threw covert support behind Consumers International because those organizations are ostensibly about CONSUMERS.

 

Monsanto wanted to make the whole GMO issue about people who buy products. It wanted to frame the issue around that.

 

Why? Because that trivializes the whole situation. It isn’t about destruction of the natural food supply, it isn’t about the tonnage of poisonous pesticide sprayed on Roundup Ready GMO crops. It isn’t about nutrient-deficient GMO food. It isn’t about owning patents on the world’s food crops. It isn’t about the health dangers of eating GMO food. It isn’t about destroying the small farmer. It isn’t about all that. It’s really, you see, about the consumer’s right to know what’s in his food.

 

It’s about the buyer, the person who spends money at the check-out counter. It’s about consumers, and aren’t we all consumers? Aren’t we just people into whom are funneled all sorts of products? Isn’t that who we are? Aren’t we just the little creatures who buy stuff?

 

Prop 37 played right into that plan, because the leaders of YES ON 37 decided that the “right to know what’s in your food” was the prime message they would sell. That would be the essence of the whole campaign. A consumerist message.

 

Label GMO food? Don’t label it? That’s Monsanto territory. That’s the territory they can live in. They like that territory. It doesn’t raise the specter of a BAN on GMO crops.

The Matrix Revealed

In circles of political power, in Washington DC, for example, there are people who are known as consultants, “go-to guys” who can tell you “how the real game is played.” They are brought in to educate amateurs who want to win victories.

 

These consultants are mostly bent from the beginning. They have their their own agendas and allegiances. They are bent and crooked and smart, and they sell their advice.

 

They could, for instance, show the YES ON 37 people that there was only one way to win a ballot initiative in California. That way would be: talk non-stop about “the consumer’s right to know” what’s in his food. Marginalize every other kind of talk.

 

Of course, this fits perfectly with Monsanto’s plan.

 

The more talk there is about the right to know, the less talk there is about banning GMO crops…until the day comes when an outright ban seems so far away it’s viewed as rather ludicrous.

 

This remoteness and ludicrousness is, you must understand, an artifact created by decades of talk about labeling. Labeling was front and center for so long that it became the only visible opposition to Monsanto.

 

Which, again, is precisely what Monsanto wanted.

 

Monsanto is a criminal, but it isn’t stupid. Those people are smart. They know how to invent a debate on their terms and hide the real debate. They know how to suck in people who otherwise would be pushing hard for an outright ban on GMO crops.

 

They know how to use proxies to advise anti-GMO forces, so those forces stay in the framework of labeling.

 

There are similarities here to the old FBI COINTELPRO program, in which the FBI planted agents inside anti-government groups, in the 1960s. In that case, the FBI’s objective was to stir up those groups to commit violent acts, thereby discrediting their political positions. It was an Operation Chaos.

 

In the case of GMO food, the objective has been to move in the opposite direction: dilute the message. Make it weaker. Make it more “sensible” and “pragmatic.”

 

“Listen, kid. Let me tell you how the real game is played. You’re in the big leagues now. You can’t go off half-cocked and insist on a goal that nobody will support. Forget attacking Monsanto. You can do a little of that, just to keep your adrenaline flowing. But you have to frame this whole thing around what Americans ARE. Do you know what that is? Americans are, first and foremost, consumers. That’s how you reach them. You tell them they have a right to know what’s in their food. Then you have a chance of winning. You pound on ‘right-to-know’ day and night. That’s where I can help you. That’s where you can find allies. That’s how you raise money.”

 

And so it was, and so it is.

 

In the big-picture, YES ON 37’s most powerful ally has been…Monsanto.

 

And now here is where we are: we don’t really know where some of the most important anti-GMO activists are, in their thinking and action. We thought we did. But now we aren’t sure.

 

So we need them to step up to the plate and tell us, right now, whether they really want a ban on GMO crops or just labeling.

