by Jon Rappoport

February 28, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Millions of people have become little news broadcasters and anchors, relaying pictures and text about their parties, picnics, family gatherings, updating their breaking stories, narrating the story lines of their lives. All they need for a complete imitation of the networks is sponsors.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams (until he was exposed), Scott Pelley, and Brian Stelter (updated 3/13/2019) have set the tone. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television 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 propaganda arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

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 is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

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. These days, it’s Brian Williams—or it was, until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

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 implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

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

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope—the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

But the true viruses are the anchors. They spread the illnesses of lies and omissions.

Through their style.

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 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.

by Jon Rappoport

February 13, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The true job of a reporter is using facts to overturn reality. Things are already upside down, and his job is to show that. In his work, he has to be relentless. This inevitably leads him to publishing his own words, on his own, because entrenched press outlets are in the business of propping up the very reality he aims to expose. He can’t go to them for publication. Once he learns that, he’s launched, and his life is never the same. It improves exponentially.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There was the time a newspaper publisher inserted his own paragraph at the top of my story, under my name, as if I wrote it. He didn’t tell me. I found out later when the paper came out. I called him up. He was clueless. To him, his intrusion meant nothing. It was my story, but it was his newspaper. I learned something. If you want your own words, and only your words, to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a story about a dubious drug/supplement people were selling under the counter at health food stores. I took the supplement for a week and folded my experiences into the article, which was mainly about the unfounded “scientific background” in the package insert. The editor couldn’t fathom how a story could contain “two separate threads.” He axed half my story. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a piece about widespread fraud in psychiatric diagnosis. The editor claimed I had employed “too much logic” and not enough “expert opinion.” He said “original research” was “out.” To no avail, I pointed out that logic was in the public domain, and therefore my “original research” could be checked. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

An editor once told me an article I’d written criticizing a senator wouldn’t be published. My harsh criticism was valid, he said, but readers might infer that the newspaper was turning against the senator’s political party. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

Once my career as a reporter was launched, magazine editors began contacting me with all sorts of proposed assignments. The subjects of the stories were boring, to say the least. I soon realized the editors were using those stories to fill out their no-context version of reality. I learned something. If you don’t want your words to be published, don’t submit them.

A newspaper editor once told me (paraphrasing from memory): “This story you wrote…part of the reason we don’t want to publish it is we don’t want to give it the contagion factor. If we publish it, other news outlets will pick up on it. We’re in an echo chamber. We ricochet stories back and forth. We all use the same experts to bolster our stories. So we take your controversial story and publish it, and then when the roar gets loud enough in the echo chamber, people are going to object. And we’ll be the ones they blame because we started it.”

I said to an editor, a year or so after 9/11: If I could give you ironclad evidence, from many reputable sources, proving that the planes crashing into the Towers couldn’t have caused them to fall, would you print the story? He said: The official story is already in place. There’s no way anyone could dislodge it now. I said: So it doesn’t matter what the truth is. He said: It matters, maybe 30 years in the future, but probably not.

A publisher once told me: We have our own definition of “controversial.” We decide what that is. It’s not your definition. It’s okay to write about impeaching a president, but if you find out there are people behind the scenes who are managing the presidency, people who aren’t in government, we wouldn’t touch that. If we did, that would break the mold. Everything would be up for grabs. People would realize most of what we publish is a tempest in a teapot, because there are more powerful forces at work.

An editor told me: After a big environmental catastrophe, we cover the story for a little while and then we let it go. We don’t want to look like we’re attacking the polluters too hard. So we don’t track what’s happening every day or every week. We let it go, and then after a few months or a year, we write a follow-up piece. We’re not crusaders. We don’t want to look like we’re out to get somebody. That would injure our reputation. We’re not muckrakers. We might favor a point of view, but we don’t lean on it too hard.

These and other similar encounters convinced me, 25 years ago, to step away from the news business. “Somebody else” is always running things. Their quirks and agendas are corrosive. They’ve gained their positions through compromise. They know that and accept it. And then they set about forgetting it.

Now, in the “information age,” these mainstream professionals are howling about fake news; they’re burying, even deeper, their knowledge that they are the prime fakers.

“I fake it, I bury my fakery deeper and deeper, and then I scream at other people for faking it.”

These are the actions of a temperamental child. And indeed, these people are angry little children in adult bodies. Luckily, they’ve found a business that honors that grotesque configuration. They’ve found a home.

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 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.

Fake news: actors, robots, androids, television creations

—Notes on media invention—

—Notes on interviewees who try to appear normal on television and who are bizarre to the nth degree. These interviewees are so bizarre, in part, because they ARE trying to appear normal—

by Jon Rappoport

February 5, 2017

I wrote this Sandy Hook article in 2013. It’s about the soap opera called television. I’ve added some new comments:

Online investigations of what really happened at Sandy Hook easily number in the thousands by now. Among other reporters, I have listed and described many contradictions and lies in the official scenario, and I’ve offered alternative explanations.

