How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s called an investigation. Reporters do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What? You mean he was…set up?”

“Maybe he was a patsy.”

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

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

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

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

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

This is Matrix programming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Matrix Revealed


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, that isn’t part of the coverage.

It would interrupt the entrainment.

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

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

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

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

It’s a closed system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning.

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

Jon Rappoport

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

THE FORCES OF EVIL PREPARE TO STRIKE DOWN PROP 37

 

THE FORCES OF EVIL PREPARE TO STRIKE DOWN PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

November 5, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn’t something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.

 

Experts” claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.

 

You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.

 

You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you’ll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.

 

For some reason, you have no right to know about that.

 

It’s no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.

 

On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.

 

The idea behind 37 is simple. If you’re eating food, you have a right to know what’s in it and what’s been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is “the same in all aspects” as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.

 

Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.

 

They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.

 

You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things “honest.”

 

That’s what they think of you: you’re an idiot. You can’t make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.

 

Let me draw an exact parallel. Let’s suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.

 

Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, “I wasn’t there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more.”

 

Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?

 

It’s the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They’re good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you’re too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what’s in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.

 

That’s the argument.

 

YES ON 37=you have a right to know.

 

NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.

 

According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their “truth” wasn’t doing the job.

 

And they have lied.

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

 

In other words, they’re looking at you as if you were a leading suspect in a criminal case. The cops can put you in a room, they can falsely say they have a witness who saw you at the scene of the murder, who saw you dump the gun in a garbage can. They can falsely say they have you on video committing the murder. They can lie about all this non-existent evidence.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled this is legal in criminal cases. The cops can do this to get a confession from a suspect.

 

In the same way, the NO ON 37 people can tell you anything, can lie to you about anything, because it’s assumed their cause is just.

 

Your inherent right to know is a threat to the established order. It must be taken away.

 

The government is trying to make the same argument about vaccines. They want to close down all possible exemptions that would allow you to refuse a vaccine for yourself or your child. Why? Because, they say, only a moron would refuse a vaccine. Therefore, the CDC can make all sorts of false statements about dire disease threats and pandemics that aren’t pandemics, in order to scare you into taking a vaccine. It doesn’t matter what they say, as long as it results in you getting the vaccine.

 

And since you’re too stupid to realize the country is under constant threat from terrorists and, therefore, the government has to spy on you 24/7, they spy on you without a warrant. Secretly. Otherwise, you might object.

 

All these examples of preempting your right to know the truth are connected. They are the strategy of the corporate-government complex that runs America.

 

They claim to have a monopoly on truth. To impose the truth, they need to lie.

 

The massive push to defeat Prop 37 in California tomorrow is the latest illustration.

 

Cops need to lie, the FBI needs to lie, the CDC needs to lie, Homeland Security needs to lie, so NO ON 37 needs to lie.

 

Does it make you feel warm and safe?

 

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE LYING TO DEFEAT PROP 37

 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LYING TO DEFEAT PROP 37

By Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The vote is two days away. In California, Prop 37 is on the ballot. It states that all GMO food should be labeled as such, so the consumer can decide whether to buy it and eat it.

 

The NO ON 37 forces have been caught in a deception. They used the official seal of the FDA in a mailer, and above that seal they attributed a quote to the FDA which was never made by that agency.

 

The quote was: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.’”

 

The FDA told KPBS they “never made such statements with respect to Prop 37.”

 

Here’s the capper. After receiving a complaint about all this, the US Attorney in Sacramento, who works for the US Dept. of Justice, said he would refer the whole matter to the FDA.

 

What?

 

The question of whether NO ON 37 committed a crime is not up to the FDA. It’s up to the Dept. of Justice. Its their investigation.

 

The FDA isn’t going to arrest anyone at NO ON 37 for stealing its seal or making a false statement over that seal.

 

If you issued a pronouncement on Dept. of Commerce letterhead under the seal of that agency, would employees of Commerce arrest you? Of course not. The FBI (as an agency under the DOJ) would arrest you.

 

The US Attorney in Sacramento is essentially lying when he implies the FDA should handle the matter of its own seal being used without federal authority. There is no reason for the DOJ to refer this matter to the FDA. The DOJ should investigate NO ON 37. It’s their job.

 

Two days ago, the YES ON 37 people held what turned out to be an infamous press conference. As I’ve previously reported (see this and this), the whole thing degenerated into a hair-splitting argument, when reporters for major outlets like the LA Times and the NY Times demanded to know whether the DOJ had really launched an investigation into possible crimes committed by the NO ON 37 forces.

 

This distraction torpedoed the press conference.

 

These brain-addled reporters should have been asking why the DOJ didn’t launch a full-blown investigation and instead referred the matter to the FDA.

 

The headline on their subsequent stories should have read: DOJ REFUSES TO INVESTIGATE NO ON 37; REFERS INVESTIGATION TO WRONG AGENCY.

 

But truth isn’t the mission of these quacking ducks.

 

At the end of All the President’s Men, Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, tells his two cub reporters, Woodward and Bernstein: “We’re under a lot of pressure, you know…Nothing’s riding on this except the, uh, first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of the country…”

 

In this case, nothing is riding on the vote on Prop 37 except the future health of the country, the hidden destructive effects of GMO food, the capture of the food supply by Monsanto and its government allies, and the killing of small family farms.

