Tag Archives: Sandy Hook

Fired professor, James Tracy, sues his University

by Jon Rappoport

May 11, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

James Tracy, a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University, was fired because he dared to express his contrarian views and lay out his research about the Sandy Hook shooting.

Tracy did so as a private citizen on his blog. He made that clear.

But the University didn’t care. They ripped away his tenure and job.

Now Tracy is suing. As he should. Because the issue is a little thing called the 1st Amendment.

I’ve read his court filing. It appears to me that Tracy’s own union took his side and then betrayed him. It appears to me that the University cooked up a fake reason for firing him: he didn’t send in a vaguely worded form they wanted him to sign.

But the real reason had to do with Tracy’s view about Sandy Hook: that it was a hoax. It doesn’t matter whether you or I or anyone else agrees with his assessment. What matters is his inherent right to express his view.

The University doesn’t want to grant Tracy that right. The University is worried about press blowback and “reputation.” Apparently, shutting down free speech doesn’t affect the University’s standing in this day and age. It’s an easy sell.

Well, it shouldn’t be.

There is a lot riding on the outcome of this court case.

Where are the thousands of college professors all over the country who should be flocking to Tracy’s side with uncompromising support? Where are their voices?

These professors are already sold out or they’re afraid, and that tells you a great deal about the current academic climate in America. The professors are captives of the system in which they work and live. They’re know which way to jump on any given issue. They know when to shut their mouths. They know when to launch an attack against an officially un-favored person. They know the boundaries and the game, and they play it.

exit from the matrix

Here is a full press release about the case posted at Professor Tracy’s blog. Read it, share it, and support this man who dares to speak and write what he finds to be true without checking, first, with some authority who wants to exercise control over the 1st Amendment.

This is the latest trend, you know, especially on college campuses. Let some group decide what everyone should believe—and then repress any contrary opinion.

This trend needs to die, and soon.

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.

Exclusive: an interview with fired Professor James Tracy

Free speech at an American university? Or not?

James Tracy responds to questions about his firing, and about press reports of events that have swirled around him.

by Jon Rappoport

March 7, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Why was he fired? I mean, why was he really fired? What did he do? What did he do to bring this down on himself? He must have done something wrong…Wait. Are you saying he was fired because he exercised his natural right to free speech? He spoke freely? That’s it? That’s all? No, I can’t believe that. He must have said something that I would disagree with—in which case, he should have been fired. I feel better. He said something I disagree with. He should be fired. What right does he have to say something that makes me feel uncomfortable? That crosses the line. I have a right not to feel uncomfortable. Isn’t that the most basic of all rights? Isn’t that written in the Constitution?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What happened to Professor James Tracy?

Here is what the NY Times had to say (“Florida Professor Who Cast Doubt on Mass Shootings Is Fired,” 1/6/16):

“MIAMI — A Florida Atlantic University professor who suggested in blog postings and radio interviews that the 2012 massacre of children at Sandy Hook Elementary and other mass shootings were a hoax designed by the Obama administration to boost support for gun control was fired Tuesday.

“James F. Tracy, 50, a tenured associate professor of communications at the Boca Raton university, has repeatedly called into question the authenticity of recent mass shootings, including the slaying of churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., and office workers in San Bernardino, Calif. In his blog postings and radio interviews, Mr. Tracy has said the Newtown massacre may have been carried out by ‘crisis actors’ employed by the Obama administration.”

Here are a few more news quotes about Tracy:

Orlando Sun-Sentinel op-ed (“Tenure be damned, Professor James Tracy embarrasses FAU,” 12/17/2015):

“In our view, academic freedom is not a license to do or say whatever you want, consequences be damned. So we welcome the termination proceedings begun against Tracy this week by FAU, a university he continues to embarrass with his ‘didn’t happen’ conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, the Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting and other mass attacks.”

The Washington Times (“Florida Atlantic University moves to fire professor who questioned Sandy Hook,” 12/18/2015):

“Florida Atlantic University moved Wednesday to fire a professor who has faced calls for resignation after claiming the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged drill that the community benefitted from financially…The school said in a release on its website that School of Communication and Multimedia Studies professor James Tracy was served Wednesday with a notice of termination, to which he has 10 days to respond.”

