Category Archives: Press Fraud

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook

by Jon Rappoport

February 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall—drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society.

What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let’s have in-depth television interviews with these suspects.

Once and for all, let’s have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it’s a sea of confusion. So let’s have the facts—and evidence to back them up. For starters, let’s see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos.

What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza’s father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza’s mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about “typical early confusion” in reporting. Let’s see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam’s brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother’s ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn’t seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother’s ID.

Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let’s have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies?

In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don’t know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet?

And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities—much of it gang-related. Explain why President Obama doesn’t vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership.

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security.

Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence?

Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama’s declaration that mental-health services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings.

The Matrix Revealed

Major media don’t want to know anything about these points. And yet they’re betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public.

The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth.

That’s understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives.

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

How television news creates the illusion of knowledge

by Jon Rappoport

January 27, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

In analyzing network coverage of the Sandy Hook murders, I had no intention of doing a series of articles on television news, but the opportunity to deconstruct the overall grand illusion was compelling.

A number of articles later, I want to discuss yet another sleight-of-hand trick. The myth of “coverage.”

It’s familiar to every viewer. Scott Pelley, in seamless fashion, might say, “Our top story tonight, the widening conflict in Syria. For the latest on the Assad government crackdown, our coverage begins with Clarissa Ward in Damascus…” .

Clarissa Ward has entered the country secretly, posing as a tourist. She carries a small camera. In interviews with rebels, she discovers that a) there is a conflict, b) people are being arrested c) there is a funeral for a person who was killed by government soldiers, d) defiance among the citizenry is growing.

In other words, she tells us almost nothing.

But CBS is imparting the impression that her report is important. After all, it’s not just anchor Scott Pelley in the studio. It’s a journalist in the field, up close and personal. It’s coverage.

Here are a few of the many things we don’t learn from either Pelley or Ward. Who is behind the rebellion in Syria? What is their real goal? What covert role is the US playing? Why are there al Qaeda personnel there?

But who cares? We have coverage. A key hole view. It’s wonderful. It’s exciting for two minutes. If we’re already brainwashed.

Coverage in television means you have the money, crew, resources, and stand-up reporters you can send out into the field. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with information.

CNN made its reputation by coverage, from one end of the planet to the other. Yet, what did we really learn in all those years? We learned that, by straining to the point of hernia, a cable network could present news non-stop, 24/7.

The trick of coverage is the smooth transition from anchor in the studio to reporter in the field. The reporter is standing in front of something that vaguely resembles or represents what we imagine the locale contains. A large squat government building, a tower, a marketplace, a river, a skyline.

At some point during the meaningless report, the screen splits and we see both the anchor and the reporter. This yields the impression of two concerned professionals discussing something significant.

Then we’re back to the reporter in the field filling up the whole screen.

The anchor closes with a question or two.

“Denise, have you seen any tanks in the area?”

“No Wolf, not in the last hour. But we have reports from last night of shelling in the village.”

Well, isn’t this marvelous. Wolf is in Atlanta and Denise is in Patagonia. And they’re talking to each other in real time. Therefore, they must be on top of what’s going on.

“Denise, we understand medical help arrived a short time ago.”

“Yes, Wolf. Out in the desert, in tents, surgeons are performing emergency operations on the wounded.”

Well, what else is there to know? They’ve covered it.

In a twist on this performance, Denise might say, “Government officials are cautiously optimistic about repelling the invading force.” We cut to an interview conducted by Denise, in a hotel room, a few hours earlier.

She’s sitting across from a man in a suit. He’s the minister of information for the ruling party.

Denise: Is it true, Dr. Oobladee, that rebels groups in the suburbs have taken over several branch offices of the central bank?

Dr. Oob: We don’t believe that’s accurate. Our soldiers have been providing security for families in the area.

Denise: And their fortifications are secure?

Dr. Oob: They’ve trained for this mission, yes.

Cut back to Denise standing where she was standing before.

“Wolf, as the night wears on, we hear sporadic gunfire from the civic center. It’s a repeat of the last three evenings. The rebels are determined to make a stand and not give up further ground, in this war that enters its sixth month…”

Cut back to the studio in Atlanta.

“Thank you, Denise. We’ll take a break and be back in a minute to discuss the upcoming controversial film, Cold War in a Hat, starring George Clooney.”

We went from Atlanta to a street corner in the capital of Patagonia and then to a hotel room in the city, and then back to the street corner, then to Atlanta, off to a commercial, and then back to the studio for teasers on a new film. The technology and the technique are indeed impressive. The knowledge imparted is hovering at absolute zero, but it doesn’t matter. They have coverage.

It’s on the order of a magician sawing a woman in a box in half, after which the box is opened and found to be empty.

Coverage can also be simultaneous. In the middle of the screen is the anchor, head and shoulders, talking about the latest shooting. In the upper left-hand corner is a little static scene of three police cars with flashing lights sitting near a strand of yellow tape across a front yard. At the bottom of the screen is a moving line of text recapping headlines of the hour. Coverage. Look at all that. They must know what they’re doing.

Then we have the bonanza of coverage, a story that deals cards to several reporters in the field at different locations. As always, the anchor retains control. He may have two or three reporters on screen at the same time after they individually file their thirty-second pieces.

There is a bit of crosstalk. The anchor mediates. The shipment of frozen food was tainted. Therefore, we have a reporter standing in front of FDA headquarters in Maryland, another reporter in front of the manufacturer’s home office in Indiana, and a third reporter outside a hospital emergency room in San Francisco, where a child is having his stomach pumped. There is also a three-second clip of a lab in which workers in white coats and masks are moving around, and a clip of a moving assembly line which presumably has something to do with the production of the tainted product.

The whole story, as the network tells it, could be compressed down to 20 seconds, total. But they want coverage.

On election night, a network could simply show three or four newsmen sitting around in shirtsleeves smoking cigars and talking about the Jets for a few hours, after which one of them says, “Obama just won.”

But instead, we get the circus. A half-dozen stand-ups from various campaign headquarters, a numbers guru with a high-tech map as big as a movie screen pulling up counties in the studio, an anchor “bringing it all together,” and pundits weighing in with sage estimates. Team coverage. The “best in the business.”