 

I’m talking about people who have done a great deal to educate us and show us the way: for example, Joe Mercola, who was the biggest funder of Prop 37, who has written extensively abut GMOs; Jeffrey Smith, who has written a major book about GMOs; and Vendana Shiva, who has done heroic work to keep small farmers alive and expose the Monsanto agenda.

 

Reiterate your positions now. Tell us where you stand.

 

Let’s put everything on the table.

 

Let’s pause and reassess. Let’s consider how labeling is viewed by Monsanto in their master plan.

 

Let’s open up the vault on YES ON 37 and hear from their leaders, too.

 

Who is calling the shots over there? Joe Sandler, Andy Kimbrell, Gary Hirshberg, David Bronner, Grant Lundberg?

 

Give us your best thinking. Tell us what you’re doing and why.

 

There’s no reason this has to be a guessing game.

 

That’s old politics. Let’s open all the windows and let in the light.

 

Or do those of us who have inquiring minds form too small a demographic to interest you?

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

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

Live in the collective and forget who you are

 

LIVE IN THE COLLECTIVE AND FORGET WHO YOU ARE

By Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

We are now told it’s selfish and greedy to promote freedom for the individual. It’s old-fashioned. It’s passe. It’s dangerous. It’s nothing more than a ruse floated by the rich to hold down the poor.

 

Forget about the fact that the next Einstein or Tesla, growing up in what has become a collectivist society, could be slammed with Ritalin, Prozac, and even heavier drugs—because they’re “abnormal.”

 

Some day, when America has been forgotten, an anthropologist will write a celebrated history of this country, and it’ll be all about cultural trends and group customs, and no one will even remember there was such an idea as The Individual.

 

By that time, the population of what was once the United States will live in a theocracy dedicated to Mother Earth, and every day for half an hour, the people will kneel and pray, together, from coast to coast, for mercy from this Mother.

 

And the people will be happy doing it—such as they understand happiness. They will glorify The Group. They will live under the great dome of the Flying Drones and they will rejoice in their solidarity.

 

They will willingly submit to all forms of surveillance, because it is in the interest of the Whole, the collective, the mass. After all, who would depart from the rules and sentiments of The Group? Only the outcasts. Only those bitter clingers who still believe they are unique individuals and have desires and power. Who needs them? Who wants them? They’re primitive throwbacks. They’re sick and they need treatment.

 

Be grateful you’re living in the time of the great transition. If you look, you can see the changes taking place right in front of your own eyes. You can see The Individual fading out as a concept. You can see its replacement—the group and its needs—coming on strong. You can know where we’re heading.

 

One day, you’ll be able to tell your grandchildren there was once a time when there was a completely different conception of existence, and you’ll be able to regale them with stories of the impossible. Stories of individuals.

 

Of course, they won’t believe you. They won’t be able to fathom what in the world you’re talking about. But that doesn’t matter. They’ll listen in rapt wonder, just as we now admiringly contemplate tales of strange creatures and mountain gods of the ancient Greeks.

 

It’ll be fun to look back on our time.

 

Don’t worry. It doesn’t matter. History is merely an anthropological catalog of trends, a series of customs. We pass from one epoch to another. What was true and important in one time becomes meaningless later.

 

Just “come together for the great healing.” That’s all you need to think about now. It’ll all work out. And if it doesn’t, you won’t remember the failure anyway.

 

Coda: What’s that? I can’t hear you. Speak a little louder. Oh…I see. You’re saying we the people are getting ripped off by our leaders and their secret controllers. Yes. Well, sure, that’s true.

 

And yes…if we all came together perhaps we could throw off these controllers and assert our independence once again. Yes.

 

But then I ask you this:

 

After we’ve won the great battle, what do we do next? Do we parade around, from town to town, from city to city, a hundred million of us, a great caravan, extolling our group victory? Is that what we do for the rest of eternity?

 

Or did we fight and win the great battle for another reason?

 

Did we perhaps fight and win so we could reestablish the individual as the basis and the object of freedom?

 

Wasn’t that really the reason we were in this fight?

 

Or are you already too humble and progressive and submissive and enlightened to think so?