And then we have this from the Daily Beast (“This Professor Trolled Sandy Hook Parents—And His University Wants Him Gone,” 12/17/2015):

“James Tracy, who taught a course chock-full of conspiracy theories at Florida Atlantic University, reportedly harassed parents of a Sandy Hook child, demanding proof of his death… Florida Atlantic University announced on Thursday it planned to fire tenured professor James Tracy for allegedly harassing parents of the victims of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and six adults dead… After years of Tracy stating that the massacre was a government conspiracy, the professor reportedly sent a certified letter to Lenny and Veronique Pozner demanding they prove that their deceased 6-year-old, Noah, ever existed. When the family notified the police of the harassment, Tracy responded on a ‘Sandy Hook Hoax’ Facebook page, claiming that the family had ‘made out very well for itself financially’ from the tragedy… That was enough for the university to take action.”

Here is my interview with James Tracy. Let’s read, at length, what he has to say:

Q: Did you harass Lenny and Veronique Pozner about their son, Noah?

Absolutely not.

In March of 2015, Lenny Pozner, acting on behalf of his “HONR Network,” filed a copyright infringement claim with Automattic, the ISP and parent company of WordPress.com, where my blog, Memory Hole, is housed. Pozner/HONR Network demanded that I take down an image that Pozner purports to hold copyright ownership in. This well-known photograph, purportedly of [Lenny’s son] Noah Pozner, was voluntarily provided to the press by the Pozners in December 2012 following the Sandy Hook massacre event and has since been reproduced millions of times in print, electronic, and online media throughout the world.

An identical photo of Noah Pozner also appeared in December 2014 in the wake of a school massacre in Peshawar Pakistan, purportedly representing a child victim in that shooting. I wrote an article in January 2015 on the re-emergence of this image and included the photo in question. Even the BBC eventually acknowledged how the photo first appeared following the 2012 Newtown massacre. When Automattic/Wordpress presented me with Pozner’s takedown request it remarked that my inclusion of the photo in the post constituted “fair use” under US copyright law, which provides for republication of copyrighted material for the purpose of “commentary or criticism.” Nonetheless, I removed the photograph from my blog, and responded to the allegations, referencing free speech concerns and asking for documentation and evidence supporting Pozner’s copyright claims. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any journalistic outlet that has ever attempted to accurately report this.

I should note that by early 2015, Lenny Pozner had become infamous within the alternative media community for filing blatantly frivolous infringement claims. Pozner’s objective appears to be to shutdown any commentary or criticism of the controversy surrounding his son’s death, as alleged. To contest such claims, anonymous bloggers and YouTubers must divulge their legal identities. Pozner and his HONR Network associates then use this identifying information to stalk and harass Sandy Hook researchers, going so far as to contact their family members, neighbors, and employers, to suggest these researchers are emotionally harming Sandy Hook victims’ families. But there’s nothing unlawful with such study and criticism. On the contrary, it is Pozner and his group who are involved in unlawful stalking, harassment and defamation. This very harassment and defamation of myself reached a crescendo with the Sun-Sentinel’s December 10 publication of an article by Lenny and Veronique Pozner entitled, “Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist; FAU Professor Taunts Sandy Hook Parents.”

Q: How do you view free speech and the 1st Amendment, in light of what is happening to you?

Free speech and academic freedom are closely intertwined. When school officials at FAU [Florida Atlantic University] initially expressed their concerns about my blog in 2013, I explained to them that if I could not practice my constitutional rights during my personal time, then my right to academic freedom and professional autonomy on the job is likewise threatened. This is the case for university faculty at FAU and throughout the country. The American Association of University Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education supported my stance in letters of protest to school officials when FAU first attempted to discipline me for my personal blogging in March of 2013. Regardless of the lies told by the Pozners and their media allies, I don’t think there’s any question given what has transpired that FAU has acted wrongfully, and in violation of its own principles of academic freedom, institutional tenure and my constitutional rights.