 

So let’s stall and cover the wrong story, let’s ignore the underlying issues, let’s let the Dept. of Justice off the hook, let’s allow big pesticide and GMO companies, with their deep pockets, to swing Tuesday’s vote in their favor, let’s subvert the role of a free and vigorous press, let’s fiddle and faddle and take a hands-off attitude and do nothing.

 

And they call these people reporters.

 

They’re pernicious scum who bring a boomer indifference and smirking sense of entitlement to their work, which is no work at all. They’re not good enough to sharpen pencils or clean computer screens in the office of a real newspaper…if one existed.

 

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

DYING NY TIMES NOW TWEETING THE “NEWS” ON PROP 37

 

DYING NY TIMES NOW TWEETING THE ‘NEWS’ ON PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The latest reporter to dismiss the crimes of the NO ON 37 forces is Stephanie Strom of the NY Times. She’s tweeting. That’s right. The Times has hit rock bottom. Why don’t they just close their doors and fumigate the building?

 

Strom’s tweets are posted at her Muck Rack page:

 

http://muckrack.com/ssstrom

 

In yesterday’s YES ON 37 press conference, the right of California citizens to know whether their food is genetically engineered was undermined by reporters who kept whining and complaining about whether the DOJ was really investigating the NO ON 37 forces for fraud.

 

Was it an investigation or only a modest concern? Was it an inquiry? Was it just a returned phone call? Can six million angels dance on the head of a pin or only 5,999,999?

 

At the press conference, the YES ON 37 people raised legitimate concerns about fraud and felonies in the NO ON 37 ads. Among the concerns: NO ON 37 was illegally using the FDA seal to impart a false legitimacy to false statements.

 

But the reporters at the press conference didn’t care about that complaint. It wasn’t interesting to them. They only cared about whether the DOJ had opened an official investigation of NO ON 37.

 

So here is NY Times reporter Stephanie Strom tweeting the word of God yesterday.

 

Tweet One: “Yes on Prop 37 folks say they’ve heard the DOJ is pursuing a ‘criminal investigation’ of complaints.”

 

Tweet Two: “Oops—Yes on 37 say DOJ in [sic] investigating use of FDA seal by No on 37. It’s been a long week.”

 

Tweet Three: “So it’s not an ‘investigation’ at all. Beware of hyperbole.”

 

Well, that takes care of that. No official investigation, so who cares? No story there at all.

 

Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people are lying in their ads, are using the FDA seal illegally, which is a felony. Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people lied to voters in the California Voter’s Guide by making intentionally false statements, another felony. Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people attributed statements to organizations which those organizations say they never made. Who cares?

 

That’s not a story. The only story is whether the DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into NO ON 37.

 

That’s on the order of: “Look, the Justice Department denies Nixon was covering up anything, so there’s no story.”

 

Eric Holder, the Attorney General, says the DOJ didn’t do anything wrong in Operation Fast&Furious, so forget about the story.”

 

Janet Reno, the Attorney General, says every possible caution was taken at the Waco compound, so that’s that. End of story.”

 

Here’s what happened. Joe Sandler, lawyer for YES ON 37, got a phone call from an FBI agent, Jason Jones, a few days ago. Jones was following up on a complaint that had been lodged with the DOJ. The complaint laid out, chapter and verse, the lies the NO ON 37 forces had engaged in.

 

Sandler took this as a sign that the DOJ was investigating. But technically speaking, he was a bit off the mark. Who cares? Sandler basically had it right.

 

However, for eminent reporters, like Stephanie Strom, this was the end of it. No story. Move along, nothing to see. “Beware of hyperbole,” she writes.

 

I’m afraid not. “Beware of the NY Times. Beware of reporters for the Times who can’t see past their Twitter accounts.”

 

You can read my piece on the whole YES ON 37 press-conference fiasco here. It’s a bit more substantive than a tweet.

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/11/03/breaking-elite-media-try-to-destroy-yes-on-37-press-conference/

 

But I can tweet, too. How about this? “DOJ should open full-blown criminal probe into NO ON 37 but refuses to.”

 

Or “DOJ fails again. NO ON 37 criminals free as birds.”

 

Or “NO ON 37 forces steal FDA seal to lie in their ads. It’s a felony.”

 

I didn’t attend journalism school and I don’t write for the NY Times. Therefore, I know my tweets signal a much bigger story than “YES ON 37 said DOJ started an investigation but that was sort of wrong.”

 

Here is a link re the complaint against NO ON 37 filed with the DOJ:

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

 

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

BREAKING! ELITE MEDIA TRY TO DESTROY “YES ON 37” PRESS CONFERENCE

BREAKING: MAJOR MEDIA TRY TO DESTROY “YES ON 37” PRESS CONFERENCE

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

No, this wasn’t a group of street thugs breaking into a liquor store. This was a string of reporters trying to destroy the truth about a subject that threatens the health and future of the planet’s population: GMO food.

They did it in serial fashion over the phone, on a press-conference call organized by supporters of YES ON 37. The California ballot measure that would force sellers to label their GMO food “genetically engineered,” to allow consumers the right to know and choose.

I was on the call, and I was stunned by the parade of morons from the press who were obscuring the main issue and complaining and whining about the definition of word “investigation.”

It was miles and miles through the looking-glass.

To begin with, Joe Sandler and Andy Kimbrell, lawyers supporting Proposition 37, laid out a convincing case for fraud on the part of the NO ON 37 group, who are funded by pesticide and biotech interests.