 

If you’re going to fight and fight to win, it helps to know why you’re in the battle, why you’re really in it.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

If all thoughts were made public?

 

ASSAULT ON THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN MIND

By Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Where do these insane professors come from? Maybe they’re hatched from eggs in a lab. The neuroscientists, in particular, are prime candidates for the funny farm.

 

One wants the human brain to be recast as a hologram and planted in a robot. Another wants the robot to be made out of pure energy.

 

But Professor Michael Persinger (twitter) (wikipedia), of Laurentian University in Canada, is promoting a utopia in which everyone’s thoughts are made public.

 

Of course, Persinger hopes humanity will embrace the notion voluntarily. I think.

 

In his lecture, “Just Suppose You Could Know What Others Are Thinking: No More Secrets,” Persinger tells us that utopia is just one step from creation. All we have to do is allow all our thoughts to be made public.

 

Brain-mapping, electronic translation of thoughts into digital form? A master library where we can tap in and find out everything David Rockefeller or a janitor at Yankee Stadium is thinking and has thought? Or maybe Persinger thinks we’ll do this telepathically. If so, it sounds strenuous.

 

Of course, thoughts don’t equal action. But in this age of thought-crime, does it matter? If it’s discovered that a housewife in Little Rock was thinking, for three seconds, about killing the president of Egypt at 3:57 on a rainy Tuesday, between thinking about the frosting for a cake and getting the brakes fixed on the SUV, why she’s an open book. She’s a potential killer, right?

 

Then, at her next dinner party or picnic, her friends can ask her whether she’s planning to carry out the hit with a Glock or a drone.

 

And if the president of the United States, after a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, thinks he wants to bomb England, that’s the top headline in the Washington Post. Of course, he thought about the attack for a tenth of a second, and his next thought was about having sex with Angelina Jolie, and this was followed by a thought about pizza.

 

But who cares?

 

It’s all in the master library, and we can all tap in, and that’s utopia.

 

Then there is this: suppose someone hacks into the library and inserts thoughts for you you never had? For example: it’s falsely claimed you thought about declaring war against all gay men on the planet. Might that cause a ripple?

 

The purely technical aspects of translating all the thoughts of ten billion people into a readable library are, I must say, absurd. How many thought-impulses does one person generate in a 24-hour span? Even the dullest among us must rack up at least a million.

 

Eventually, somebody would come up with an algorithm and a computer model to highlight “certain thoughts that are more important than others.” And after a decade or so, it would be discovered that these models were wrong, useless, and politically motivated.

 

But not to worry. The whole point of Professor Persinger’s program is the elimination of secrets and privacy. The very existence of the program would force people to admit “we’re all liars,” because we don’t say everything we think. And this would be good, because then we would become suitably humble, passive, and non-threatening. We would become meek, submissive, and universally tolerant.

 

And the people controlling the whole system (who can have their own thoughts fabricated or blocked) would have a very simple time controlling us. Yes, it’s perfect.

 

If you want complete fascism.

 

Thanks, professor. We’ll take up your proposal at the next meeting of the Looney Tunes Society.

 

And by the way, who says thoughts are stored in the brain? Who says brain is the same thing as mind?

 

Professor Persinger has published widely during his long career. He’s written papers on telepathy, remote viewing, and the induction of spiritual experiences through electromagnetic stimulation.

 

This last area of research is particularly significant. It reveals the neuroscience bias toward assuming all “non-scientific” experience comes from physiological causes. In other words, everything we do, think, feel, or say is completely grounded in the physical.

 

This version of materialism is the justification for managing and manipulating human life. If we’re only biological machines, as these researchers assert, what difference does it make how we’re re-engineered?

 

If all our thoughts can be made public and universally available, why not do it? Why not wipe out all privacy and create the ultimate capstone on the Surveillance State?

 

Of course, “it’s for our own good.” It always is.

 

Naturally, we believe proposals like Persinger’s are ridiculous and would never be implemented. But back in the day when the FBI was obtaining an occasional warrant to wiretap a suspect, who imagined we would come to a time when our every electronic communication would be collected, sorted, and scanned by government agencies?