Q: On what basis did the University fire you?

FAU’s contention is that I failed to file “outside activity” forms for my personal blog. In January of 2013, they made the same request and at that time I explained that such endeavors are personal and protected by the First Amendment. The administration fell silent for 34 months, and then abruptly resurrected this unconstitutional basis as cause for termination in late December 2015. For their exact “reasoning”, see FAU’s Notice of Termination, dated January 6, 2016.

Q: Before this situation finally blew up, you must have known you were on a collision course with the University. What were your thoughts about that?

I had no idea that university officials would so brazenly violate the well-established principles of academic freedom and my constitutional rights. In 2014, a new president, John Kelly, was recruited from Clemson University and installed at Florida Atlantic. His administration was characterized to me by one senior FAU faculty member as the most anti-faculty administration in thirty-plus years. This administration has proceeded to discipline or threaten with discipline several faculty who’ve made public pronouncements that Kelly and his inner circle disfavor.

In September 2015 the Kelly administration attempted to effectively eliminate tenure by implementing a controversial post-tenure review process that faculty eventually caught wind of and protested. I also reported on that episode.

See James Tracy, “Academic Freedom Threatened in America: The Policy of Post Tenure Review,” Global Research, September 20, 2015.

Q: In a similar vein, people must have been telling you, in the past few years, that you were treading on dangerous ground, relative to job security. How did you respond?

I can’t recall any colleague suggesting that I was in danger of being disciplined, much less being stripped of tenure and fired. I was confident that tenure and the First Amendment still had meaning at FAU. I was obviously proven wrong.

Q: Do you believe your present situation is a test case for academic freedom in America?

Absolutely—for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. All of these protections exist so that faculty and citizens can examine, research, and publicize the potential malfeasance and wrongdoing of those in power. As some academics and journalists have come to realize, however, is the unwritten code guiding what topics can actually be addressed. Political assassinations and similar events are often deemed suspect and off-limits.

I think this is strongly-rooted in the misleading yet almost uniformly adhered to notion that we live in an “open society,” a mythic pluralism overseen by properly functioning political institutions inhabited by fair-minded political leaders and bureaucrats, all of whom have our best interests at heart. Of course, universities are a central part of this mythic democratic order. Researching such difficult subject matter calls the legitimacy of this system into question. At the same time controversial and poorly-understood topics are exactly what tenure and academic freedom exist to foster and protect.

Q: Is anyone at your University defending you?

I have maintained contact with most of the colleagues I’ve come to know in my thirteen years at FAU. They understand how I have been defamed in the press and recognize the grave injustice of the termination. Yet not nearly enough people have condemned the FAU administrators’ action, particularly the egregiousness of their conduct. As noted, some faculty clearly fear retaliation, and rightly so. Others both at FAU and elsewhere have simply bought the disinformation the news media have circulated without examining the facts, which is the most painless and convenient course of action.

Q: What would you say to people who believe your claim about Sandy Hook is completely absurd?

You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. Most challengers of my analyses and criticisms of unbelievable official narratives have not even attempted to explore the evidence researchers and journalists have presented through alternative media. It’s much easier to shoot the messenger, particularly when the messenger is framed as an insensitive deviant, and refrain from critical thinking.

Q: Playing Devil’s advocate for a minute—it’s one thing to espouse a controversial view in a college classroom, but when grieving parents feel pain because you’re going after them, all bets are off, and your University has a right to terminate you, on the basis that you’re crossing a moral line and bringing shame to the institution.

I didn’t “go after” anyone, even though that’s how the legacy news media chose to present and cultivate the controversy. In the immediate wake of FAU’s public announcement that it was poised to terminate my employment on December 16, 2015 the media assumed that I was being fired because of my public comment and letter to Pozner’s HONR Network. Yet the administration fired me on a technicality that cannot warrant the termination of any tenured faculty member, particularly one such as myself who since 2002 has established an impeccable record of research, teaching and service at FAU. I contend that I merely sought the truth, did my job and engaged in constitutionally protected activities. I did not bring shame on FAU. The disclaimer on my blog specifically states that I don’t speak for FAU. In fact, FAU has brought shame to itself by violating long standing principles of academic freedom, and by violating constitutional rights that it is supposed to safeguard and protect.

