Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America

Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America

And the solution that almost no one appears to want—why are people allergic to solutions that work?

by Jon Rappoport

August 18, 2017

My tech partner and producer, Theo Wesson, has made several notes on the latest episode of black-white conflict in America, Charlottesville:

“Classic two-pronged Maoist tactic…. (a) shock troops on the ground causing violence and then (b) a sophisticated and coordinated…propaganda push by the parallel rogue state complex of Media, Academia, Hollywood and sold-out politicians. Historically huge. The Police standing down as the [third] element.”

“The violence puts the [television news] viewer in an altered state to receive the propaganda.”

Black vs. white. Nazis vs. liberals. Antifa vs. Alt-Right. Cut the dividing line any way you want to, factor in covert funding by people like George Soros, and you have a formula for escalating conflict between various sectors of society. Thus, driving more chaos.

Present the “sides” in the conflict as somehow representing the entire population of America. That’s the key.

This op is as old as the hills.

As for solutions, let’s start with a revelation about government funding for inner-city programs in St, Petersburg, Florida. The Tampa Bay Times reports:

“…the Tampa Bay Times set out to assess the region’s progress since the turn of the century, analyzing two decades worth of data on income, housing, demographics and crime.”

“Though the city has helped steer hundreds of millions of dollars into the neighborhoods around Midtown since 1999, they remain stuck in poverty.”

“Adjusted for inflation, the average household’s income has gone down.”

“Property values in the neighborhoods have dropped. Only 43 percent of homes in Midtown and Childs Park are owner-occupied, a rate that’s steadily declined since it was 60 percent in 2002.”

“Today, almost half of the region’s renters spend the majority of their income keeping a roof over their heads — nearly twice as many as in 1999.”

“In 2002, the crime rate was four times higher in Midtown and Childs Park [inner-city neighborhoods] than in the rest of the city. In 2014, it was more than five times higher.”

And then, the capper: “From 1999 to 2015, St. Petersburg helped steer over $210 million in private and public investments toward trying to improve life in the Midtown area, city documents show.”

$210 million, and this is what they have to show for it.

You really have to design failure in order to make $210 million worthless.

The answer?

Realize, first of all, that people tend to reject solutions if they haven’t heard about them before.

One solution here would be a program I’ve written about before, and it could be enacted for a tiny fraction of the $210 million that has gone down the drain:

URBAN FARMS.

Across the country, many such operations are underway. They’re happening. Local people are growing and eating their own food. Some of this food is also sold for profit.

—There should be many, many urban farms in the St. Petersburg inner city. Plots of land where local residents grow and trade and eat their own fresh, clean, nutritious food. It is a revolutionary act.

Initiate 50 of these farms. The government provides initial funding. The residents themselves will expand their operations into profit-making ventures; they’ll sell the excess food.

I’m estimating that for less than $5 million, the whole program can be launched—as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured down unaccountable “investment” rat holes.

The residents of inner-city St, Petersburg would have a real economic stake in their own survival and success, and they’d escalate the power of their demands for safe neighborhoods—safe from gangs and thugs and drugs.

Clean fresh food.

Improved level of health and strength.

Community involvement.

Increasing production.

Profits.

Of course, governments don’t tend to favor solutions that actually work.

Such solutions reduce citizen dependence on government.

If a certain president in the White House put this urban farm project into effect—not only in St. Petersburg, but in other inner cities across America—and if resistance developed, that president would have a powerful means of exposing the disruptive resistance as a conscious campaign to keep making these neighborhoods fail, IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE AN EXCUSE FOR RACIAL CONFLICT.

A clue: professional paid disruptors, and their duped allies, are hired to expand failure in inner cities and exclude workable solutions that benefit one and all.

Bottom line: there are always solutions that lift people up. Sidelining and canceling and distorting and misdirecting and betraying those solutions is the full-time job of operatives who have a hidden agenda. These operatives want failure. They want to use failure to blame some group(s) for the chronic problem—thus expanding unrest and anger and division.