The charges: NO ON 37 had used, in their ads, the official seal of the FDA, a felony. They attributed statements to the FDA, Stanford University, the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics which those organizations had never made; statements that would convince voters to turn down Prop 37.

Sandler, Kimbrell, and others from the YES ON 37 camp further stated that these organizations had gone on the record denying they had ever made those statements.

Finally, the YES ON 37 representatives clearly asserted that the NO ON 37 forces had made false assertions in the California Voter Guide, which is sent to voters to help them understand arguments for and against ballot propositions. This would be another felony.

You can read the specific NO ON 37 deceptions here:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

Then came the time for questions. Suddenly, the mood changed. It changed because the press-conference organizers had publicized the event by claiming the FBI had opened an investigation into the NO ON 37 forces.

Reporters wanted to know whether there was really an FBI investigation. Joe Sandler and Andy Kimbrell explained there was. Sandler remarked that he had received a call from an FBI agent, Jason Jones, after a complaint had been sent to the Dept. of Justice.

The complaint detailed the false assertions in ads and in the Voter Guide. The FBI agent gave the impression that the FDA would be consulted, to see if they knew their official seal had been used by the NO ON 37 organizers.

But, whined a reporter, is that really really an investigation? One by one, reporters from the LA Times, the NY Times, and other papers wanted to get into a Talmudic hair-splitting conversation about the use of the word “investigation.” LA and NY Times reporters stated they had contacted the Dept. of Justice and learned no investigation had been launched.

Sandler said: look, a complaint was filed; an FBI agent followed up on it; the agent said the matter would be looked into.

The reporters were not assuaged. They kept chewing on the word “investigation.”

What shall we call it? An investigation, an inquiry, a preliminary fact-gathering expedition, an active concern, a mission to Mars, a ham sandwich, a kick in the ass? Who cares?

The YES ON 37 people had just exposed grievous and explosive lies and crimes by the forces who don’t want consumers to know whether the food they’re eating is engineered or GM-free.

That’s not a good enough story for the LA Times or the NY Times? That’s not a page-one ripper?

No, it’s not. It’s not because the reporters would actually have to THINK, and God forbid, COMPARE, in order to carry the ball themselves. They’d have to compare the statements made by NO ON 37 people against the truth, and they’d have to write more than: “FBI opens investigation.”

This is how these dancing monkeys operate. With the least possible amount of work.

They had a hook for their story in mind before they went on the press-conference call. It was, again: “FBI opens investigation.” If that hook wouldn’t technically hold up, they had no story. They had no more ideas. They had no more interest. They had no more active brain cells. They had no more balls. They had no more concern about GMO food or human health or the real issues involved.

And this is just on Level One. On Level Two, we would look into the preconceived media bias in favor of GMO food and no labeling.

But here, I’m just giving you the details of the press conference and the idiots who make up the press, the press that is dying, day by day, as the pages of their papers shrink and their ad revenues dry up and their jobs go away and their fate opens up an abyss before their eyes.

The reporter for the NY Times went so far as to suggest that the YES ON 37 PEOPLE really had no right to call the NO ON 37 people deceptive because there was a deception about, yes, THE FBI INVESTIGATION. It wasn’t actually an official investigation.

This is on the order of: “I drove all the way here to get your pastrami sandwich on a roll and I find out your menu actually says it comes on rye bread.”

To which the proper reply should be: “Your brain is made out of hamburger, so what difference does it make what I say to you? You’re a public nuisance. Get lost.”

This is exactly why the public loses faith in major media. This is why major media has no leg to stand on.

Here is another obvious fact the addled reporters didn’t think about: the NO ON 37 people, with their deep pockets, don’t care that they’re lying. The election is next Tuesday, and if they face some fines after that, it’s chump change to them. They want to sink Prop 37. That’s what they’re focused on.

The press, the fabled Fourth Estate, which is there to protect the public interest, put on quite a display at this press conference. They whined, they wheedled, they accused, they split hairs, they complained, they obfuscated, they distracted, they diverted, they came across like entitled high-school sophomores who’d just been given their first assignment for the school paper.

Meanwhile, Prop 37 is on the line. The right to know whether you’re eating food that has been injected with insect genes is on the line. A whole lot is on the line. But the press doesn’t care. They’re too busy failing in their mission and mandate.

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

MEDICAL REPORTERS ARE DESTROYNG OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICINE

 

MEDICAL REPORTERS ARE DESTROYING OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MEDICINE

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

As a medical investigative reporter for the past 30 years, I’ve found facts and connected dots. I’ve discovered that reporters in the mainstream are opposed to connecting dots. They won’t go there. They know they’ll be rejected by their editors and, if they persist, they’ll be demoted or fired. That’s the way the job works.

Mainstream reporters aren’t supposed to make inferences from facts. They’re supposed to solicit comments from “experts” on both sides of an issue and then slant the story toward the favored side.

This is especially true in the medical arena, which is a sacred cow. When editors want to restrain wandering medical reporters, they take them off hot stories and assign them something pedestrian.

In the summer of 2009, Sharyl Atkisson of CBS exposed the fact that the CDC, responsible for counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America, had stopped counting. This was a blockbuster revelation. On the heels of Atkisson’s discovery, the CDC announced a lie so absurd it produced gasps of shock even within the mainstream medical-reporting community: suddenly, the several thousand cases of Swine Flu in the US were TEN MILLION.