 

Sources:

 

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/05/michael-persinger-lecture-just-suppose.html [VIDEO]

 

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/thoughtsrecording.php [ARTICLE and VIDEO]

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Disrupting the flow of matrix virtual reality

 

DISRUPTING THE FLOW OF MATRIX VIRTUAL REALITY

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Election night on planet Earth is an illustration of the virtual reality we live in.

 

A news anchor on a network, who has learned how to impart information as if it is real, who can effortlessly assume a position of earnest authority, who seems to emanate the correct amount of empathy without descending into a cloying familiarity with the audience, who can seamlessly switch from reporting to giving way to other reporters to breaking for commercial, who can listen to instructions in his earpiece while talking at the same time, who can generate exactly the right amount of enthusiasm without straining credulity, who can appear to care about what he is reporting, who can maintain a pose of neutrality:

 

Tells us what the numbers are, and:

 

When the moment is right, makes the projection of the winner and the loser, as if:

 

The information comes through to him from an unimpeachable source.

 

The anchor can hand off to an analyst who explains why the projection is correct, who points to a map to reveal the breakdown.

 

It all passes before us, and the goal is to make us accept, and by accepting, believe.

 

The system is air-tight.

 

The truth has been made known.

 

The predictive power of unseen experts is formidable.

 

But, in fact, we are watching images and listening to voices on television, and what is actually happening in voting booths, what has been happening in voting booths, and what will happen in voting booths is a mystery.

 

However, as long as we are in the flow, we sense things are all right.

 

This virtual flow is a tiny corner of the Matrix in action.

 

What would happen, though, if out of nowhere, on our television screens, we saw an egg cracking and Donald Duck crawling out of it wearing a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash?

 

Right in the middle of an election projection for a senate race in New Jersey.

 

What would happen if the face of the anchor began to drip tears of steel as he was making a call on the presidential race in Ohio?

 

What would happen if we heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing, “Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr Jones,” swelling in volume, until the anchor was drowned out and we could only see his mouth working in silence.

 

This is, in fact, the sort of thing that happens when you back up and analyze where the election information is coming from and discover you don’t know.

 

You do know, however, that the channel through which it is expressed is electronic and deploys computers.

 

You know that computers are programmed to deal with millions of crumbs in certain assigned ways.

 

So it occurs to you, like a joke unfolding, that if the situation were right, those machines could spit out anything.

 

They could say Bob Dylan or James Bond had just been elected the next president of the United States. They could.

 

So you wonder how that might be done. Then you wonder how it’s actually done, to produce the name of the winner you automatically accept as genuine and true and authentic. The real-real winner.

 

Then you realize the real-real winner could be no more real than President James Bond.

 

The Matrix is very much like a hall in a painting. You walk into the painting and you’re in the hall. Having arrived in the hall, you look for a room. You find one. There are books on the shelves and a fire in the fireplace. You sit down. A man comes in and tells you it’s raining and the guests for dinner may be a little late.

 

Someone painted a picture and you walked into it and took up residence. You believed.

 

When you stop believing, you can go back into the hall and find your way out of the painting.

 

In this world of ours, exposing “a flow of the virtual Matrix” for what it is can create a domino effect. If the transmission of election results is a mere charade, then what does that imply? What other slices of Matrix flow are fabricated?

 

As you expose one segment of flow, you already sense there are others to expose. Many segments of flow are linked up.

 

If you tell people you’ve just exposed a segment of flow, they may become annoyed. They are comfortably ensconced in the whole continuum of flow, and they want to see the show. They don’t want interruptions.

 

They don’t tell you this, of course. Instead, they reach out for and grab the most convenient story and use it to reject your discovery. It doesn’t matter what that story is. They treat it as holy fact.

 

But basically, they reject what you’re telling them because you’re the Donald Duck in a bright pink suit holding a handful of cash, and they were trying to watch a wholly engrossing news anchor project the next president of the United States.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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