Q: There is going to be a University hearing, at which you’ll defend yourself against job termination? What shape do you anticipate that hearing will take?

In January 2016, I dropped the faculty union-appointed attorney and hired a counsel of my own choosing who I believe will be a stronger advocate. While I cannot discuss any case details or specifics, it is my understanding that any legal action will be directed at those who have violated my constitutional rights, and I have the right to a trial by jury. This is how the proceedings will take shape, unless a Court determines that I am entitled to relief as a matter of law without a trial.

Q: Here are several questions together; sort them out in whatever way you want to: How do you separate the right to free speech, the right to express your conclusions about Sandy Hook, from the content and substance of your conclusions? What’s the primary issue here? Did your University fire you because you’ve expressed a very controversial view, or because you’ve become embroiled in a conflict with the Pozners?

George Orwell once remarked, “At any given moment there is orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the other, but it is not done. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals.”

I maintain that the primary issue is FAU violated my constitutional rights, which exist to provide the basis for rational argument and exchange, and protect “unorthodox” views, which with the benefit of hindsight often demonstrate their significance. According to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow “free trade in ideas”–even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting.” (Virginia v. Black 2003)

Regardless of how the FAU administration dressed this matter up I don’t believe there’s really any question that I was fired for exercising my constitutional rights.

Q: If your tenured employment is re-established there, how will you go forward?

A perfect definition of an intellectual slave, in my view, is someone who recognizes truth but fears to publicly acknowledge or affirm it. I would very much wish to have my job back. Yet if this were achieved I would remain concerned about efforts by school officials and others to infringe on my constitutional rights and harm me for standing up for my rights, as well as the rights of others.

Q: Do you believe there are people trying to avoid the issue of free speech and academic freedom in your situation? Do you believe they’re shading this controversy and mischaracterizing it, in order to invent other reasons for firing you, so they don’t have to face the question of freedom head-on?

The fact that FAU administrators have chosen to fire me on pretextual grounds is ample proof that they must at all costs avoid the questions of academic freedom and free speech.

Q: Have you looked for help where you thought you might get it, only to be ignored or rejected?

I want to thank those who have stood by me and shown their support. I think it would be best to leave it at that.

—After receiving Tracy’s answers to these questions, I sent him a few follow-up questions. Here is the rest of the interview:

Q: I understand the Pozners claim you questioned, or doubted, or denied that their son died during the Sandy Hook School shooting. Is that correct?

Yes, this is what the Pozners claim in their December 10 article published by the Sun-Sentinel.

Q: Did you ask the Pozners for proof that their son died, that he wasn’t still alive?

My correspondence was not sent to Lenny and Veronique Pozner, but was rather directed to the business address of Lenny Pozner and his HONR Network. The letter requested written verification of Pozner’s identity, his ownership of the copyrighted image, and evidence of the image’s origin. In other words, I asked for Lenny Pozner to back up what he swore to be true under penalty of perjury in his copyright infringement complaint against my ISP and website. This is the specific passage from that letter:

I have reason to doubt the good faith nature of your March 22, 2015 DMCA copyright infringement claim. An action with such potential weight to stifle free speech needs the utmost scrutiny. I am therefore requesting written evidence of the following from you:

1. Proof of your identity via copy of a government-issued document, such as a state driver’s license or passport.

2. Proof of your relationship to the deceased party, Noah Pozner, whose alleged photograph appears in the image in question referenced above.

3. Proof of your ownership of said image via a signed and notarized statement from a qualified and licensed forensic expert substantiating your legal ownership of said image, including the date and time of the image’s capture.

The text of the letter is available here: “HONR Network, ‘Lenny Pozner’ Fall Silent on Copyright Infringement Claim”.

Very few publications chose to provide this important context. Instead, they collectively reinforced the much more sensational yet erroneous notion that I made an out-of-the-blue request for “proof that their son died.”