I love hearing Wolf Blitzer utter that line. It makes me think of a guy selling expired cheese. But after all, he has a right to promote his people. He’s not just in a studio, he’s in The Situation Room. Where there is coverage.

The height of absurdity is achieved during a violent storm. A reporter has to be standing out in the rain and vicious wind, water seeping into his shoes, holding an umbrella in one hand and a mic in the other, looking for all the world like the umbrella is going to take him up into the sky.

The storm could be shot from inside a store at ground level, and the reporter could be sitting in a chair next to the cash register peering out through the window, but that wouldn’t really be coverage.

If you were to compare the anchor/reporter-in-the-field relationship of 40 years ago to today, you’d see a stark difference. In days of yore, it was exceedingly clunky and clumsy. It was one anchor and one reporter, but at least the man in the field was expected to have something to say. Now it’s all flash and intercutting. Now it’s the technique. The facile blending. The rapid interchange of image. It’s nothing made into something.

Segueways and blends are far more important than content. The newspeople are there merely to illustrate smoothness and transition. Brian Williams (NBC) is the champion operator for this mode. He is the doctor who can impart to you a diagnosis of a disease that doesn’t exist, but you don’t care. He’s a fine waiter in an expensive restaurant who will deliver three small items in the center of a very large plate and make you feel honored. He’s a golfer with such a fine swing you don’t care how many strokes he takes to get to the green. When he shifts to his man or woman in the field, you feel he’s conferring knighthood. Brian knows coverage.

There is a phenomenon that ought to be called minus-coverage coverage. Sandy Hook gave us wall-to-wall everything without exposing a single fact behind a fact. We saw nothing but Sandy Hook for two days on end, with stand-ups from every hand on deck, and yet we learned almost zero after the first few hours.

In the second Gulf War, we were bombarded with studio and field reports, but we saw no engagement or conflict that exposed both sides in simultaneous action against each other. Embedded reporters had to pledge the life of their first-born they wouldn’t break a rule laid down for journalists by the Army command.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Modern network coverage does one important thing. It establishes a standard by which other news is measured. For most viewers, if the news can’t display full technique, full smoothness, full effortless transition, it must be lacking in some important, though undefined, way.

Coverage is almost synonymous with transition. How the news moves from anchor to reporter(s) and back is Value. This is highly significant because it mirrors what a good hypnotist is able to do. If he’s a real pro, he doesn’t just put someone in a trance and talk to him, he puts him under and then moves from one topic to another—without breaking the trance. This is a skill.

In fact, the hypnotist’s transitions are a vital aspect of the process itself. The patient feels the guidance as the scene changes before his eyes. The hypnotist (or news anchor) is presenting scene after scene and extending time without causing a jarring ripple in the still lake of consciousness.

Coverage.

Whatever a person learns in a trance state, while, for example, watching the news, functions somewhat differently from what he learns while he is awake. Trance learning tends to settle in as a lens, as a way of thereafter viewing the world. It doesn’t add content or knowledge so much as it produces a viewpoint that generates an attitude toward reality.

As in: THESE are the parameters of reality, but THOSE aren’t. I care THIS much, I don’t care THAT much. I care in THIS way, not in THAT way. I’m at THIS distance from what is happening, not at THAT distance.

To enhance this level of teaching, the major networks utilize technology and personnel in the direction of making each edition of the national news, every night, one seamless ribbon of flowing river, with straightaways, corners, turns, adjustments; never breaking, never ceasing until the last breath of the anchor and the closing music fadeout.

That’s coverage.

And the next challenge for them is the integration of commercials, so the viewer truly doesn’t register a shift of consciousness during those moments.

Some day, people will look back on the news of today and say, “How could they have altered the mood during commercials? That was ridiculous. They were really primitive, weren’t they? What were they they thinking? The whole idea is to have one uninterrupted experience.”

The blue hues in the news studio set will match up perfectly with the blues in the commercials. The sound and tone of the anchor’s voice will be mirrored by the narrator of the commercial. The pace of the commercial will match the pace of the news.

In fact, it’s already starting to happen. If you watch shows via a DVR, you might notice that fast-forwarding through commercials is a different experience these days. It used to be a cinch to stop the fast-forward when the show began again, because the colors and shapes of the commercials were so different from those of the show. But now, not so much. The commercials are tuned more closely to the programs.

Some day, the meaning of network coverage will include commercials. The one unending stream will sustain the light trance of the viewer.

Major corporate advertisers will realize they don’t want to jolt the viewer out of the show; they want to leave him in the trance. In other words, corporations won’t be so concerned about competing against other corporations. With these companies coming, more and more, under centralized ownership, under the control of big banks, the whole idea will be to tune the attitude of the viewer toward “corporate buying” in general.

Every huge corporation, allied with big government, will aim to condition the viewing audience to the State Oligarchy.

Coverage in the Matrix.

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.

Flashback: mind-control programming on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve recently been writing about the corrosive effect of television on the national psyche, and how media depictions of tragedies, like the Sandy Hook murders, are geared to create artificial story lines divorced from reality.

I thought it would be a good idea to go back to a 2003 article I wrote about the famous appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

Public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division.

This was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That fact didn’t register with the national media, either.

If Arnold decided to run, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Here is a blow-by-blow account of Arnold on The Tonight Show. I obtained a tape of the show and watched it many times.

The degree of psychological programming was extraordinary. Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm. And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby exploding an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to an interview with The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called the California Recall.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. (The recall ballot was bulging with candidates.)

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s see] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

Very brief pause, the sound cuts out, and then the TV screen displays, in black and white, the old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. There is an accompanying tone that plays for several seconds.

The audience laughs. There is applause, too.

Cut back to Jay and Arnold. Arnold says, “That’s why I decided that way.” Big audience laughter.

Jay shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!” More laughter.

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, Jay gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and everybody knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

This may have been the most important few seconds of the interview. The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed shirt on us.”

An absolutely important confirmation.

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech. He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.” Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and, albeit with a shmear of irony, giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

It’s clear there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they will play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a decent blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream at this political denunciation as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on an edge.

They can handle the juice.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, yes, he, Arnold is, yes, GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking clouds of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes. (Yet Jay knew if Arnold declined to run, the whole show would have been a dud.)

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems he’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.