Anyone with a grain of common sense could connect the dots: the CDC was lying to cover up the fact that Swine Flu, at best, was a very light non-epidemic, and all the fear-based hype was empty. The push for everyone to get vaccinated was venal and stupid.

In a reasonable world, CBS and other networks, to say nothing of the NY Times and other major papers, would have gone after the CDC with hammer and tongs. They would have attacked until the CDC was a smoking wreck.

But these media outlets backed off and pretended there was nothing to see, nothing to infer, nothing to connect.

At CBS, Atkisson was sent off to cover other stories. That’s the way it works.

Here is the interesting part. If these dying networks and newspapers had actually pursued the CDC story, they would have attracted huge audiences. The public wants this kind of information. The public is hungry for it.

So you could say major media are digging their own graves. They’re not so much being phased out by the Internet; they’re committing suicide.

They insist on remaining part of the problem, at their own peril.

Here is another example:

Glaxo, the drug giant, was recently fined $3 billion for bribery, fabricating drug-safety data, and fraud.

Only a fool, however, would assume this legal attack against Glaxo would stop them from lying, cheating, and endangering the public in the future.

The $3 billion Glaxo fine covered scheming, lying, and cheating in connection with three of its drugs: Paxil; Wellbutrin; and Avandia. Total sales of those drugs during the period of time in question? 27.9 billion dollars. Three billion dollars is a drop in the bucket. And Glaxo was comfortably prepared to pay the fine. It had money set aside for that day.

So the fine was just the beginning of the story. An outlet like the NY Times could have set their hounds loose and dug up inside information on how Glaxo managed their crime and their anticipated fine, from the get-go. That would have been, in time, a hurricane of a story. It would have exposed Glaxo as an ongoing RICO operation.

And then the question of why no Glaxo executives were prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice and sent to prison would have had teeth.

Day by day, week by week, the media story would have gained legs. The public would have been transfixed as Glaxo executives came out and made confessions to reporters.

This is what connecting the dots means. This makes stories grow and expand, and nets more criminals. This is what reporting is supposed to do.

So why don’t major media outlets become relentless in their coverage? Why don’t they multiply their readership and viewership by millions of people? Why don’t they succeed?

The answer to those questions has layers. First, there is the obvious advertising revenue at stake from drug companies. A former reporter for a Los Angeles daily paper told me that, on the heels of publishing a story critical of vaccines, the editor of the paper received a visit in his office from pharmaceutical executives of a company that was buying ads in the paper. These execs didn’t stand on ceremony. They read the editor the riot act.

On another layer, all major media outlets understand that stories highly critical of the medical cartel—when pursued to full exposure—are a taboo. They’re not allowed, because the cartel deeply involves the federal government as an active partner. The cartel is one of those too-big-to-fail institutions. The money at issue is enormous.

On a third layer, we have the ever-popular “national security” dictum. That’s right. The interlock among medical schools, the FDA, doctors, drug companies, and researchers is considered “vital to the interests of the nation.” If the NY Times went up against that, they would pay a big price. They would find themselves on the receiving end of FBI investigations and IRS investigations and bank foreclosures on their debts and union work stoppages. It would be a pitched battle.

I’ll tell you something, though. If the NY Times had the balls and the commitment, the outcome would be a toss-up. If the paper didn’t blink and kept turning out copy on deepening medical investigations—including copy on how the paper was being attacked for speaking the truth—they could print three editions a day and they would have readers knocking each other down to snatch a copy off a newsstand.

But this is just a fantasy, because finally, it turns out that the Times, and every other major media operation in America, is inextricably linked with top-level globalist criminals. These media giants are engaged in an ongoing pysop of programming their audiences to accept official authority without questioning it. The medical cartel is a key player in the Globalist takeover of nations:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/08/16/the-medical-cartel-is-king-in-a-globalist-world/

In medical circles, it’s known that the American medical system kills 225,000 people a year. That’s 2.25 million killings per decade. (See: Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

Even an idiot can see that, as a story, this has gigantic staying power. The NY Times and the Washington Post could attack it from so many angles and chase so many rats out of the woodwork, they would make Watergate look like a biddies’ embroidery club in Kansas.

You would have front-page revelations for months on end. Just for starters, the FDA, which approves as safe all the drugs that cause these deaths, would be exposed as the Gambino or Gotti of the medical universe.

Obamacare, which will drag millions of new unwary customers into the system, exposing them to death and destruction, would be crushed underfoot like an old beer can in the street.

But the operating strategy of media megaliths is limited hangout. They squeeze out a few facts like toothpaste from a tube, and then they back away. They don’t make the connections they know are there. Reporters, their foot soldiers, acquiesce and whiten their teeth and buy new suits and visit psychiatrists, where they’re diagnosed with clinical depression and given drugs.

On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published a devastating quote from a woman who, for 20 years, edited the most prestigious medical journal in the world:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.

For any ambitious medical reporter, the quote could have been the jumping-off point for an investigation aimed at taking down medical journals and the whole peer-review system that underpins medical publishing.

But nothing happened. No dots were connected. The quote was left hanging in mid-air like a Hindenburg whose explosion had been indefinitely postponed.

Here is another Hindenburg quote of a similar nature, also published in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2001, Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware of Drug Companies”):

Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers.”

And finally, here is yet another statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:

A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

It turns out that the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.