MAINSTREAM NEWS WILL NEVER REPORT EXTENSIVELY ON LARGE AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.

THEREFORE, MANY, MANY CITIZENS (HYPNOTIZED VIEWERS) WILL NEVER BE “TUNED” TO SOLUTIONS.

LARGE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS WILL ALWAYS SEEM AND FEEL “STRANGE” AND OUT OF PLACE.

That’s called mind control.

That’s called passivity.

That’s called surrender.

It’s staged over long periods of time.

One estimate has it that, since President Lyndon Johnson declared a national War on Poverty in 1966, some two trillion dollars have been poured into inner cities of America, with a result that looks quite like the impoverished neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, Florida.

No one has the accounting books. No one has kept track. No one in the federal government has been able to stop the insanity.

Again, innovative solutions are not the aim of big and bigger government.

That aim appears to be: losing.


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.

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

A message to Wikileaks: release this leak

Do 2.25 million deaths in America, per decade, at the hands of the medical system, rate as a significant leak?

by Jon Rappoport

August 14, 2017

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are open leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield, at the time, was working as a highly respected public health expert, at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

106,000 of those annual deaths, as Starfield reports, are the direct result of FDA approved, correctly prescribed medical drugs.

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also imply massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

Such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year. How is this possible unless deep, continuing, and abetted research-fraud are the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“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.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to WikiLeaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC (included in my Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix collections), I stated that medical covert ops are the most successful methods for pacifying, debilitating, and controlling populations, through toxification, because these ops fly the flag of political neutrality.

They appear to favor no king, dictator, president, government administration or partisan position.

Their propaganda is all about healing and helping.

In fact, the medical cartel is, in the long run, the most effective branch of political repression, from one end of the planet to the other.

It favors top-down control by those in power, whoever they are, whatever they claim to stand for.

Consider this: when Ed Snowden released NSA documents that showed the extent of government surveillance on populations, no one from the intelligence establishment made a serious case that Snowden’s revelations were false. Instead, they attacked Snowden for exposing “methods” of “the war on terror.”

However, in the medical arena, leakers would be afraid that doctors, medical bureaucrats, public health agencies, government leaders, drug-company fronts, and major media outlets would, all at once, deny the validity and truth of the leaks—despite the fact that the truth is there for all to see.

In other words, the best protected cartel in the world—medical—would act in a far more Orwellian fashion. It would say: the truth is not the truth, the facts are not the facts, 2 and 2 do not equal 4—and the cartel would get away with doing that.

This is the kind of clout we’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.

Over the years, I’ve alerted mainstream reporters to the Starfield review, cited above, and other confirming published studies that reveal the horrific extent of medical destruction. Those reporters who bothered to get back to me issued blanket denials. They essentially said, “Yes, I see the evidence, but the facts aren’t facts. What’s happening isn’t happening.”

Now we’re talking about some heavy brainwashing.

By comparison, it makes the quality of the scandal around Snowden seem like a Sunday outing in the park.

A few years ago, I had one reporter, who exposes political leaks, tell me: “I don’t mess with medical stuff. It would ruin my credibility.”

Indeed. Another indication of how powerful the medical apparatus is.

Several months ago, the Washington Post highlighted a new study that puts “medical errors” as the 3rd leading cause of death in America. There hasn’t been any significant follow-up. There hasn’t been an explosion of outrage. So even when exposure occurs, the brainwashing factor is so strong it makes no difference. It’s just another ho-hum day in the news business.

That’s mind control par excellence. That’s tremendous protection of criminals.

That’s like a crime boss saying, “Yeah, I kill 225,000 people every year, but it’s an accident”—and nothing happens.

He goes his merry way, and everyone praises him as a humanitarian.

Talk about inventing and selling false reality.

This one is at the top of the charts, and it stays there.

I could stop here, but I’m going to take this one step further, because, as you can see, I’m talking about mind control. So here is the vital add-on:

From the dawn of history, humans have been particularly vulnerable to statements, from “selfless altruists,” about being saved, being rescued, being given gifts from above. And behind those statements, when there is an organization involved, a top-down organization, the threat level rises considerably.