People have concluded:

No one was really killed in Sandy Hook, it was all faked;

The killings were real, but Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, he was the patsy;

Lanza was the killer, compelled by psychiatric drugs.

A Satanic group was behind the killings;

Players in the federal government secretly contracted the killings in order to take guns away…

No matter what the conclusion, many of the investigations and analyses have turned up startling and useful information.

On YouTube, clips of Sandy Hook citizens being interviewed reveal astonishing reactions and non-reactions that are light years away from what you would expect to see in the immediate wake of such a tragedy.

You can look for YouTube interview clips featuring “the people of Sandy Hook”: Robbie Parker, the Sotos family, Sally Cox, H Wayne Carver, Gene Rosen, Kaitlin Roig, etc.

Their reactions, non-reactions, strange behavior, inexplicable attitudes are stunning.

First of all, you have to realize that only certain people get on television. That’s fact #1, and it’s a major key. Only certain people are interviewed.

Television is the filter through which we see.

Parents who are completely grief-stricken, who have fallen apart and are incoherent (which is what you would expect): not interviewed.

Parents who are very angry and outraged: not interviewed.

Parents who demand answers from a full investigation, who aren’t satisfied with the emerging media-controlled story line: not interviewed.

Then we have parents who refuse to be engaged by any media person, who feel any media contact is insane and invasive and massively insensitive: obviously not approached for an interview.

We don’t see these people, because they aren’t on television. So making some vast generalization about all of the Sandy Hook community is sketchy at best.

Then, on top of that, television news people are creating a story line about what happened at the school and in the town, and they are finding people who will corroborate that plot line, or can be convinced by news producers to corroborate it. This further narrows the field of acceptable interviews.

We have interviewees who have never been on television before, but have watched thousands of television interviews. They have a strong tendency to “act like people are supposed to act” when they are put on camera.

They speak like television, they act like television, they think like television, they admire what television admires. They learn how to behave from television. They learn what is appropriate from television.

In this sense, television is the Stepford Village enabler. It invades a town during a tragedy, it sets up, it rolls out a story line that is independent from reality, and it cues selected people to be the robots who confirm that story line, no matter how grotesque the distortion.

“I know you’ve just lost your daughter, and I can’t imagine how you feel at this moment, but you see, when we interview you, we want to honor her life. This is your chance to let people all over the world know what and who she was. Her spirit, her interests, her hobbies, what her friends felt about her. You can show the world how alive she was and how happy she was, and you can remember that and you can even smile…”

And the mother of that daughter hesitates, pauses, thinks about what she really feels, and then decides the television producer is right and she’ll go along with it. On camera, she tries to act normal. She tries to fulfill her television role. And she comes across as a twisted android.

Some of the Sandy Hook interviewees appear to be machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act “efficient” and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act as if they’ve been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.

They act as if they have no resource or experience that allows them to contact what they actually are. As if a wall has been built between what they are and how they are behaving.

In my opinion, this is a lot worse than if they had been (badly) trained at an actor’s school to intentionally provide material for an all-out hoax.

It’s a lot worse, because the manufactured front is their only reference point. As such, it takes only minimal direction to move them to any chosen square on the media-controlled checkerboard.

“How do I need to behave to fit myself into the situation as an acceptable person?” This is the guiding question they ask themselves. The answer plugs in immediately. It is always going to be wrong, because every situation is, to some degree, alive, and their answer dictates dead behavior. Machine behavior.

We need to understand that these extraordinary and stunning and bizarre interviews from Sandy Hook are mirrored in other places. For example, what are we to say about thousands of soldiers who are duped into a war that had no sane reason to exist in the first place?

But there the soldiers are, on the battlefield. They are living and breathing and mouthing sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in which they have been placed.

The war is promoted as necessary. It is heralded as an opportunity to do service, to protect freedom, but those are gross lies.

Is a typical soldier in such a war going to look any less strange than one of those parents interviewed at Sandy Hook?

Two of the most egregious Sandy Hook interviews, with Robbie Parker, father of a six-year-old girl who was just reported killed in the school, and with H Wayne Carver, the Connecticut medical examiner, are mind-boggling.

First of all, you can confirm that Parker is a real person with a real background by searching Utah newspapers; e.g., The Deseret News. Parker is seen, in his now-famous Sandy Hook interview, smiling broadly and chuckling and having a good time just prior to stepping in front of the microphone to make a public statement, at which point he huffs and puffs and tries to get into the character of a grieving father.

It’s hideous.