Could any major newspaper add up these quotes and launch an all-out attack on the massive crimes surrounding published medical studies? Of course. And that attack, if carried out long enough, would shake the pillars of the Church of Modern Medicine. But it doesn’t happen.

And when it doesn’t happen, even bright readers tend to think they haven’t read those quotes correctly, because if they had, surely some investigation would have been mounted; surely somebody would have been indicted and prosecuted; surely the whole medical system would have undergone a revolution.

No. Instead, by failing to connect the dots, the major media are killing themselves off; they are faking it day by day; they are putting on mask after mask and pretending to be wise and cognizant of the latest developments. It’s all a con. It’s a con of cons, and it’s going bankrupt, as Internet reporters now carry the real freight.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Operation Chaos: Obamacare and murder

Operation Chaos: Obamacare and murder

The Obamacare crime that fake reporters refuse to look at

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Waiting up the road, there is a connection between Obamacare and crazed shooters who take lives and wreak chaos across America. Don’t expect major media to grasp it or explore it.

They call themselves medical reporters and political reporters. They work for major networks and dying newspapers. They frame Obamacare in terms of the political left and right, and then they spin like tops and generate copy. They tell their audience how the left and right are arguing with each other. This is their news. This is their journalism. This is the con they run.

Do you think the 2000-page bureaucratic wet dream, the bill that Pelosi told her colleagues they’d have to pass in order to read, came out of some senate staffer’s computer?

Obamacare was written by drug companies and insurance companies, with lawyers looking at every sentence. It was years in the making. The objective was to lock in corporate profits at a level that would sate their appetite.

There was one key provision in the bill, one element that took precedence for both the insurers and the pharmaceutical drug lords. The list.

The list is the entire catalog of diseases and mental disorders that will be covered by Obamacare. Compiling this list is tasked to the Dept. of Health and Human Services, which could correctly be called a compliant arm of Big Pharma.

You can be absolutely sure that all of the 300 official bogus mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association will be on that Obamacare list. Can you guess what that means?

Up the road, these disorders will be diagnosed at the drop of a hat, since they’ll be locked in and covered by the new national insurance plan. Psychiatrists will have a field day.

The bottom line? The full parade of psychiatric drugs used to treat these disorders will be handed out like candy, including the antidepressants and stimulants that cause violence. The connection between the drugs and homicide has been firmly established, by clinical evidence, and in numerous studies (see also this case study from May 2003 — broken out into three parts: part-1, part-2, and part-3).

The wave of “psychiatric-drug shooters” we have seen over the past two decades were only a preview of what is to come.

As more people are brought into the insurance system through Obamacare, many of whom have already been living desperate lives below the poverty line, they will be diagnosed by psychiatrists who, by profession, training, and conviction, ignore the true factors of lives lived and instead focus on superficial lists of behaviors—the very behaviors they use to label people with mental disorders.

The diagnoses will be made, the dangerous drugs will flow, and some percentage of these people, driven beyond their breaking point, will commit violent random massacres.

Operation Chaos will proceed and expand.

This is called “seeding.” Drop enough violence-inducing drugs into a society, and you get what you would expect. You get it from various angles, from people who wouldn’t ordinarily be suspected.

There are no conventional profiles that can isolate or predict such crimes. And there is no solution to the problem, as long as psychiatry and its pharmaceutical allies control enough of the press to stop honest revelations about the drugs from being broadcast.

This means the alternative press and citizen journalists must take on the job.

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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

BEHIND THE TRAYVON MARTIN PSY-OP

THE FICTION OF THE GROUP IN THE MATRIX

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” — Edward Bernays, in Propaganda (1928).

“Professionals in my field work for a client. They put their finger on their client’s competitor and say, ‘This is the enemy. How can we paint him as a horrible cartoon?'” — Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative — who is interviewed extensively in THE MATRIX REVEALED.

President Obama said if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin. Yes, but what would that son BE like?

Does that matter? Is it trivial? Is the distinction irrelevant?

This is the essence of the decades-long psy-op to convince Americans that their identity is completely wrapped up in their ethnicity, or their skin-color, or their religion, or their gender, or some other group of which they’re a member.

AS OPPOSED TO IDENTITY AS A FUNCTION OF WHO THEY ARE AS INDIVIDUALS.

Remember INDIVIDUALS?

That outmoded concept?

It’s outmoded for a reason.

It’s been scrubbed from the record.

Mass media can’t really deal with individuals. It’s not possible. Mass media can’t really get down to the essentials of what an individual IS. It doesn’t work. Putting too much attention on distinct and unique individuals, apart from stereotypes, would actually DESTROY THE WHOLE ILLUSION PRESENTED BY MASS MEDIA.

Mass media absolutely depend on cartoons and stereotypes and groups. Without them, the the whole industry would collapse like a stack of wheat in a tornado.

And as these cartoons are presented, day after day, the attention span of readers and viewers shortens. It’s all shorthand. It’s all shortcut. It’s all sketchy imagery.

And finally, we have a sitting president who goes there. Yes, Mr. President, that son would look like you, but who would he BE? Do you see the difference?

Heritage this, tradition that, legacy here, ancestry there, pre-racial, post-racial, it all comes down to the fact, whether anyone likes it or not, that the individual EXISTS, and no amount of false leads are going to change that.