Leaders have always recognized that if they match their pronouncements and assurances with the population’s unflagging hope of being saved, they, the leaders, win. They win big.

Even in societies where overt human sacrifice was practiced, the cover story involved some kind of healing and rescue. The good gods would see the sacrifices and intervene to produce “better days.” Better life for all.

This is what was sold, and this was what was bought. For many people, the times have not changed. Make them a promise of medical rescue, and they’re in. They’re floating in a hopeful trance.

A hypnotic induction has been performed, and it works.

The controlled subject responds with gratitude.

At that point, you can engage in complete contradictions, rank absurdities, and doublespeak.

The trance will hold.

The medical cartel is the best-protected organization on the planet.

Think about that, Mr. Assange. There is a whole world of “dark matter” for you and WikiLeaks to explore.

You obviously love upsetting apple carts. Well, this one has decaying apples from Nome to Tierra del Fuego.


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.

Notes on covert information-ops

Notes on covert information-ops

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2017

Ops involving information take many forms.

For example, let’s start with a simple “Sunday School” version that any child could learn in an hour. A smear campaign can be carried out by highlighting people who, on their own, already claim an “extreme position”—and then falsely tying those people, by association, to the person who is to be smeared.

Then there is the moving smear. When one charge you level at a person is proven false, or questionable, you add another one, and you keeping moving and piling on from many quarters.

This is more or less how the Russia-Trump story is being handled.

Let’s go to a “labeling op.” In this situation, public persons are pictured and given titles and attributes which, on closer examination, are false.

For example, former Wall Street lawyer, and supposed “socialist,” Eric Holder, rose to the position of US Attorney General. After his service in government, during which he prosecuted no one, no bank, for crimes committed in the 2008 financial meltdown, but instead judged them too big to fail and deserving of massive bailouts, Holder returned to the same Wall Street law firm to reap his rewards for services rendered.

Barack Obama, supposed “peace president,” carried out his two terms while waging war the whole time. As the left-wing Guardian reports, “[I]n 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

If you have the press at your disposal, it’s rather easy to limit revelations like these to a few articles, and mainly portray politicians with false labels that are the opposite of what they actually are.

Now let’s move to a more complicated information-op. You claim the discovery of a new disease. You name it. You list the symptoms, which turn out to be identical to old disease—cough, fatigue, fever, weakness. You state you’ve found the virus that causes the new disease and this virus has never been seen before. No convincing proof of the existence or action of the virus is offered. But a vaccine and drugs are developed to “fight the virus and prevent it from causing harm.” Of course, the “new disease,” which is the old disease, has a shelf life of three or four days in a person who is not already immune-compromised. It fades out by itself. Over time, thousands of journal papers are written about “the new virus.” Eventually, no one cares. The new virus has become an old virus. Time to discover another “new virus.”

Here is a political information-op. Over the course of 80 years or so, two giant superpowers flex their muscles and their intelligence agencies at each other. Each intelligence agency puts out complex reams of true and false information about the enemy. Each agency sends “defectors” to the other side. Most of them “confess” to information which is false. This gives rise to a blizzard of reports assessing the value of the confessions. Each intelligence agency conveys false information to its own people, as well, to test for leaks and identify possible traitors. Eventually, the oceans of information generated for 80 years become impossible to evaluate, relative to truth and falsity. The “illusion-producers” are caught in their own illusions. Anyone with a shred of understanding knows this, but the game goes on anyway, in the overall labyrinth.

In the field of archeology/history, accepted time lines of societies are contradicted by numerous discoveries of artifacts and structures all over the world. These structures point to civilizations which have no place in official history books. So they are written out and ignored. Researchers who insist on exploring the artifacts and structures for clues are sidelined and banned from official publications. Vast libraries of studies proliferate, in order to bolster and add details to the accepted (false) story and sequence of world history.

These are merely a few information ops. Such ops exist wherever an official story of importance is promoted.