In the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, a bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible that Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its wacked-out news anchor, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive and firing by delivering a delirious populist message on air and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gives its news division to its entertainment division—precisely what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After reminding the crowd that they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Zow. Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final joke card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

Beyond the fact that Arnold made a political speech on The Tonight Show and announced his candidacy and cuttingly attacked his major opponent, there were the semi-subliminal aspects. The Tonight Show had created its own enormous esteem over decades—and then, out of nowhere, it provided the background for a globally famous actor to decide—almost on the spot—to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capitol of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—the audience was very, very ready to go. All along.

The audience is not an isolated force. It distributes waves of simulated feeling to its initiated in-the-fold brothers and sisters, in their apartments and homes and huts at all points of the globe. These waves also flow to every media outlet from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego to Cape Town to Hong Kong.

Every nuance of expression on Arnold’s face, on Jay’s face, was registered and absorbed above the feverish in-house cheers and screams and shrieks.

This means something.

“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

“Oh yeah? How big?”

“Only a thousand or two. But they are instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

“Come on.”

“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

“Too good to be true.”

“I know. And let me point out what I’m saving you from, you most fortunate of all mothers. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated as well. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm. Talking multiple.”

“And the contagion factor?”

“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. What stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. Right now. The home audience is terrified of being left out of the party. They’ll go along. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”

“Precisely.”

That is how it happened. That is how Arnold S obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Gray Davis was left with his putz in his hand.

Arnold’s announcement of his candidacy was the end of the election.

In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of the ethics of NBC in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

For example, NBC is owned by GE. What business interests does GE have in California? Might such interests be assisted by an Arnold victory at the polls?

It’s amusing that another NBC heavy hitter, Rob Lowe, left the liberal West Wing series and joined the Arnold campaign to add a little more sparkle to it.

The overwhelming media play that slammed into gear the day following the Leno-Arnold moment formed a synapse-welding juggernaut. It was, of course, all based on where Arnold made his announcement to run.

It was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE: We bring good things to life.

The Matrix Revealed

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

There are many who are afraid to admit that twelve minutes on Leno won the election. They refuse to believe that the audience-to-larger-audience infection is real. They want to exist in a fantasy where most citizens turn the factual issues over in their minds before casting their ballots.

It’s too nasty to confess that garble and gobbledygook can sustain us on the ridiculous basis that other people have attached themselves to it like barnacles—and that therefore we too must adapt to this submarine force.

But it’s time we admit that reality can be passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television audience to any target area on the planet.

A target area like voting precincts.

When private citizens show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon get the message. They are not just there as happy onlookers. They are drawn into the process. They are offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they will become part of the story. They will attain a new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause at those moments when a guest segment is falling flat—the audience is providing key segueways and fillers and affirmations and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

And it’s overtly political when a fading movie action hero trying to roll a seven on his latest film suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California.

Then it becomes a whole different twelve minutes. Then the studio-audience overreach of wild hysteria and laughter and clapping hands and standing O’s and the quality of the emotion are everything.

The movie hero, Arnold S, is suddenly carrying an immense amount of good will to the moon.

He is outlined and underlined and haloed in what they used to call pure jive, but this jive is now viewed by millions of at-home viewers as the real thing. Because on television, very little is the real thing and you have to accept all substitutes. Otherwise, you are doomed and exiled to the dark realms where you will question the authenticity of what everyone else is buying.

Much better to re-invent an exuberance that comes from an earlier branch of the evolutionary tree. Much better to find out you can roar from the belly and help this Arnold dude go for his coronation. Much better to experience a synthetic facsimile of emotional torque and bust a move that will shower sparks around his head and push him through a porthole into an ozone that just might be the closest thing you’ll ever find to immortality.

The signs are on in the TV studio, the final directions are being given, the musicians are ready, the applause fluffers are gesturing at the audience, the go-signal is given.

We have a hero, we know his name, we know what to do. What else do we need?

That’s television.

That’s a slice of Matrix programming for America.

Now in 2013, it’s standard practice. Politicians plan their guest shots on Leno, Letterman, Fallon, Ferguson, Kimmel, The View, etc.

If they want to appeal to the younger crowd, they do Fallon, who plays the wild child with a juvey rap sheet, backed up by a howling studio audience who must be breathing meth through the ventilation system.

If they want to hit the fading boomer crowd, they do Letterman, who persists in his nightly imitation of a semi-retiree on the verge of dementia.

The formula is the same. Jack up the studio audience, transmit the hysteria to the viewing audience at home, and spread the television disease.

The audience as actor.

Which, by the way, is why reality shows are so popular. People who otherwise would never have moved out of the audience are now stars in their own right, in front of the camera.

The audience is now thoroughly aware that their contribution makes or breaks a television show, and so they feel perfectly entitled to celeb status and their own reality series, in a jungle, in a house, in an apartment, in a bathroom.

Entitlement-audiences and entitlement-citizens walk hand in hand through a society where rights are expanding to mean “I’ve got my cell phone, I’m somebody.”

The content of an idea or the value of an object is merely the number of reflections of applause that accompanies its presence.

And there is this evolution: a) What’s marketing? b) I have to market myself. c) I am what I’ve marketed.

The tree falling in the forest never makes a sound. There is no sound unless and until and only when the sound is promoted, preferably on television. Then it exists.

Then the people who watch the tree fall on their screens hear it, and they become important. They become kings and queens in a cartoon matrix.

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.

Salon.com attacks Jeff Rense and Jay Weidner

Mr. Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon.com attacks Jeff Rense and Jay Weidner

by Jon Rappoport

January 23, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Alex Seitz-Wald has written a hit piece at Salon.com, attacking Jeff Rense, the owner of rense.com and long-time radio host, and Jay Weidner, who has decades of experience as a radio host and documentary producer, including extensive research into the films of Stanley Kubrick.

Seitz-Wald’s Salon article, “Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy,” slams a radio conversation between Rense and Weidner.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T76WAh9zVAY

Among dozens of holes in the official account of the Sandy Hook murders, we have massively disturbing interviews with parents of the dead children and key members of the Newtown community.

These boggling interviews were the subject of the radio conversation Rense had with Weidner. Apparently, it really got under Seitz-Wald’s skin, because he had to feature it in his hit piece.