Q: Could you describe the position you’ve taken regarding the Sandy Hook school shooing?

My position from December 2012 has been that the corporate news media never did their job in reporting the Sandy Hook massacre. We now know without any doubt that the actual event differed greatly from what the American public have been told, and as with most poorly-understood terror events the media never backtracked to further investigate the case and admit their “errors” in reportage, some of which now appear to have been intentional. If Americans are going to have an honest debate and possibly endorse policy changes further compromising the Second Amendment such an exchange needs to be based on facts rather than on the media disinformation that’s created a mythology of misplaced fear.

Q: Just to clarify, your letter to Lenny Pozner’s HONR group was essentially asking him to verify he was who he said he was; that he was the father of Noah Pozner; and that the photo of Noah was owned by him. These requests were part of your investigation into the Sandy Hook shooting. You were trying to establish whether the shooting actually took place or was a staged hoax in which no one died. Correct?

Yes, that’s correct.

—end of interview—

My opinion:

Florida Atlantic University is a Florida state institution. It is an extension of state government. Therefore, its decisions about free speech and limits are government decisions. The government is telling a tenured professor he went too far in speaking and writing freely. It fired him.

It entered the dark regions, where morbid dislike for someone else’s reasoning process takes precedence over his right to speak and write.

It’s as if the University said: “You can write this. You can write that. But over here, you can’t write that. No. We don’t like that. It reflects badly on us and, well, we just don’t like it. So we’re going to find a reason to fire you. We’re going to find a reason that doesn’t attack free speech per se, because that, too, would reflect badly on us. We’re not that stupid. So we’ve put our people on the case. How can we fire you on some technicality? How can we appear to be neutral? How can we nail you, while appearing to be as calm and neutral as a surgeon operating on the brain of a stranger?”

This is what bureaucracy does. It likes doing it. It wants to limit free speech. It’s tired of free speech. It’s an annoyance. And worse, free speech can expose the nature and the actions of the bureaucracy.

Free speech is untamed. Free speech can even, God forbid, employ reasoning and evidence and actually make a formal argument, and attempt to establish a case. People “have to be cured of that practice.” It’s dangerous to the State.

The State wants all debate to occur within a chosen context. Outside those boundaries, debate should be belittled. It’s “conspiracy theory.”

power outside the matrix

Well, here is a theory. If one college in America had the balls to defend one of its own who is expressing a very unpopular view—if one college made that call and stood by it and loudly attacked anyone who tried to impinge on that freedom…who knows what might happen? Who knows how the tide might turn? Who knows how many people might wake up?

You know, suppose something like this happened instead of what has happened:

“As president of Florida Atlantic University, I wanted to bring Professor Tracy here today to give us a complete presentation of his views and his position on the Sandy Hook school shooting. He has now done that, for the last three hours, in front of five thousand people and the press. I thank him for that. There is no ‘we’ here. I’m not going to tell you what ‘we, the University’ think of all this. I’m not in the business of making ‘we’ pronouncements when it comes to research and conclusion. I don’t care what anyone thinks or believes or concludes about Professor Tracy’s stance. He has made his case. If any person or group thinks they can come at this University now and demand we censure Professor Tracy or fire him, be ready for war. I hold up the First Amendment of the Constitution. It’s not just a shield. It’s a sword. I will use it. And you won’t like what it does to you. Somewhere, people have to make a stand for the law and what the law embodies and refers to—which is the natural right of the individual to speak freely. This University is that place. Right now. If you can’t tell the difference between what you think of what someone else is saying and his right to say it, without interruption or censure, you are socially and politically insane. You need help, and the help should come in the form of education. This University is in that business. We are that island. If you want a war on that subject, bring it. But I warn you.

“Don’t screw with me. I’ll crush you.”

You know, something like that. Something we really need.

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.

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.

The Connecticut school shootings: Operation Chaos

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, and the shooter(s) (Adam Lanza) at the Connecticut elementary school, share a common trait: they committed irrational and inexplicable murders.