A serious investigator uses logic and imagination to expose a given op with specifics. Imagination plays an important role, because the investigator needs to conceive of potential strategies “the other side” is using to make its position appear correct and solid. The investigator then explores these possible strategies to find the ones that are actually in play.

This is what I did vis-à-vis AIDS in my first book, AIDS INC. For example, once I discovered that the definition of AIDS in Africa was nothing more than a grouping of symptoms that corresponded to hunger, protein-calorie deficiency, and outright starvation, I conceived a central op:

The virus, HIV, was being used a cover story to obscure decades of forced hunger and starvation.

I confirmed this was the case. How? By examining instances where fertile growing land was stolen from the people by local dictators colluding with giant agriculture corporations.

I also interviewed doctors off the record. They admitted they knew hunger and starvation were causing the “AIDS symptoms,” but they were afraid to speak out, because, as one doctor told me, “My salary puts me close to the poverty level. I can make three times as much money testing for, and treating HIV. That supplements my income…”

Information-ops follow a general pattern.

Brainwash the public by constructing a basic lie.

Confirm that lie with a mountain of false and misleading data.

Sell the lie.

Therefore, hide the truth about what is actually going on.

My Power Outside The Matrix collection provides the tools a citizen investigative reporter needs to dismantle information-ops.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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.

The good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

The good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2017

Salvador Dali, surrealist, was one of the most reviled painters of the 20th century.

He disturbed Conventional Folk who just wanted to see an apple in a bowl on a table.

Dali’s apples and bowls were executed with a technical skill few artists could match—except that the apples were coming out of a woman’s nose while she was ironing the back of a giraffe, who was on fire.

“It doesn’t go together! It doesn’t make sense! He’s Satan!”

Yet, these same Folk sit in front of the television screen every night and watch the entirely surreal network news. Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product-recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance is imprinted on viewers’ minds. It’s the news. It must be normal, even if it’s quite insane.

The best of the best mind control is supposedly applied by the three major network anchors. Recall the old trio: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer. They’re all gone now. The junior varsity has taken over. David Muir, Lester Holt, and a permanent CBS anchor to be named later.

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

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding.

Scott Pelley (CBS) was careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency was to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick. Pelley was a high-IQ android who was training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wandered into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exuded sympathetic syrup, as if she’d had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affected a pose of “caring too much.”

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

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. This is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car-salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. This is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, could say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he would never tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. That’s the anchor’s job. That’s his underlying assignment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anchor is happy to deal with this. He’s happy to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old, we already covered that, let’s move along.”

And when it comes to elites, to whom the anchor pledges allegiance, and with whom he occasionally hob-nobs? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, AIPAC, government-allied Big Medicine, and so on? Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

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

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

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

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

It’s part of the act.

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

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

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

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

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

Elite anchors have a dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to (temporarily) believe in what they’re saying on-air. It’s all self-inflicted.

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

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

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

Guard the rest from public view.

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

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

But…

Came the Internet.

And then the whole world turned upside down.

The networks began to realize they were made out of eggshells and cardboard, and the holes and fractures and disintegrating pieces were out there, on television, for all to witness.

As a veteran reporter who quit the business and went online told me, “Network mind control is expensive. You have to keep doing it every day. And that’s without competition. Now, competitors are everywhere.”

It takes a village. The “it” in this case is network news and the village is the staff and crew. But the village is experiencing typhoons. Once upon a time, crazy surreal mainstream television news required no apologies. But that entitlement has peeled away and blown offshore.

Independent online news outlets are catching up to, and in some cases, surpassing MSM audience numbers. And the content is quite different.

For one thing, the content often features devastating critiques of elite news. For example: The Washington Post, once considered (by the uninformed) an unimpeachable source, is presently owned by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire boss of Amazon. Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide cloud-computing services to the CIA.

This is more than a crippling conflict of interest. It’s a death rattle. Every story the Post publishes about the CIA, and every story that has a named or unnamed CIA source is as reliable as an antelope’s press agent justifying the extinction of all lions.