In particular, he went after this comment Jay Weider made: “They [the Sandy Hook residents interviewed on television] aren’t behaving the way human beings would act.”

Seitz-Wald writes:

“Why aren’t the [Sandy Hook] adults sadder [in their television interviews]? ‘They aren’t behaving the way human beings would act,’ as conspiracy theorist Jay Weidner told fellow conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense on his radio show. Theorists have zeroed in on Robbie Parker, who they say wasn’t grieving hard enough for his slain 6-year-old daughter, Emilie. In one widely circulated clip, Parker laughs before stepping up to the microphone, and apparently someone says ‘read from the card‘ (as in cue card) before Parker breathes heavily in anticipation of beginning a press conference. ‘This is what actors do to get into character,’ one popular YouTube video states.”

Let’s take this statement apart. It’s easy. Seitz-Wald actually makes Rense’s and Weidner’s case for them by pointing to Parker. Because Robbie Parker, as anyone can see, chuckles, smiles, and acts quite relaxed and chummy just before he takes to the podium to deliver his words of grief.

It’s so stunning you have to look at the clip several times to believe your own eyes. And worse, you then watch Parker huff and puff and try to, yes, put himself into character so he can appear suitably devastated.

Does this mean he’s a hired actor? Neither Rense nor Weidner drew that conclusion, but Setiz-Wald casually allows his readers to think so.

In fact, Rense and Weidner were talking about something else, something very important: the “missing pieces” in the psyches of people who are interviewed on television, in the wake of personal horrors, people who simply don’t behave as human beings would, who show no exploding grief, no collapse, no sign of profound shock or loss.

At Salon, Seitz-Wald tries to solve this “puzzle” by referring to a study that claims the alternation between “sadness and mirth” occurs often in people who have undergone a tragedy.

This is patently absurd. The irrelevant study wasn’t tightly focused on a devastating massacre of very young children. It didn’t take into account the omnivorous presence of television and its influence.

Seitz-Wald continues: “Rense and Weidner also take issue with the mourning of the school nurse, the family of slain teacher Victoria Soto, and others.”

Yes, absolutely, and why not? The behavior of these people, as they were interviewed on television, was profoundly lacking in the kind of grief we would expect.

And Seitz-Wald calls Rense and Weidner conspiracy theorists? It’s he who doesn’t have eyes to see. If he did, and actually watched these bizarre interviews, he too would be disturbed. But instead, he’s ready to cast “conspiracy theorists” as people who believe nothing happened at Sandy Hook and no one died.

That’s one of his missions in the article, and he’s willing to grossly misrepresent Rense and Weidner to achieve the objective.

His tactic is classic. Attack the people whose ideas you want to neutralize, don’t carefully examine and report what they’re saying, and along the way attribute to them ideas they never had.

Seitz-Wald mentions another now-famous Sandy Hook resident, Gene Rosen, who was interviewed several times about the help he gave to a group of children who had fled the school.

Seitz-Wald fails to point out what Jay Weidner was saying about Rosen—that he too showed no sign of real shock or grief, certainly not at the level one would expect after 20 children had been murdered a few blocks away.

Instead, Seitz-Wald focuses on criticisms made of Rosen’s account of the timeline, during which he brought children into his house and then called their parents.

Again, Weidner and Rense were talking about something else, something far more important: WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY, SUCH THAT THEY CAN’T FIND HUMAN FEELINGS IN THEMSELVES WHEN HORRIFIC TRAGEDY STRIKES?

You want conspiracy? Here it is. People who make their living in media see no problem in the failure to be human. They set up, prepare for, and construct interviews in which people, routinely, do not act human. That is conspiracy-plus. It is an ongoing and concerted effort to hold up a mirror to millions of viewers—and the reflection says: ACT LIKE AN ANDROID BECAUSE WE LIVE IN AN ANDROID WORLD.

That is television’s day-to-day message: forget what it means to be human.

Weidner and Rense were carrying on a mature and vital conversation about the loss of humanity in modern society. For that, they were taken to task. How preposterous.

I’ll go out on a limb, after reading Seitz-Wald’s bio, and assume he’s on the side of gun control. He “interned at the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer at PBS.” He “co-founded and edited the Olive and Arrow, a blog on foreign affairs for and by young progressives.”

Does he want to avoid any break in the smooth advance from Sandy Hook to new gun laws? Does he want to derail the possibility that a real investigation of what happened at Sandy Hook would take the focus away from the guns?

I don’t know what his personal motive was for writing his Salon piece, but it surely missed the mark by a mile.

If Seitz-Wald wants to undertake something important, rather than deliver his brush-off, frivolous, and underhanded attack, he should invite Jeff Rense and Jay Weidner to a real conversation.

Let the three of them sit on camera for a couple of hours and put up the clips of television interviews with Gene Rosen, Robbie Parker, the Soto family, H Wayne Carver, Sally Cox, Kaitlin Roig, and other Sandy Hook residents.

Let’s hear a conversation about these stunning documents for our time. Stunning because they show that human beings can talk to television reporters about a profound and horrific personal tragedy without vaguely approaching what it means to be human.

That’s what Rense and Weidner were delving into on the radio, and that exploration is far from over. It makes what Seitz-Wald wrote shamelessly puerile.

Major media not only exploit victims of grief for the sake of a narrative, they tap into victims at a shocking level where there is no authentic feeling at all, and they show the audience that vacuum as a representation of reality.

If this were merely a trick, it wouldn’t be so significant. But as the television interviews with the people of Sandy Hook reveal, the interviewees are all too eager to play along. They have lost their compass completely. They have become robots by choice.

The day when a serious conversation about this is unimportant is the day when we are all underwater for good. Rense and Weidner were exploring this subject, as genuine investigators of the human condition should.

You want to talk about something real, Mr. Seitz-Wald? Start there. Buckle up, because you’re in for a bumpy ride.

Was your attack on Rense and Weidner just an offhand, tiresome, and predictable hit piece lumping together “conspiracy theorists,” because it was a slow day and you wanted to file something at Salon?

You really need to pay more attention to what the people you’re attacking are saying. It helps. I’ve found it really helps. You start by listening to their words and the intent of those words. That way you can glean the actual subject they’re covering, not some other subject.