The powerful group that emerged from the US psychological-warfare department, after World War 2 (see Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson, Oxford University Press, 1994), had to find a new role for itself, and it literally invented the (pseudo) science of mass communication research—bankrolled primarily by the Department of Defense and the CIA.

One of its jobs was the promotion of group stereotypes.

Mass communication research was touted as a new discipline. But it was quite old. Pre-WW 2, one of its leaders was Walter Lippman. Simpson, in The Science of Coercion, explains how Lippmann viewed the landscape as early as 1922:

[Lippmann] contended that new communication and transportation technologies had erected a ‘world that we have to deal with [that is] politically out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.’ The ‘pictures in our heads’ of this world—the stereotypes—‘are acted upon by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups…representing government [and these pictures] cannot be worked unless there is an independent, expert [elite] organization for making the unseen facts [of the new world] intelligible to those who make the decisions.”

In other words, since none of us will ever have a chance to meet the overwhelming number of people who live in the world, we’ll have to rely on stereotypes of them, and in this distorted maze, our esteemed leaders will have to take all their cues and knowledge from some collection of “experts” who interpret “real” perception and meaning for them.

A totalitarianism worthy of 1984.


In his chapter, “The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communications Studies,” Simpson highlights the work of Hadley Cantril, who established the Princeton Learning Center, which morphed into a CIA-funded broadcast service. Cantril also assisted in reorganizing the US Information Agency (CIA front) under JFK. He invented a survey technique that “would revolutionize US election campaigns during the 1980s.” What began as a focus on US mass-communication ops abroad later came home to roost.


And so this universal psy-op has come to pass. It has thoroughly infected society, aided of course by media.

Groups define and oppose each other through images and cartoons and stereotypes. But it’s gone much further than that. The disease of group consciousness has pushed individuals into seeing themselves and presenting themselves as nothing more than group members. Proudly so. Absurdly so. They’ve tried to make the stereotypes into facts.

Some groups, in politicizing themselves, have ladled on the self-esteem routine to substitute for anything they might actually accomplish in the world, preferring to rely on slogans and assertions that amount to dust in the wind—actually torpedoing their chances of success.

It’s exactly parallel to the child who is told, in this case by his teachers and parents, that he’s very, very special, over and over, until the child is living in a never-never land.

Working for a definable cause as part of a group is one thing, but taking on one’s own identity as nothing more than “group member” is a disaster.

At the core of this op is desertion of self by the individual himself. Yes, every individual is unique. That’s true. But it has to play out. The individual has to take his own actions and his own path. If not, he picks out a disseminated cartoon, glues it to his face, and marches forward in lock step toward Nowhere.


So Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman become symbols of groups, and the hostilities broaden. And repulsive operatives who make their living pushing these symbols show up and do their work.

What’s the end game? A society fractured into opposing camps, your basic nut house, where every group ultimately looks to government for answers, money, help, favors, deals.

The psy-op moves all the way into dependance. And that was always the point of it. That was the plan for “reorganizing” a nation.

In the long run, those honorable groups who have labored for just change are forgotten. They fade into oblivion. What takes their place are the delusional ones, and the ones who are consciously run, from above, by planners who want to see this kind of mangled society.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It starts by saying the world, as it really is, is incomprehensible, and therefore we have to build cartoons of various groups; doing this is “a good idea” and it will facilitate our thoughts and actions. The prophecy ends with so many people buying into those cartoons that they play those roles to the hilt and assert they ARE the cartoons and nothing more.

But I’ll tell you this. Somewhere, lurking in the background, there are still many, many individuals who know they are individuals. And their day will come, because the universe of cartoon characters is such bad theater the show will close. Ticket sales will evaporate.

It’s important to understand the root: promoting a nation as a collection of groups. This IS Collectivism at work. Collectivism isn’t done by considering a country one homogenous mass of people. Not right away. First you need competing and hostile groups. You encourage them to present themselves as cliches, as animations, as actors in a play.

You move into phase two when you show these groups that their best chance of success is to get help from government. That’s the key. It doesn’t matter whether a group hates government. So what? You bring them around to thinking government is their best shot.

And, of course, government complies. Government holds out a helping hand. Money, hope, favors. You’ve now funneled the energy of groups right into the official bureaucracy. The problem solver.

You’re not, for example, telling a group it should start an urban farm and grow its own food. You’re not telling them how to start their own businesses and actually make them work. You’re not telling them how they can buy land and live in a community. You’re certainly not telling them the whole group concept is flawed and they should—each person—discover what it means to be an individual.

Individual power, action, vision is completely off the table.


These stereotyped groups are actually training grounds for membership in the bigger group: a whole society absorbed in government.

It’s all preparation for the ultimate lesson: the needs and demands and entitlements of the many obliterate the needs of the individual.

The word “individual” comes from Latin roots. In=not. Dividere=to divide. Individual=not divided. “Can’t be divided.” The individual is the fundamental, the basic. It’s what you come to, finally, when you analyze a group. The individual. It’s what you come to when you scrape away the stereotypes and cartoons and generalities and other “group characteristics.”

Of course, if you mount and push forward a psy-op that ADDS ON characteristics to the individual, especially if those characteristics are going to be self-sabotaging, and if the individual isn’t ready to invent his own future, he’ll bite. He’ll buy. He’ll join up.

This is what the “social science” of “mass communications” is all about. As the name implies, it’s an academic field that starts out with the assumption and lie of a MASS. From that point on, it’s all manipulation.