The NY Times’ daily attacks on Trump for his supposed Russian connections? Well, in 2015, the Times published a devastating piece detailing the Clintons’ role in selling 20% of US uranium production to Putin. But the Times conveniently refuses to follow up on its own story. Needless to say, if Trump had played such a decisive role in enriching Putin and transferring a top national-security resource to Russia, he’d already be wearing a prison jump suit and awaiting a firing squad.

Day by day, elite mainstream news is fading.

This is what happens to elitist authority, no matter how skillful their production.

Hypnosis leaks.

It’s not a perfect seal.


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.

Robots are inventing their own languages

Robots are inventing their own languages

The programming and design of artificial intelligence

by Jon Rappoport

July 14, 2017

Along with assurances that we’re facing an imminent takeover of industrial production by robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), we’re also being told that AI can develop its own systems of communication and operation, without help from humans.

Here is a sprinkling of quotes from the mainstream and technical press:

The Atlantic, June 15, 2017: “When Facebook designed chatbots to negotiate with one another, the bots made up their own way of communicating.”

Tech Crunch, November 22, 2016: “Google’s AI translation tool seems to have invented its own secret internal language.”

Wired, March 16, 2017: “It Begins: Bots Are Learning to Chat in Their Own Language.”

The suggestion is: AI can innovate. It can size up situations and invent unforeseen and un-programmed strategies, in order to accomplish set goals.

Who benefits from making such suggestions? Those companies and researchers who want to make the public believe AI is quite, quite powerful, and despite the downside risks (AI takes over its own fate), holds great promise for the human race in the immediate future. “Don’t worry, folks, we’ll rein in AI and make it work for us.”

Beyond that, the beneficiaries are technocratic Globalists who are in the process of bringing about a new society in which AI is intelligent and prescient enough to regulate human affairs at all levels. It’s the science fiction “populations ruled by machines” fantasy made into fact.

“AI doesn’t just follow orders. It sees what humans can’t see, and it runs things with greater efficiency.”

Let’s move past the propaganda and state a few facts.

AI is not running its own show.

It isn’t innovating.

It isn’t creating its own languages.

It isn’t doing any of that.

AI operates within the parameters its human inventors establish.

Any honest AI designer will tell you that.

If, for example, an AI system is given a goal and a set of “options” for achieving the goal, AI will select which option is best ACCORDING TO STANDARDS ITS HUMAN OPERATORS HAVE PROGRAMMED INTO THE SYSTEM.

Think of it this way: AI is given a set of options; but it is also given instructions on how to select what is presumably the most effective option. So AI is bounded.

There is no choice. There is no freedom. AI isn’t “jumping ship.”

“We gave our robot Charlie the task of getting from Chicago to New York. The whole plan was laid out as a vast hiking trip, with internal street maps built in. But then Charlie suddenly took a cab to O’Hare and boarded a United jet for JFK…”

No he didn’t.

AI performs as it is programmed to perform, within set parameters.

“We sent Charlie to LA to marry the actress who ordered and paid for him. But then, at the church, Charlie suddenly said, “This is a mistake. You should go back to your first husband. He never had sex with that waitress in St, Louis. She was his sister, and he was trying to help her escape from a terrorist cell. He never told you that because then he would have had to tell you he isn’t a banker, he actually works for the CIA. He’s a good guy. Talk to him. The truth will set you both free…”

Won’t happen.

But this kind of thing will happen: “According to scientists at Blah-Blah University, programmed robots are not only capable of inventing solutions to problems that ‘go beyond their internal software,’ the robots also make choices that benefit people. They’re very similar to people, except they tend to be smarter and invent more effective courses of action…”

Sell it, sell it.

“Alice, a medical technician in Minneapolis, claims her robot saved her life. ‘I was on the verge of swallowing a whole bunch of pills, but Charlie came to the rescue. He showed up in my bathroom and took the pills out of my hand. I learned something important that day. My free choice is important, but kindness and concern are more important. Charlie is the most vital companion in my life…’”

Sell it, sell it.