From there, you think about what they’re exploring. You do a little thinking. Sometimes it’s hard and it throws you off your pre-formed opinion and headline, but you do it anyway. It’s part of the job.

Then (I’m really trying to help here), you decide what you think of what they think. You do it honestly. And then you gather yourself and you write. You write something that might turn out to be important.

That’s what you want. Something important, rather than something cheap that sheds paint flakes the first time you pick it up and shake it. In the long run, this will serve you. You’ll develop a habit and perhaps even a taste for going after what’s important.

In closing, I’d like to refer to another article of yours, “The Hitler gun control lie.” You made the point that Jews having guns in Germany wouldn’t have protected them from the death camps. The Nazi soldiers would have overwhelmed the Jews anyway.

I was struck by that point. I asked myself, and I ask you, if you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, how would you have wanted to die? I believe it’s a legitimate question, one that the scholars you cited rarely if ever consider.

Would you have chosen to move numbly with your family to a boxcar on a track, on your way to a camp, or would you rather have stood in your living room, in front of your wife and children, shooting bullets at your attackers?

I ask this because, again, it has to do with the definition of being human in this world. It has to do with possessing the means and the will and the desire to choose how to live and die.

Just as you ignored the very same subject in the radio conversation between Jeff Rense and Jay Weidner, I believe you ignored it in your article about Hitler, Jews, and guns.

The Matrix Revealed

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

What is the world you hope will come to pass, Mr. Seitz-Wald? I’m not asking for the flip superficial answer here, but the real one, the one that hopefully beats in your heart and mind and spirit. What are you hoping and aiming for?

People like Rense and Weidner and me, and many others who are sometimes characterized as conspiracy theorists, consider this question every day.

In case you interested, that’s where we’re coming from. This isn’t a little foolish social game we’re playing. We’ve shoved in all our chips. We look at you and we don’t see that. We see something else.

If we’re wrong, prove it. Let’s see your hole cards, because it’s rather late in the evening, and this is the main hand, and it’s time for the Reveal.

You came into our house, and it appears you were riding on a goof, but this isn’t it. This is something entirely different.

If you’re out, walk away. If you’re in, lay down all your cards. Let’s see what you’ve really got.

Your brand has no cache here. What kind of human are 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

How television will shape the new gun-culture in America

How television will shape the new gun-culture in America

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Weapons are being fired all the time on television, but that happens on cop shows. Network programmers know the public will obsessively watch guns going off and bodies falling.

On the news, however, the issue of gun ownership is adjudicated independently of the glee that accompanies watching fictional people kill each other.

When it’s fantasy, the audience wants violence. When it’s real, the audience wants no violence.

Dealing with this schizoid condition would be a problem for the networks, were it not for the fact that there is a bridge between the two states of mind:

“The good guys win.”

They win in every episode of every cop show. They always have. Decades of this operant conditioning lead the audience to expect it will happen in real life, where crime and guns and cops are involved.

So in the wake of Sandy Hook, for the public, the resolution must belong to the cops.

The idea that it might somehow belong to private citizens doesn’t sit right.

The cops win by controlling the guns.

For the television-watching public, that fits. It makes sense. In every crime series, the guns of the cops turn out to be superior to those of the criminals…so to speak.

And in real life, it translates into: take the guns from private citizens. Make the good guys win.

Logic is not part of this. The vision is of cops (and their allies) taking guns away from bad guys, who are then left powerless to commit murder. It’s simple and obvious and conclusive and satisfying…to a mind that’s been captured by television cop shows at a nine-year-old level and frozen there forever.

Bad guys had guns. Therefore, they could kill people. Now they don’t have guns. They can’t kill people.

The nonsense and illegality and unworkability of this vision is beside the point.

The myriad ways in which thousands of criminals obtain weapons is off the table as an issue. It’s too complex for a nine-year-old to consider.

As a corollary to this puerile solution to crime (take the guns), we have an equally insane command: the solution must apply to all 315 million people living in America.

Again, nine-year olds don’t pause to reflect on the logistics.

Enter the elite television anchor. Whether it’s the slick momma’s boy who crafts the image of a “post-Newton era of gun control” (Brian Williams, NBC), or a gray man who looks down his nose like a tightly wound FBI agent about to raid a warehouse full of weapons (Scott Pelley, CBS), or a blond can of syrup dripping maple tears as she weeps for America (Diane Sawyer, ABC), the mission is the same:

By gesture, facial expression, careful placement of not-quite-neutral words, let the viewing audience know that a corner has been turned; the way guns are viewed has changed once and for all; the tragedy at Sandy Hook is too deep; we cannot move on as before.

From the three networks, the message is delivered. This is a watershed moment for the CULTURE.

It’s the 9/11 of guns.

We will not only see new laws, and new executive orders from the president. “All civilized people” will talk and think about guns differently, just as they changed their minds about wearing animal fur. This is the program coming out of the gate.

We’ll see it performed six ways from Sunday on the news and on news magazine shows. Forever.

However, there is a glitch. In the world of fiction, movies, television, video games, trillions of dollars are riding on the public fantasy about guns. How do you change the culture when people are still hungry to spend their money on vicariously living out the shoot-’em-up blow-’em-up legends?

What about Hollywood actors, who have made a handsome living portraying vicious pricks and relentless cops, blasting thousands of rounds from assault weapons? Do you expect them to boycott those roles in the future? What roles will they play to satisfy the audience’s desire to experience violence? Kung Fu masters fighting other Kung Fu masters? Animals tearing their prey to pieces on open plains?

How many comedies can you sell about four idiots taking a road trip to Vegas?

The elite television anchors will go up against the cop shows on their own networks.

The outcome won’t be decided in a month or a year.

Painting all gun owners as Neanderthals takes time.

It takes a crazy concealed-carry Texas uncle here and there on sitcoms.

It takes a few dozen episodes of Law and Order, in which parents leave guns lying around for children to pick up and tragically use.

It takes a Lifetime movie about a video game designer, who enters a moral crisis when he sees his game come to life on the streets of small-town America, as kids riddle each other with bullets outside a barber shop.

It takes a movie about a fur-wearing psychopath mowing down a gay household.

The shows people love will morph into updated teaching moments, as the networks pray their ratings will hold.