This may seem like an obvious fact, but it holds the key to understanding what is going on. You don’t look for an ordinary motive. Therefore, what are we dealing with?

It’s easy to say, “They were crazy,” or “Who cares why they did it,” but that gets you nowhere.

We have to shake off our own conditioning to these repetitive murders. We have to shake off the idea that “they just keep happening” and instead look below the surface.

First and foremost, we have to consider the possibility that SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft were in play. The drugs have been well studied. They do, in fact, push people far over the edge, scramble neurotransmitter systems, and result in patients committing suicides and murders.

My extensive school-shooting report, written a decade ago, lays out the facts about these drugs, and also about the amphetamine-type drugs prescribed for ADHD, like Ritalin:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/11/the-school-shooting-white-paper/

The meds cause inexplicable violent behavior: suicide, homicide. The drugs were, in fact, linked with the 1999 Columbine school shooting. Eric Harris, one of the killers, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant, which was taken off the market by its manufacturer several years later.

It’s long past the time when police should continue to fear defensive psychiatrists. In these latest tragedies, an investigation must be launched immediately to see whether the shooters were on these drugs, or whether they had just come off them. The withdrawal effects alone can be horrific.

You can be sure drug companies have people striving to find out, in Oregon and Connecticut, before anyone else does, whether the shooters were on the devastating drugs. It’s called damage control, which means, if necessary, covering up or downplaying the facts.

The same kind of damage control is no doubt being tried in the Aurora theater shootings, where it finally leaked out that James Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist and was, most likely, on one or more of the drugs that induce out-of-control violence—inexplicable baffling violence.

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, was said to be happy-go-lucky, and then shortly before the killings, “went numb.” Investigate whether he was under the care of a doctor, and whether he was given psychiatric drugs.

Whether either or both of the shooters in Oregon and Connecticut were operating out of an even darker mind-controlled program, as was apparently the case, for example, with the dupe in the RFK assassination, Sirhan Sirhan, we are still looking at Operation Chaos:

Generations of children and adults have now fallen under the influence of psychiatrists, who have given them these brain-scrambling chemicals, and the overall outcome is certain. People will continue to launch inexplicable motiveless murders, on a random basis.

The destabilizing effects on the society, the debilitating effects on the population are enormous. People are confused, they become more passive, they move a little further each time into dependence on the authorities.

The government screws in tighter controls on freedom. New programs are mounted to take away guns from citizens.

All this is the aim of the massive covert operation that is behind the “mental-health establishment.” Distort the brains and neurological systems of millions of people, and let the chips fall where they may.

Mass murders are the consequences.

Whether or not Jacob Roberts and the Connecticut school shooter(s) were on these psychiatric drugs, Operation Chaos will proceed. The very fact that we may never find out whether the latest mass murderers were drugged in this way speaks volumes: powerful people don’t want the truth to be known.

This is a common feature of all mass murders: the police and the prosecutors refuse to investigate the psychiatric medicines, unless they are absolutely forced to. They are under tacit orders to ignore that obvious and glaring route of inquiry.

The most important reason why? The hugely powerful drug companies, who are only a step away from incrimination, when a shooter is driven to kill by the storm created in his brain by the drugs.

Billions of dollars are at stake.

The pharmaceutical companies have it all figured out. No matter how much is written and discovered about the violence-inducing effects of psychiatric chemicals, they can ride things out and keep selling those poisons. The FDA will maintain a hands-off attitude. The money will keep rolling in unless:

One of these killers is shown to have killed because he was on Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, or Adderall.

Terrible things happened in Oregon and Connecticut. Terrible things will keep happening unless a relentless pursuit of the truth is undertaken. Anything less is obscene dereliction of duty.

To law-enforcement officials: blood is already on your hands. Find the truth and tell it.

Sources:

http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295

http://www.naturalnews.com/034960_Prozac_teens_murder.html

http://www.infowars.com/prozac-zoloft-paxil-did-one-of-these-drugs-drive-the-empire-state-shooter/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/panel-to-examine-murder-a_b_838147.html

http://ssristories.com/

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.