Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2016

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

I wrote this piece in 2012, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. I re-post it now, because it equally applies to the Orlando shooting.

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 topflight 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 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.

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.

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 has 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 alert. 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 (and many others) 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.


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

“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. 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

Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segue (transition) 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 massively 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 also assume the television anchors are 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?

In case you think the public is too stupid to emerge from its trance, and would never be able to follow a line of rational discourse, if by some miracle television anchors presented one, I disagree.

During my investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, I encountered several local citizens who were exceedingly awake, alert, and helpful. Again and again over the years, I have had help from private citizens in my research.

This is why I’ve always supported the idea of citizen grand juries, convened to investigate crimes in the area where they live. Tasked to discover the truth, wherever it leads, such people would suddenly display surprising skills. Opportunity is all that is necessary.

The media put people under, flick the on-off switches that short-circuit logic. The media practice hypnosis. The media work for surrender of the mind. The media present boggling absurdities that put the mind to sleep. The media appoint themselves as the final authorities.

This is perverse theater.

That’s all it is.

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.

21 comments on “Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

  1. alabaster says:

    Well I doubt if you can stand someone’s critical view of your article, but here goes: you make a lot of generalities in your statements. Btw I’m just a regular guy (now use that against me). You think the large generality of ‘the public’, whether individually or collectively, needs to know everything that goes on when some event occurs? Why? The public in general does not investigate crimes or have the job of physically dealing with a suspected criminal themselves. The public in general just does not do this. So what would they do with ‘all the information’? Simply come to cerebral decisions or conclusions? Do you think cops always get things straight or correct, or don’t mess up, and that it must be a deliberate covert deception to fool/control the public? Human beings (and that means individuals btw) and human systems are flawed. Regarding the media, I doubt any media could possibly keep up with asking all the questions, or following all the leads to supply all the information to the viewing public you seem to think they should. Is time a factor? You seem to think there are certain questions and leads they should follow, according to you. But there are thousands that anyone could think of way beyond that, that COULD be asked/followed. I would bet there are thousands of leads in many crime cases. Which ones do you need to know? And what would you do with the information? Personally I don’t know what to think about Sandy Hook. I don’t KNOW one way or the other. A conspiracy? Don’t know. Nor does anyone asking a lot of questions or pointing out unanswered questions or unfollowed leads know either. That doesn’t prove anything, necessarily. Where cops screw up, where they deceive, then that is what occurred. Where things are hidden or there is some unrevealed agenda about an event then that is what is. But that doesn’t mean it can be used as ‘proof’ regarding any other incident, necessarily. factually. Another thing about ‘all the information’ is this: in a traffic accident there can be 10 different opinions of ‘what actually happened’ if there were 10 different witnesses—because of how each person viewed/saw/came to a conclusion about it. There is your ‘what actually happened’ in most cases. Historians know that the history of something isn’t necessarily ‘what actually happened’, it’s what the agreed-upon ideas of what happened are. (notwithstanding of course conspiracies or intentional deception etc., where they ACTUALLY existed.)

  2. wulfgarwarlord says:

    Hi Jon: you need to talk with Wolfgang Halbig. He proved that Sandy Hook was a total staged event. Contact John B. Wells, host of “caravan to midnight”.

  3. barn moose says:

    Here’s an example of someone trying to counter the flicker in the comments on a site founded by a real journalist. The commenters on the site, in general , pride themselves on providing historical context and proceeding rationally. Note the (non) results in this instance.


  4. Susan Morgan says:

    Great article Jon! Your writing is so succinct to this issue. The flicker effect. It’s so true, and so few are aware of it as you state. It makes me want to be that much more diligent in viewing these so called journalist shenanigans that are playing out daily in the news. It’s really mind control by television programing. It’s all a distraction from what’s really going on behind the curtain. Thank you for enlightening us with your journalistic brilliance.

  5. From Québec says:

    This is how they do it:


    Obama protecting Islam while attacking Christianity


  6. mars says:

    so true and so sad. Individuals need to encourage each other. God will keep him in perfect piece whose mind is stayed up Him

  7. voza0db says:

    Hello 😉

    The funny aspect of all this… Is that it still works!

    Human cattle is really easy to deceive!

    Be 😎

  8. I was ON Sandy Hook like nobody’s business. As soon as they began the drone mind-control, I said to my roommate, “it’s about the guns.” Didn’t even take me 10 seconds. But I never put my finger on the methodology as succinctly as you did back then. “The flicker effect.” Of course. I wasn’t reading you, Mr R, at that time. I am now and I’m so glad you are here. You are truly a lighthouse in the fog.