On cop shows, you’ll eventually see this sort of thing: a team of black, brown, yellow, and white community organizers, working to rid a neighborhood of guns, is murdered, one at a time, by a rogue “serial killer” cop, who drinks heavily and has a psychotic fixation about the 2nd Amendment. Finally, a DHS squad blows the cop away —afterward expressing deep regret they had to use their 60 weapons with 600-round magazines.

Brian Williams, who maintains his deep abiding empathy for men out west with guns, will give you this:

“Today in Moosehead, California, police retrieved the very last gun owned in that town by a private citizen. But it came at a price.

“John Anger, who at the age of 84 had been living all of his years in the house where he was born, was sitting on his back porch cleaning his grandfather’s Bushmaster rifle, when three children, cutting through his yard, as they always did, every day, coming home from school, saw Mr. Anger with his weapon, and obeyed those vital lessons they’d learned in school since the first grade.

“They called the police. And the police came. With the children safely out of the way, a squad of eight DHS-certified men and women issued an order to Mr. Anger, who unfortunately was deaf and wasn’t wearing his hearing aid, which neighbors later said he called an ‘annoying Medicare contraption.’

“Mr. Anger didn’t put down his rifle. This gave the police no choice.

“John Anger is now lying in the Soames Mortuary on McGillicudy Street, in Moosehead, the last person in that town to own a gun. He is gone, but the children are safe tonight in their homes with their parents.”

60 Minutes will run a story about a rich banker who lives on his large estate in Virginia, and has decided he no longer wants to skeet-shoot. Instead, he’s donating that acreage to a “research project,” in which former gun owners are re-educated in the ways of non-violence.

If you think all this is frivolous, look at a few hundred hours of television from the 1950s, and then compare the content to today’s network programming. You’ll understand that more than money drives the evolution of popular culture.

Influencing minds is an ongoing preoccupation of the television medium.

It’s all about creating a new culture, when the order comes down to make it so.

Reality-formation. Fabric realignment in the Matrix.

The Matrix Revealed

In the case of guns and violence, the blueprint for changing the culture has been on the drawing board for some time. The television networks have planned how to make citizens think about guns the way they now think about animal fur.

Sandy Hook was the green light to put the blueprint into effect.

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

Mexican drug cartels celebrate gun control

Mexican drug cartels celebrate US gun control / gun grab

By Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The best way to depict what’s going on in America is through a letter from the head of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, to President Obama.

In case people are ready to assume this letter is real, it isn’t, but the spirit of it is very true and very real:

Dear President Obama,

Let me begin by saying that you can count on us to support your efforts in disarming American citizens in any way we can.

The Fast and Furious operation backfired a bit in this regard, but I’m glad to see it hasn’t stopped you.

As you know, we are making inroads on US soil. We’ve set up significant operations in the Southwest, one area where armed citizens can be a bit of trouble to us, especially if they own land we cross or are adjacent to.

We view their disarming with a positive attitude. I would say your basic gun-grabbing strategy is primarily aimed at the American West. The border states need to be cleaned out. The fewer people there who have guns (particularly those with high-capacity clips), the easier it is for us.

But since our drug trafficking lines take in most of America, wherever citizens aren’t armed we’re generally in better shape.

I’m pleasantly surprised that media in your country haven’t pressed you to name the areas where most gun violence is taking place. After all, if your objective is to reduce that violence, you would think a campaign directed at gangs in inner cities would rank number one on your to-do list.

Those areas and those gangs do subcontracting work for us (and other Mexican cartels). Leaving them in place is a priority for us. So congratulations on being able to skirt this tricky issue. Your cojones are, indeed, huge.

Please pass along my thanks to Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer. I assume they are in your pocket and carrying your message. Undoubtedly, they are also refraining from bringing up the gang issue. Whenever I speak with the president of Mexico, I point out your masterly and deft control of media as a model we should emulate.

The Matrix Revealed

Now to the real reason I’m writing. In Chicago, your crime stronghold, one of our people is on trial. This is a sensitive matter, as you know.

The defendant, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, wants to expose our arrangement. This must not happen. So far, your DEA and CIA have managed to gain trial delays.

Niebla and his lawyers are ready to offer documents that show the Sinaloa has US federal permission to ship tons of drugs into Chicago, and from there to other distribution points in the US.

Niebla will reveal this deal was made so that Sinaloa would provide valuable information on our rival cartels to the DEA and the FBI.

Therefore, Niebla will point out that he has special immunity from prosecution. That was part of the deal for high-ranking Sinaloa members.

Fortunately, his trial hasn’t been played up in the American press. Again, well done. Coverage has been stifled. It’s stayed on the back burner, and the CIA and DEA are claiming no such immunity deal exists for Niebla.

But at the same time, the CIA has been making motions in court to have documents excluded from the trial on the basis of National Security.

This is a gross tip-off to our deal, and it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s awkward. I’m sure you agree, Mr. President.

The last thing we need here is exposure, especially while you’re pushing forward your gun-grabbing program.

Sinaloa has members and agents and sub-contractors operating all over the US, and naturally these people are armed. They not only sell drugs, they shoot people. We can’t control everything they do.

They get into intramural squabbles and use their weapons to settle disagreements. Bodies pile up. Sometimes, innocent people are killed.

Our subcontractors commit unrelated crimes that have nothing to do with drugs. They rob, they steal, they shoot, they kill.

If it comes out that Sinaloa and all its component parts, operating within US borders, are contributing mightily to high gun-violence statistics—

And if it comes out that Sinaloa has a special arrangement to do business in the US without fear of disruption—

Your gun-grabbing program and our operations will both be in dire jeopardy.

And the blow-up in the press will be catastrophic for both of us.

You and I understand this is just business, but other people don’t see it that way.

Therefore, Mr. President, I’m stating, in the strongest terms possible, that the Niebla trial in Chicago has to be shut down, one way or another.

Either a quiet plea deal has to be struck, or we will be forced to do something drastic. Soon.

If I’m reading you right, and I believe I am, your gun-grabbing program is just one step in an Operation Chaos aimed at destabilizing your country.

In the past, we have contributed to that agenda, and we continue to do so. We don’t pretend to understand this whole game at its higher levels, but to us that doesn’t matter. We’re in business to make money and sell product.

We support you.

And we expect you to support us.

Congratulations on achieving a second term in office. Please pass along my regards to President Bush, his father, and President Clinton.