Carver, in response to press questions, not only gives absurd and completely inappropriate answers, he guffaws once or twice, as if he’s out of control.

In Carver’s case, I would say he’s covering up some gigantic medical lies about the case. He’s trying to dissemble and, underneath his shaky exterior, he’s very nervous and scared that something is going to jump out of the hopper. He doesn’t know what to do. At moments, it looks as if he’s going to come apart at the seams.

If by some miracle, we had been able to see long uncensored interviews with many, many citizens of Sandy Hook; if we could have seen and heard, unvarnished, everything the people of Sandy Hook were experiencing; what would we think? What would we know? (And since the events in Sandy Hook, why haven’t we seen 20 or 30 long open interviews with parents of the schoolchildren? Who put a lid on that?)

Whatever the truth is about what happened and didn’t happen in that town, whatever the true operation that was mounted and carried out there—the role of television is central.

It is the prime programmer.

Television is the calculated average on display for the average viewer. It is the hyper-normal maniac.

The people who own and run television for the masses are bringers of an emotional wasteland.

Why are they successful?

They plug into a deep cynicism that underlies the robotic behavior and thought of millions of people.

This inner cynicism comes about because people already feel cut off from their own wide emotional range.

Television magnifies and exacerbates that disconnectedness.

Some high priest, some dictator, generalissimo, president, elite news anchor, some numbers cruncher who sees this modern world as a playground in which to forward market research, looks for the golden average, the emotional sweet spot on which gobbling maggots can prey.

I have no ax to grind here. The people who honestly conclude that Sandy Hook was one great hoax from the beginning and no one died; the people who conclude that Lanza was the patsy for professionals who did the killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the people who believe Lanza was the killer driven over the edge by psychiatric drugs: the people who believe the Sandy Hook killings were a secret-society operation or a black-ops horror designed to grab the guns of Americans; all these people will continue to explore their paths and they will unearth important information.

What I’m offering here is a perspective on how much of what we see is delivered to us through the twisted lens of television.

The great goal of media and its controllers is reduction, so populations will accept whatever seems “more efficient,” more ordered, more systematic, more organized, more automatic, more predictable, more repetitive.

Television could, if it chose to, make Sandy Hook look and feel like Columbine or the McMartin School…

Feeling, thought, data, facts—television can rearrange these to fit its purposes.

It can emphasize the grief, or the police actions, or the horror, or the need for new laws…in any proportions it chooses.

It also could, if it chose to (but never would) highlight the outrage of local citizens who are demanding a deeper investigation by law-enforcement; at which point, the whole course of the story would change.

Keep in mind that, at Sandy Hook or any other major news event, the field reporters and anchors on the scene are NEVER digging up the story. They’re working off of statements from the police or the FBI. There is no reason for media to be there, aside from ratings. They could be assembling the storyline back in the studio.

“Yes, folks, we have our reporters out there in Sandy Hook, but they’re not actually doing anything, they’re just telling you what the cops are saying. But we want to give you the impression that you’re there, too, so you plug into the horror and the grief. We want to give you the impression that we’re discovering, on our own, new facts every few minutes. Suspense, mystery.”

The media learned a few lessons from Sandy Hook. Among them: don’t put a medical examiner on camera until he’s been vetted, until it’s clear he’ll present a bland summary of findings; don’t release footage of interviewees (e.g., Robbie Parker) before they make their official statement.

Consider an analogy to sports. The players on the field are the main attraction and focus. The referees, who make important decisions, stay in the background. But in media, the roles are reversed. The anchors and reporters (referees) are in the foreground. The witnesses, victims, and perpetrators (the players) are kept in the background. Why? Because media are the story. Media take over. They position themselves front and center. They believe they own the news. They don’t piece together the story from witnesses. They unroll the story based on law-enforcement statements. The witnesses are merely used for flavor. This, of course, is absurd.

But it’s par for the course for media.

“We own the news. We make the news. We report the news. We invent the news. We are the news.”

If the media are the news, then we need reporters who will report on the media.

And now, online, we have just that, exactly that.

And it’s taking apart and destroying the news as it was, as it has been for a long time.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky’s scorching masterpiece, Network (1976).

Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

The media, as I say, not only believe they make the news and own the news; they believe they are the news. They are trapped in that “model.” They can’t get out.

Now, in 2017, as they rail against fake news, they’re basically exclaiming, “The news couldn’t exist without us, because we embody and encircle what news IS.”

This rises to the level of insane metaphysics. The tree falling in the forest doesn’t make a sound unless CNN is there to film it and broadcast the audio.

And if CNN decides the falling tree is singing Deutschland, Deutschland über alles on the way down, and rigs the audio to make it so, then that’s what’s happening.

This is an Empire that’s supposed to last forever?

The pillars are crumbling, and we don’t need CNN to hear it.

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.