  9. I was ON Sandy Hook like nobody’s business. As soon as the droning mind control began, I said to my friend, “it’s about the guns.” Didn’t even take me 10 seconds. Now I read this and what once was a bit of gray area is now clear as a bell. “The flicker effect.” Of course. Oh, Adam Lanza called them on the box. No, he shot his way in. Well? Does anyone ask for a photo of the FRONT DOORS then? Hell no. Too confusing to actually THINK about. Sophisticated, debilitating, and deliberate MIND CONTROL.

    Anyway. I concur with the other commenter who refers to someone who says SH was a staged hoax. Nobody was killed there that day. Not so sure about Orlando; only that whatever they say on the “news,” it’s a lie.

  10. A great piece and indeed timely, Jon.

    Arguments suggesting no one was killed at Sandy Hook are compelling, but not concrete. What is CERTAIN is at least one “victim” of the Boston Marathon psy-op WASN’T. One of the alleged “killers” (that wasn’t) did happen to be MURDERED by the FBI, so this really serious stuff; DEADLY SERIOUS.

    Orlando is just more of the same. Nevertheless, if the finger of blame is to pointed anywhere shouldn’t that be at the lazy, apathetic, “good” audience members that lap it up?


    I guess that’s what you are saying, Jon!


  11. Not Some Hippy-dippy Person With No Science Background says:

    I’ve tried to wake people up by pointing out these glaring inconsistencies in these narratives, but I tend to get “well, they don’t always get all the details right when first reporting”. In other words, they don’t think about it.

  12. Aron says:

    I don’t know if it’s a crime these news agencies are committing but it’s certainly immoral. Not only that, it’s so deflating to read these articles day in and day out knowing we are all (except the controllers of course) being lead down the garden path to hell on earth. And worse, my friends and family and most everyone else is clueless to all of this. I do what I can to discuss these issues with them and point them to insightful articles (eg. this website) but it almost always falls on deaf ears. I fear the controllers up here in Canada are going to destroy this country before anyone wakes up. Are people simply apathetic? Just looking out for number one – ie say nothing/know nothing = job security? Or is everyone’s trauma so severe that they are too damaged to seek out the truth? I for one am looking for truth as it’s the only way out of this mess IMO.

    • christopher a. bull says:

      Aron says: And worse, my friends and family and most everyone else is clueless to all of this. I do what I can to discuss these issues with them and point them to insightful articles (e.g. this website) but it almost always falls on deaf ears. I fear the controllers up here in Canada are going to destroy this country before anyone wakes up.

      I’m with you on this Aron, as you’re Canadian we can see this is truly a World issue. Sometimes I feel those who reject our points of view are happy to be in a state of Mind Numbing Bliss created for them by the powers that be. And then we get the, “Oh, you are one of those “Conspiracy Theory Nuts”… I have much trouble getting theses same people to even read what Jon an many others put out.
      I will re-word your other point; “I fear the Controllers here in Canada ARE destroying this country as they keep the populace in a state of sleep”. CB

  13. Laurie says:

    Well that explains what I was seeing many years ago. I never got a single straight story from watching/reading the news. Like going to church, I found myself more frustrated with unanswered questions than whatever good it was supposed to do. I have better things to do than be frustrated with poor information from the hamster wheel.

  14. Bob Klinck says:

    The flicker effect is designed to instill cognitive dissonance, which, as you say, disables the ability to reason logically. Once you become conscious of this underlying purpose of ‘communication’ in the modern world, detecting how it is ubiquitously practiced in news articles, political discourse, the ‘entertainment’ media, etc., becomes an endless diversion. Hollywood does its bit: my 12-year-old son put me onto this years ago when he pointed out that the plot of the highly rated film In the Name of the Father, which revolved around establishing non- involvement in a crime by proving where one was when a time-bomb went off(!), made no sense. I, like evidently millions of others, had taken this idiotic premise in, unconsciously furthering my mental paralysis. If people clue into this assault on their ratiocination, the effect will be very different from that intended by those who strive to subversively manipulate our minds.

  15. Chris says:

    I’ve always had this picture in my mind of what the elite cartels reaction might have been when they were first presented with one of the earliest televisions way back in the 20s or 30s.

    In my mind’s eye or should I say ear? I can almost hear them saying something like, “Fabulous, this will do quite well” or simply, “We got ’em now!!!” upon their realization that in a not so distant future, every home in America and beyond would have an idiot box front and center in the living room.

  16. theskyisfallingweb says:

    This is the most profound piece on the mass hypnosis technique called “news” I have ever read. It was profoundly cathartic to see such a sinister onion so clinically dissected.

  17. teachertrudi says:

    Thank you for sharing this amazing eye opener

  18. Daniel o keeffe says:

    I think the question is why people are pressing the programming switch by turning on the television and allowed this stuff to go on?I mean it really is as simple as unsubscribing from all these channels and reading zen, meditating, painting, creating poetry etc

    If you do not give something your attention it does not exist for you, the mind control, the programming and the nonsense. The addiction may be for many cloaked in “I need to be aware of current events” or some other self deception.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.