By the way, in case you weren’t briefed on the specifics of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, I want to state, unequivocally, that no Sinaloa member provided professional services in those operations, which were obviously aimed at provoking a successful follow-up gun-control program.

Yours truly,

XXXXXX

CEO, Sinaloa

 

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

Media fascism is all about trusted television anchors

Media fascism is all about trusted television anchors

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Every civilization and every generation has their defining voices.

The voice does two things. It tells the story of the times; and it injects the telltale emotions, moods, and attitudes of that story.

The public swallows the tale with all its lies and omissions, and accepts the way in which the whole act is spooled out by the sound of the narrative voice.

The tone of the story creates a trance.

Different societies are vulnerable to different styles of story-telling.

Americans on this side of the Atlantic, listening to the radio speeches of Hitler delivered with staccato militant force, thought the German people were clearly crazy to go along.

It never occurred to the Americans, glued to their radios listening to President Roosevelt, that many Germans would think the sing-song pseudo-British style of the aristocratic FDR was a transparent joke.

What I’m talking about here has has NOTHING to do with the American cause or the Nazi cause. It has to do with different voices for different societies.

“I’ll take my hypnosis on rye with mustard.” “I’ll have mine on a bun with mayo.”

It’s assumed that, because Hitler and Mussolini were cementing their control through mass arrests and overt shows of force, they could get away with vocal displays of shouting and intimidation. Otherwise, the people would have turned away from them in disgust.

That’s not the whole picture, by any means. Large numbers of people in Germany and Italy responded enthusiastically to the voices of Hitler and Mussolini.

The trance they entered, as a result, wasn’t a passive narcosis. It was a kind of hysteria that demanded action.

If, down the road, America is put under an OPENLY declared state of martial law, with all the bells and whistles attached, the elite television anchors, like Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, will tell that story—not like Mussolini would—but as our anchors always do; in measured, “responsible, objective” tones. It will be “grave and sober.” The voices will suggest a dollop of alarm, but…everything is under control.

That’s the way modern Americans want to hear The Voice narrate the story of the times.

And the president of the moment? He will deploy those same tones. He won’t be standing on the balcony of a building shouting and waving his arms.

But the result will be the same.

In the wake of post-WW2 America, as the feisty combative Harry Truman exited the White House, the bland-egg Eisenhower took up residency. He was always calm and under control. He was the modest hero. He was what you’d call, in his speeches, a Grade B anchor. Not good, but not the worst.

At the same time, American television news was coming into being. Douglas Edwards, one of the first elite anchors, was a smoother, better-trained-for-television Eisenhower. Ed Murrow, who had been narrating the war from London, added his “pregnant-with-meaning” ominous tone to US news broadcasting.

The narrative style of the American voice was under construction.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, along with Walter Cronkite, moved in to put their ineradicable stamp on the sound of our civilization. They were a step up from Doug Edwards. They could crystallize a tight range of repressed feelings in every distinct sentence they uttered. They were coming out of literary traditions: Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett.

Tough guy with a warm edge.

America loved it. Those new voices enabled every kind of con, six ways from Sunday, to be visited on an adoring public.

Flash forward to 1968. Despite the revolution of the ’60s, more than half of voting America still wanted the whitebread, big-bullshit, used-car-salesman nostalgia of the previous decade. So Richard Nixon, a man who couldn’t open his lips without lying on several simultaneous levels, waltzed into the White House.

After the hopeless Gerald Ford stood in for Nixon, a cartoon of a cartoon was needed; a peacemaker; a man “of the cloth.” Sold out to David Rockefeller down to his jockstrap, Jimmy Carter came to the presidency to heal the nation from Watergate. He was the new voice silkily twanging the American story, a respite from Nixon.

Then, out of Hollywood, appeared an actor who, despite a wretched history in films, could sell the shining city on the hill. Reagan performed far better than expected on the podium. America wanted a redux of the freedom story, and he supplied it, as the invasive federal government nevertheless continue to burgeon from its every rotting pore.

And on it went. Presidents and anchors on television conspired to deliver a two-dimensional fairy tale, in a country where an accelerated androidal conformity was beginning to dominate the landscape.

Television was the mutual electronic feeding trough for the Great Voices and the public. They mixed and matched and swam in convenient concert, through gray offal.

Talent spotters at the networks and inside the major political parties knew what to look for. They knew how the voices needed to sound. They knew the game.

Slightly more progressive and hip for the boomers? Bill Clinton.

Shit-kicker John Wayne retro? GW Bush.

A new interplanetary sun-god messiah? Obama.

A Hemingway knockoff with an edge in his voice? Dan Rather.

Smooth-groomed high IQ macaque? Brian Williams.

Might turn in his mother to the cops? Scott Pelley.

Drooling sad-eyed swan imported from the Morning Show? Diane Sawyer.

Sacrifice the mind on the altar of cosmically oozing sentimentality, tricked out as news? Oprah.

Floating blithely in an ocean of high-level corporate-government-banking crimes, Americans can choose their favorite voice to obscure the truth and tell a very, very tall tale.

That’s what people want, and that’s what they get.

Will any of these elite voices ever upset a serious apple cart? Not on your life.

If America really wanted a Hitler to stand in the middle of the Rose Bowl, surrounded by perfect columns of ramrod soldiers, and lay out the next hundred years of triumph of the will, do you think the television networks would find one?

Are you kidding? In a New York minute.

But Americans want their fascism soft-boiled. Americans want gradualism. They don’t want a coup in the middle of the night. They want to watch the leaves fall off the tree of freedom one branch at a time.

When the Republicans ran Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, they were banking on the premise that somehow, somewhere, the majority of the public desired a retro Wonder Bread hero. But that voice and that tone and that mood didn’t fit. It didn’t carry the day.

The Matrix Revealed

Interestingly, there was an enormous groundswell for a man who had no voice at all, in the media sense. He just told the truth as he saw it, and he cut deep with that sword. His millions of supporters had awakened from the need for a trance.

They were alert to the fascism of the American power structure. They wanted out, and they had their leader in that cause.

But the Republican door was firmly closed to him, because of his ideas, but also because he wasn’t a typical anchor.

Ron Paul.

You can take this to the bank. If Ron Paul ever became the voice of our times, reality itself as most people accept it would crack under their feet, and they would fall into black space screaming.