But why should people realize this? They’re floating on propaganda that lets them know the world is a horrible mess and we simply don’t have time to stop and consider the strange, outmoded, and discredited idea of the individual. In fact, wasn’t it the unbridled individual who led us into the mess? Didn’t “he” destroy the fabric of life? Didn’t he make millions of people starve? Didn’t he start all the wars? Didn’t he oppose group consciousness all along? Aren’t we, in fact, repairing the damage done by the individual? Isn’t he the ultimate virus that corrupts? Shouldn’t we wipe him out forever and install the Group as the indivisible unit of life? Then we’ll be happy. Then we’ll be free. Then we’ll all live in harmony. Then we’ll evolve to the next stage:

ABSORPTION INTO THE WHOLE.

You might be surprised at how many people want this. Economic absorption, political absorption, social absorption, mystical absorption.

Selling out Self is big, big, business.


I’ll leave you with this — as an illustration of how thick and dense group identity, as opposed to individual consciousness, can be built:

As reported by Heather Mac Donald in City Journal (July 14, 2011), the University of California at San Diego has decided to MANDATE a new graduation requirement. The key concept, the University states, is cultivating a “student’s understanding of her or his identity [focusing on] African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans or other groups [through the lenses of] race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, language, ability/disability, class or age.”

Translation: Through every means and category possible, we’re going to plug and wire you into a group, and from that platform you can continue the psy-op that pours all of society into the funnel of government and away from who you are: YOU.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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 TRAYVON MARTIN OPERATION

THE TRAYVON MARTIN OP

NBC LIES, EDITS 911 ZIMMERMAN CALL

WILL DO “INTERNAL INVESTIGATION”

THE STORY GOES MUCH DEEPER

APRIL 2, 2012. Let’s start here. The racially divisive Trayvon Martin case was shoved up a false ladder by NBC News. As reported by Eric Wemple in his Washington Post blog post of 3/31/12:

Begin Washington Post blog post:

“NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the ‘Today’ show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

‘We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.’

“Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the ‘Today’ segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

“Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

“The difference between what ‘Today’ put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the ‘Today’ version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person ‘looks black,’ a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

“In an appearance on Fox News’s ‘Hannity,’ Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this elision on the part of ‘Today’ an ‘all-out falsehood’ — not just a distortion or misrepresentation.

“And it’s a falsehood with repercussions. Much of the public discussion over the past week has settled on how conflicting facts and interpretations call into question whether Zimmerman acted justifiably or criminally. That’s a process that’ll continue. But one set of facts in the [sic] is ironclad, and that’s the back-and-forth between Zimmerman and the dispatcher. To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice well worthy of the investigation that NBC is now mounting.”

End of Washington Post blog.

My comments:

Assuming the Washington Post has its story straight, what NBC did wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional, and it was done to inflame the narrative about George Zimmerman. It wasn’t just some sort of “rush to judgment,” it was a false-flag operation designed to provoke mass reaction and create more racial tension.

Who at NBC was responsible? How is the network going to spin its “internal investigation?” Who, if anyone, is going to be hung out to dry? How many people at NBC were in on this operation?

Now here is where the story goes deeper. First, Obama inserted himself into the narrative in a very personal way, when he told the world if he had a son, he would look like Travyon Martin. This wasn’t playing DOWN the tension, it was playing it UP.

It was the president’s signal to his supporters to move ahead with the narrative—in an election year. It then became a cost-versus-risk proposition ABOUT the election. As in: can we make this situation do us more good than harm?

And clearly, the decision was: more good.

As Trayvon protests gather strength all over the country, the outlines of a campaign become clearer. The intentional escalation of this black-versus-white tension will play directly into the notion of an implied threat: don’t dare elect Romney. Don’t do that. Don’t put this stereotypical white man in the White House.

And NBC just handed Obama a favor with its corrupt editing of the 911 call, with its RACIALLY INFLAMING editing of that call.

And why shouldn’t NBC do a favor for the president? After all, NBC is a joint venture between Comcast and GE. GE was one of Obama’s big supporters in the 2008 election campaign. As we speak, Obama and his minions are still trying to push a high-speed-rail bill through Congress that will benefit GE to the tune of billions of dollars, because a division of GE is the leading manufacturer of diesel-electric locomotives. GE and Obama are in an embrace. Obama appointed the former GE CEO, Jeff Immelt, to head up the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama bailed out GE to the tune of $16 billion, during the financial meltdown.

These are not small matters. Get a favor, do a favor, especially when billions are on the table.

And now that the racially divisive Trayvon Martin promotion is on the move, there are other ripples. Commentators have been mentioning that the Supreme Court Justices, in their deliberations on Obamacare, might be thinking about the social consequences of a No vote. Would there be riots in the streets? These pundits weren’t even referring to the Trayvon Martin escalations. Add THAT into the volatile mix, and who knows what Justice might change his mind from No to Yes, “to preserve order?”

It was clearly within the White House’s power, a week ago, to try to minimize the rhetoric about the Martin case. They could have leaned on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and told them back off. They could have taken legal action against the New Black Panther Party, after its Wanted poster for Zimmerman was issued. But Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had already given the Panthers a green light after he apparently looked the other way when members of the Party staged a voter-intimidation moment during the 2008 election-vote. And Obama himself, of course, could have spoken vastly different words about Martin’s death. But none of that happened. Instead, it was full speed ahead.