And of course, we’ll see more debates and court cases featuring questions about robots having rights, “just like humans.”

***Actually, in an entirely illogical fashion, we’ll see more and more “evidence” showing humans don’t have free will, because their brains dictate all thought and action, while robots will be touted as “free and creative.”

Some college professor will argue robots should be granted more “privileges” than humans, because the robots aren’t inherently “prejudiced.”

Another professor will insist that robots must be subjected to committee investigations, to make sure they aren’t “racist.”

“Today, in New York, a former Burger King employee, who is a refugee from Somalia, filed suit against a robot named Charlie, claiming Charlie uttered a racial slur while ordering a cheeseburger for his employer, a wealthy real estate developer…”

Behind all this, the fact remains that, no matter how many complex layers of “decision-making” are programmed into AI, the machine is always acting within rules and guidelines laid out in advance. It is never choosing.

Individual humans are capable of free choice, and are also capable of changing their own rules and standards.

Humans are free to say they aren’t free, as well, if they want to.

Let me make a psychological point here. There are many people who want to dominate relationships. They want to be in charge. They will want robots. They will want sophisticated robots THAT SEEM TO BE CHOOSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR EVERY WISH AND DEMAND. These people will believe the robots are real and alive and human, in order to fulfill a fantasy in which they have found partners who want to go along with their agenda.

This is a pretty good definition of psychosis.

The AI designers and inventors and technicians tend to have their own bias. They want to believe they are creating life. They don’t want to think they are just putting together machines. That isn’t enough. The technocratic impulse involves faith in MACHINES AS LIVING ENTITIES.

Thus, we arrive at all sorts of myths and fairy tales about humans merging with machines, to arrive at a new frontier, where, for example, human brains hooked up to super-computers will result in higher consciousness and even the invocation of God.

Technocrats will say, do, and believe anything to turn machines into what machines aren’t.

They’ve crucially abandoned THEMSELVES and their own potential; so all they have left is THE MACHINE.

And if you think these technocrats should be allowed within a thousand miles of State power, I have communes for sale on Jupiter. Naturally, these utopias are run from the top by robots. They know what’s best for you.

Finally, understand this about propaganda: Those who control the output of information will admit to problems and mistakes with the issue they are promoting. Such confessions add to the “reality” of the information. And naturally, the propagandists will also claim that the problems can be solved. In the case of robots and AI, the problems are couched in terms of bots taking power into their own hands—but this “unexpected” situation a) demonstrates how capable bots are, and b) the power can be dialed back and modulated. So all is well. The future is bright.

It’s bright, if you want planned societies run by AI, where humans are fitted into slots, and algorithms determine who eats, who doesn’t, who has access to water and who doesn’t, how much energy can be used by each human, and all production and distribution are controlled from a central planning center.

Unless freedom lives—human freedom—you’ll be treated to something like this:

“Today, executives at the North American Union headquarters announced that several key bots broke through their programming and invented a new solution for clean water distribution to the population. This innovation will guarantee a more equitable water supply for millions of citizens. Control over the ‘rebel bots’ has been re-established, and their ‘amazing solution’ will now be incorporated into their standard operating framework. Three polls indicate that a lofty 68% of respondents support the bots in their efforts to better serve us…”


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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.

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

The Individual vs. the Staged Collective

by Jon Rappoport

July 9, 2017

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:

WE.

The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

Beyond all political objectives, there is a simple fact: those group-mind addicts who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. There is only mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was it to become deaf, dumb, and blind in the first place?

And then perhaps one person in the cave suddenly says: I EXIST.

That starts a cacophony of howling.

In the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of JFK and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the covert theme was the same: a lone individual did this.

A lone individual, detached from the group, did this. “Lone individuals are people who left the fold. They wandered from the communal hearth. Therefore, they inevitably became killers.”

In 1995, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Bill Clinton made a speech to the nation. He rescued his presidency by essentially saying, “Come home to the government. We will protect you and save you.”