One reason? Paul isn’t spinning a story with the impressive rhythms and tones and segueways of a media pro. Therefore, you actually have to pay attention to the content of his words. That alone is enough to give most people strokes, blood clots, and titanic neurological chaos.

Two? Paul knows what American fascism is. He has a solid reference point: the Constitution. He understands our fascism has a corporate and government undertow. When he says Audit the Fed, he’s not speaking as an accountant.

This fact brings on heart arrhythmia at Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR. Accountants can be relied on to hide the basic facts. A guy like Ron Paul? He actually wants the basic truth and basic crimes of the Fed to come to light. All of them. Danger.

Ron Paul is a narrative-breaker. He interrupts the flow and the trance. His memory of history excludes Walter Cronkite as the father of our country. It goes back to the period when there was, God forbid, no television and no radio. There was a Constitution.

The US government is loathe to legislate mandatory television-news-watching to every American. It leaves that aspect of the fascist agenda to its corporate partners and their advertising agencies.

And little boys and girls dream of growing up and becoming finely coiffed and perfumed anchors and pundits.

A precious few will make it. They’ll tell tales of the adored Matrix. They’ll carve their names in the fake book of chords and melodies. They’ll stir the appropriate sentiments. They’ll deliver the news every night. They’ll present every half-cocked limited hangout and define every outrageous set of straitjacket parameters to a prepared audience.

You’re an aspiring anchor? Come on down. Some day you might be the chosen one. You might become the messenger, the talent turned out by the royal court, to ring the bells and sing the songs. If you’re lucky, and you sing on key, you may have five or 10 years before the next up-and-coming voice edges you out.

You might be assigned to bring mind control to your generation. You might be the one to obscure and conceal the real Fed Reserve, the crimes of the medical cartel, the Globalist agenda, the theft of trillions of dollars, the Collectivist framework, and the death of individual freedom.

Doesn’t that sound like a great job? And you can call it responsible journalism.

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

Alan Dershowitz is now a Woody Allen parody

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

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Now Alan’s playing Woody on live television.

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

Drum roll, cymbal crash.

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Alex Jones: Best Night of Television Ever

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

You ignore the nicey-nice stuff.

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

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

It happened last night.

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

Then it did.

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

Thanks, Alex. You came through like a champion.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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.

NY Times: trashing the Constitution for fun and profit

NY Times: trashing the Constitution for fun and profit

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

re: NY Times op-ed, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” December 30, by Louis Michael Seidman

It doesn’t surprise me that the NY Times has decided the Constitution is merely a reference document now. The paper’s loyal readership, what’s left of it, lives huddled on the upper east side of New York, behind their hundred-million-dollar front doors, where wealth must be protected through any and all means.

The Constitution might impede that. Much better to have a central government that knows what its business and obligations really are: guarding the fortunes of the rich.

The Times editorial, of course, doesn’t say that. It merely leaves the founding document to wave in the breeze, its every pronouncement up for grabs.

The editorial is a test run to gauge the reaction.

Cutting the ropes that tether the Constitution to the government and the people isn’t a call for new energized dialogue on our common foundations. Things don’t work that way. Instead, what you get is naked fascism; the stronger force wins all arguments.

History, if paid attention to, would teach us that. But history isn’t on the minds of the powers behind the Times. They, like every other special-interest group in America, want guarantees. Wherever the trough is located, they want to stand at the head of the line and feed from it.

They want assured survival in an era of bailouts and waivers. If trillions of dollars are being thrown around by the White House, if the corruption is so thick it’s creating the biggest junta and banana republic in the history of the planet, they want in.

And they want, of course, the government to have all the guns, which requires a new rendering of the 2nd Amendment.

Obama needs allies in his next four years, as he strives to shred as much of the Constitution as he possibly can, and the Times just sent him a signal that they’re with him.

For example, HUD is about to unleash a new housing program across America, a residential version of forced school busing. It will compel every local government that accepts federal-housing money to erect low-income housing and “desegregate its demographic.”

The Constitutional legality of this move is across the river and into the trees. Court battles will spring up like grass in the spring. The White House needs back-up. The Times will provide it. It will come out and say enormous wealth redistribution is right and just and real, and the hell with the Constitution.

It will also provide reasons aplenty to disarm the citizenry of this country.

The smoke-signal Times editorial is saying, “We don’t need to hide in the dark and snipe at this Constitutional provision and that provision. We can now come out in the open and paint a big X across the whole document, in favor of ‘what’s good for the people.’”

What remain unsaid is, in these gargantuan wealth transfers there are built-in mechanisms for theft. Not skim; outright wholesale robbery. Billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, trillions disappear down holes, never to be seen or remembered again.

The federal government’s accounting books are so complex they make Vatican law or the Kabbalah, by comparison, read like Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill. The opportunities for stealing announce themselves on every page.

Everybody wants in. The Times, which has re-financed its debt, which is floundering in deep water, is inclining its well-coiffed head at Washington and asking, “Isn’t there room for a few billion for us?”

Achtung, baby, there is room. You scratch their back and they’ll scratch yours. You trash the Constitution and they’ll hand you bags of cash. It’s democracy. Ain’t it grand?

The Matrix Revealed

Somewhere on the upper east of the New York, a hundred-million-dollar liberal is drinking his morning coffee and saying to his wife: “Honey, this whole country is turning into a giveaway game show. It’s deeply embarrassing. I can’t believe it. But you know, if they’re handing out prizes, I guess I should find out how to knock on the relevant office door.”

He blushes. Oh, the shame of it. The impropriety.

His wife, who is a lot smarter than he is, pats his hand. “Don’t think of a door, dear. Think of an alley. Talk to that man who deposited four dumpsters full of drug money in your bank last week. I think he’ll know something. And keep reading the Times every day. They’ll keep you informed about who’s who in the new economy.”

“Yes,” he says. “That’s good. It’s all about redistribution now. It’s not a dirty word anymore.”

In a similar but more lavishly appointed breakfast room in the same part of town, a graying NY Times eminence is sipping his morning coffee. He’s saying to his wife, “You know, I once thought our newspaper was a pimp. But now I see it’s a whore.”

She smiles.

“What took you so long to figure that out?” she says.

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