Finally, when you add up the differences and similarities between Obama and Romney, it’s clear that on the vital issues—like Globalism and a continuing mega-corporate-government world juggernaut, both men are in the same camp. Both men are, as Clinton was, as both Bushes were, on the same basic Team.

Therefore, what difference does it make who wins the next presidential election?

And if that is true, the present promotion of racial strife is a box within a larger box. In one sense, it is being worked to help Obama win. But in the bigger context, it is divide and conquer along racial lines because, to make Globalism succeed, every possible means has to be employed to weaken, divert, demoralize, polarize, and destabilize the one holdout against Globalism: the American people.

Major ops have more than level. They are played to produce advantages for more than one reason.

And so it is with the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

#2, NEWS ROUNDUP IN A MAD WORLD

JUNE 13, 2011. On a distant planet called Z-D54, historians worked in a cloister to decode the meaning of news events that had occurred hundreds of years earlier on a “seedling place” called Earth.

It wasn’t easy. There was the language barrier, of course. But more importantly, the sheer strangeness of the news reports, and the events being summarized, revealed a cultural barrier one researcher called “as puzzling as discovering a life form based on chemistry we would assume was lethal.”

Dr. Zzrrg, the director of the research project, stated, “We’re grappling with the fact that those people seemed obsessed with lying. Either their information ministry regularly dispensed falsehoods, or the events being reported were staged by psychotic individuals. It’s hard to tell which.”

Interestingly, the research team has created what it believes would have been “true headlines” for that time period on Earth. It’s using these headlines as a kind of template to assess the degree of variance and distortion present in ancient Earth culture.

WE ARE MEDIA. WE LIE. BELIEVE US ANYWAY.

POPULATION CAN NO LONGER DISTINGUISH WHAT IS TRUE.

MASS HYPNOSIS ON EARTH RENDERS ALL REPORTS OF EVENTS SUSPECT.

NEWSPAPERS REPRESENT HIDDEN INTERESTS DETERMINED TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.

SMALL EVENTS, LARGE EVENTS. WE’LL TWIST THE DETAILS.

MILLIONS CONFESS: WE PREFER CONTRADICTIONS AND FAIRY TALES.

The research team claims that if such headlines had, in fact, been dispersed widely in the Earth civilization, people might have awakened and seen their “information age” as a “fabulous joke.”

ITEM: Greece is bankrupt. So, to bring in small amounts of cash that will change nothing, it’s auctioning off “pollution credits” to factories in other EU countries. These credits will allow those factories to put more tonnage of CO2 into the air. Hmm. First of all, Greek factories are closed down right now. In protest of economic belt-tightening policies of their government. You know, a bit of irony. Then we have this: CO2 has never been proved to cause a dangerous level of global warming. Unless you want to believe scientists whose main business is PR, scientists who refuse to debate, in a neutral forum, many other scientists who claim dangerous warming is a hoax. Can somebody write a Broadway musical based on these tortured happenings? Maybe put Socrates in the lead role as the man who exposes all the inherent absurdities. Curtain goes up at 2 in the afternoon, cast takes bows at midnight…

ITEM: Scientists discover genetic link to migraines. Forget the catchy headline. Reading down to the end of the story, the researchers say the three genes in question could be involved in merely a 10-15% increased risk of migraines. And the genes don’t really give doctors the ability to make a diagnosis. Uh-huh. Well, good. Check back with us in 30 years.

ITEM: In these bad economic times, Obama is advising Americans to save a little bit of what they earn. Wow, let me recover from that revelation. Almost as good as Bush telling Americans after 9/11 to go shopping. So…go shopping, but don’t buy that underwear spangled with rhinestones. Is that the takeaway from our two most recent presidents?

ITEM: Two new pending EPA pollution regulations would hammer the coal industry and cause utility bills in the US to go up 11 to 23%. Financial justification is thousands fewer lung problems and hospital visits. Pick your poison. But think about this. Government as King Kong health insurer can justify ANYTHING based on “lower health costs.” Like: You must wear a titanium vest while driving your car, because chest injuries in auto accidents are a major health expense. Sex without wearing five condoms is a punishable offense, because health costs for treating STDs are skyrocketing. Or: every child must be screened for mental disorders to save greater treatment costs later. Basically it’s this: “WE INSURE, YOU OBEY.”

ITEM: Oh my God, oh my God, the Republicans are trying to defund NPR. You kidding? Have you ever really listened to All Brain DamageConsidered? It’s like a horrible sleeping pill that doesn’t work. Leaves you drifting in an undefined space, where the world is being saved by reasonable and well modulated Baby Boomers. Tip to John Carpenter—seed of a horror movie there. A great one.

ITEM: The New York Times corporation has been on a major re-fi campaign, exchanging its old debts for new debts. It’s in a deep financial hole. Is it too big to fail? Would a succession of presidents make sure it’s bailed out, just to keep a million or so self-important people on the Eastern seaboard from committing suicide?

RUMORS: Obama’s high-speed-train project is designed to get voters to the polls in 2016. Look for another Bush to emerge in time for 2012. He’ll be drafted after a deadlock at the convention and give his acceptance speech in Spanish, from a helicopter hovering over the Cal-Mex border.

ITEM: Medical drugs are safe. Don’t let anyone tell you different. Here, from the FDA, is a list of drug recalls that have been enacted SO FAR IN 2011 ALONE–

2011 Recalls

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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com