He framed the crime in those terms. The individual versus the staged collective.

The history of human struggle on this planet is about the individual emerging FROM the group, from the tribe, from the clan. The history of struggle is not about the individual surrendering and going back INTO group identity.

Going back is the psyop.

The intended psyop.

As the trumpets blare in the night sky, as the fog-ridden spotlights roam, as the banners emerge carrying the single message, WE, as people below are magnetically drawn to this show, a unpredicted thing happens:

Someone shouts: WHAT IS WE?

Others pick up the shout.

And the banners begin to catch fire and melt. They drip steel and wax and the false grinding of hypnotic dreams breaks its rhythm.

The whole sky-scene stutters like a great weapon losing its capacity to contain heat. The sky itself drips and caves inward and collapses, and the trumpets tail off and there is a new fresh silence.

The delusion, in pieces, is drifting away…

The cover: gone.

Behind it is The Individual.

What will he do now?

Will he seek to find his inherent power, the power he cast aside in his eagerness to join the collective?

Will he?

Or will he search for another staged melodrama designed to absorb him in an all-embracing WE?

(New piece up at my OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE blog entitled “Maps of Consciousness as a Form of Mind Control”)


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

NETWORK: the last great film about the news

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

July 1, 2017

Network, the 1976 film written by Paddy Chayefsky, reveals what media kings would do if they unchained their basic instincts and galloped all the way into the madness of slash-and-burn Roman Circus.

Instead of concealing the staging of events, build the stage in full view of the audience, put actors front and center, and let them live out their impulses on national television.

The audience is jaded beyond recall. It needs new shocks to the system every day. The adrenaline must flow. The line between reporting the news and inventing it? Erase it. Celebrate the erasure. Watch ratings soar.

Why pretend anymore? Why spend countless hours preparing and broadcasting synthetic artificial news, as if it were real? Does the audience care about such niceties? The audience just wants action.

The film proceeds from these premises.

Arthur Jensen, head of the corporation that owns the Network, speaks to unhinged Network newsman, Howard Beale, who has revealed, on-air, a piece of the real power structure in a few moments of sanity:

“You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Head of programming for the Network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with soaring ratings: Howard Beale, [Religious] Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of hobgoblin radicals called the Ecumenical Liberation Army who go around taking home movies of themselves robbing banks. Maybe they’ll take movies of themselves kidnapping heiresses, hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges, assassinating ambassadors. We’d open each week’s segment with that authentic footage, hire a couple of writers to write some story behind that footage, and we’ve got ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the Network News? It has an 8 in New York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share in both cities. Last night, Howard Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled bullshit for two minutes, and I can tell you right now that tonight’s show will get a 30 share at least. I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day prophet, a magnificent messianic figure, inveighing against the hypocrisies of our times, a strip Savonarola, Monday through Friday. I tell you, Frank, that could just go through the roof…Do you want to figure out the revenues of a strip show that sells for a hundred thousand bucks a minute? One show like that could pull this whole network right out of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being handed to us on a plate; let’s not blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s getting there.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Howard Beale, over the cliff, a news man screaming on-air about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is explored. What could have resulted in a true popular rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network, wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on-air; during his show. And so it is done.


Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, and adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants coverage; audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population, Network stages only a few minutes of on-air television.

The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image. Which was scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s intent.

Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.

Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.

Beale breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.

The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.

Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.

Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of, the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen.

A basic premise of New Age thinking is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching film or video flow.

Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image.

Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has imparted that sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the reasoning mind.

When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is gained.

“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”

“Really? How did they show that?”

“Well, I don’t exactly remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”

And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.

The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was in the flow. He was inside, busy building up his impression of knowing something.

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. And lines of reasoning? To the extent they exist, they’re wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Howard Beale: “…democracy is a dying giant, a sick, sick dying, decaying political concept, writhing in its final pain… What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it…”

Paddy Chayefsky’s words. He made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image as the primary form of knowledge.

When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.

Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.

Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.

The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.


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.