Category Archives: Press Fraud

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

The ideal television anchor and his role in the Matrix

The ideal television news anchor and his role in The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

January 1, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is. The elite anchors, from Douglas Edwards and John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the style. They define the genre.

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

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

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

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

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.

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

Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition of other anchors, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.

The television anchors are, indeed, a different breed.

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

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

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

The elite anchor must believe the basic parameters and boundaries and context of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a story and reveal it as a cardboard facade. No. Never.

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

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

Some children are born with a narrative voice. Everything they say, from an early age, has the ring of authority and sounds like the news. It’s built in, as if it’s coming through a microphone. I went to school with a boy like that. He appealed to the gullible, because when they heard him speak they associated the tone and the seamless rhythms with truth.

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

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem. Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, that fact alone means there is news to report. What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because he said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

Therefore, as night follows the day, the anchor is a mouthpiece for government and corporations.

The anchor must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own—and jarring idiosyncrasies are utterly out of the question. On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

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

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

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

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

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, a danger light blinks on and a mark is entered against her in the book.

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

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

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.

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

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

In ancient Athens, if there were voices narrating the story line of the Polis, they belonged to the playwrights. They translated their current myths into tragedy and comedy.

Now, the voice belongs to the elite anchor. He is the polished predator drone that descends on the nation every night to make his case for What Is Important.

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

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The Matrix Revealed

But it turns out that his answer is wrong. The people, at a profound level, want to be awakened. This is what they’re waiting for. This is what they’re hoping for, despite all appearances to the contrary.

They want to throw off the whole cloud of boredom and anxiety that surrounds them. They want to offload the whole stinking mess of lies.

If by some miracle, this revolution occurred on the evening news, the people wouldn’t collapse, the nation wouldn’t collapse. The news divisions of the networks would collapse.

They aren’t geared for the truth. Their sources don’t tell the truth. Their reporters aren’t given time to find the truth.

And the anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to believing the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears. He would have to become a different kind of actor, one he has no training for.

“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”

I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal coughing paroxysm.

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the famous event wherein King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba, would now officially be conceived as illustrative of The Arrival, a Church “headline” category, covering many disparate bits of the past.

Reinterpreted, Sheba and Solomon were nothing more and nothing less than the Church’s precise copyrighted and fully owned story of the entrance of Jesus into this world. One arrival became another arrival.

If this seems absurd, unbelievable, grossly puerile, and illogical to us today, it was very serious business for the Roman Church. Recasting history was an essential function of its news division.

You can go to a small church in the Tuscan town of Arezzo and see one of the greatest paintings realized in all of Western history, Piero della Francesca’s Legend of the True Cross. A panel of this fresco depicts King Solomon receiving the Queen of Sheba.

Why? Why is it there? Why was it part of the Legend of the True Cross? Because, suddenly, it was The Arrival. It had new official, historical, and technical meaning, as decreed by the Roman Church.

The Church’s news division had made it so, led by its universally trusted eunuchs, the priests, the bishops, the cardinals, the Popes, the elite anchors, weaving their Matrix.

Today, you could ask, how can people believe the popular stories of wars, when we know powerful financiers and corporations support both sides, for their own devious objectives?

People believe because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s part of the act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

The audience’s faith in the anchor was magnified.

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

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

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

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

The mind-control flicker machine runs on its own.

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

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

Guard the rest from public view.

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

Most viewers still accept that premise.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Sandy Hook: Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

by Jon Rappoport

December 12, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t know what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We don’t know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence.

The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.

So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.

The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle. Why? No idea.

Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.

Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.

That old thread is gone down the memory hole.

What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.

This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.

Which is the whole point.

The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”

This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.

At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”

But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer sharp. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.

“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”

“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”

“Or was it really a rifle?”

“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”

All these obvious and reasonable questions have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.

He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.

This is mind control.

The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.

He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.

He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.

And the viewer pays the price.

Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.

Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.

The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.

The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.

Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.

Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.

Interesting how they never disagree.

Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.

What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?

But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.

They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.

And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

Why?

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next shot.

“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. Tell me the beginning and the middle and the end. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

And the anchors oblige.

They deal the drug.

But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

And the drug deal is consummated.

Welcome to television coverage.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segueway that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:

Give up the guns.

In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why law-enforcement agencies are so titanically armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.

Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers subliminally recognize that the television anchors are actually government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable?

Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?

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.