Sessions, Tillerson, Trump-Tower Spying: Media Echo Chamber

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 6, 2017

Follow the bouncing echo show.

Jeff Sessions did talk with Russians or a Russian. About what? Who cares? He talked with a Russian. That’s all we need to know.

Rex Tillerson broke with Trump’s demand to slash the State Dept.’s budget by 37%. Then Tillerson said okay, he’d go along with the cuts in principle.

Trump said Obama was behind the surveillance of the Trump Tower.

The usual suspects, CNN and NBC and CBS and the NY Times and the Washington-CIA Post, etc., bounce these stories among each other and interview people who comment on the bounce, and so on and so forth, and whole thing builds to heavy accusations against the Trump administration, as if these matters are on the level of Watergate plus Benghazi plus Fast&Furious plus the Hillary email scandal plus Monsanto taking over the food supply plus the sale of 20% of US uranium to Putin…

Echo, echo, echo, echo.

“So Bob, as one who has been observing the goings-on inside Washington for more than two decades, have you ever seen such Horror?”

“Well, Mike, as the Washington Post reported the other day, about the story in the NY Times which commented on what you covered last week which was a summary of a CNN report, this scandal is reaching a crescendo of tsunami proportions, and the result could be impeachment or something very much like it…”

“As we said, after the BBC piece that reflected on the CNN assessment of the AP story, the Russians appear to have infiltrated or taken over every significant policy operation of the White House…do you agree that Putin could become the de facto president of the US?”

One and on it goes.

More outrage building on previous outrage of reporters covering other reporters covering other reporters’ outrage.

“We, the mass media invent; we decide what you, the public, should believe.”

This isn’t a tempest in a teacup. It’s a category 5 hurricane sitting on the head of a pin, or sitting on a pinhead reporter.

Reporters’ disgust about the “scandals” is really disgust building on other reporters’ disgust.

Most or all of it would be turned off in a second if people just stopped going to mainstream news for their news.

The essential message of mainstream news is: “We know Trump is evil personified, so it doesn’t matter what we say about him. We’re doing a public service. But anyway, stay with us as we deliver the facts. The new definition of ‘fact,’ is: whatever we can bring down on Trump’s head. If one of his policies (e.g., don’t send weapons to Ukraine) is in line with Obama’s policy, we’ll ignore that and say Trump is bowing to Putin’s desires. If Trump says he wants to bring jobs back to America and defeat the forces of Globalism, we’ll ignore that. We don’t care about all the Americans who were thrown out of jobs. They’re ‘bitter clingers’…”

Sub text: “Okay, so we supported the war in Iraq on the basis of no evidence, and maybe a million innocent people were killed there, but who cares? We’re your reliable source of news. Stay with us. We never criticized Hillary Clinton for her role in turning a whole nation, Libya, into a hell hole of chaos. Who cares? Stay with us.”

If you need to, substitute the generic phrase “any American president” for “Trump.” And then think about the relentless echo-chamber campaign to destroy that presidency. By any means.

CNN is now reporting (this is real, I’m not making it up) that Trump, in an Oval Office meeting, read the riot act to Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, and others about their failure in handing the “Jeff Sessions affair.” So what? Sources fed that tidibit to CNN. Which sources? Who cares? An ambiguous video of a minute or two from that Oval Office meeting (no sound) has emerged. It was shot from outside the White House. By whom? No answer. Somebody sneaked on to the White House grounds? A White House staffer shot the video? What’s next? Video of the president shaving in his bathroom? An MSNBC reporter throwing a stink bomb in the press room?

“I threw the stink bomb because I had to. It was the only way I as a journalist could register my reaction to a lesser level of access to the president. I defend the act as good and proper journalism. I’ll be presenting a seminar at Columbia in a few weeks, where I’ll outline non-verbal reporting strategies in the new atmosphere we all inhabit…”

Anything could happen. The children of the press are throwing one tantrum after another, because they couldn’t get their girl into the Oval Office. They’ve thrown away their masks. They want their candy before bedtime.

And they’ll burn down the house if they can’t have it.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

My Memories From The Fake News Business

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 13, 2017

“The true job of a reporter is using facts to overturn reality. Things are already upside down, and his job is to show that. In his work, he has to be relentless. This inevitably leads him to publishing his own words, on his own, because entrenched press outlets are in the business of propping up the very reality he aims to expose. He can’t go to them for publication. Once he learns that, he’s launched, and his life is never the same. It improves exponentially.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There was the time a newspaper publisher inserted his own paragraph at the top of my story, under my name, as if I wrote it. He didn’t tell me. I found out later when the paper came out. I called him up. He was clueless. To him, his intrusion meant nothing. It was my story, but it was his newspaper. I learned something. If you want your own words, and only your words, to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a story about a dubious drug/supplement people were selling under the counter at health food stores. I took the supplement for a week and folded my experiences into the article, which was mainly about the unfounded “scientific background” in the package insert. The editor couldn’t fathom how a story could contain “two separate threads.” He axed half my story. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

There was the time I wrote a piece about widespread fraud in psychiatric diagnosis. The editor claimed I had employed “too much logic” and not enough “expert opinion.” He said “original research” was “out.” To no avail, I pointed out that logic was in the public domain, and therefore my “original research” could be checked. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

An editor once told me an article I’d written criticizing a senator wouldn’t be published. My harsh criticism was valid, he said, but readers might infer that the newspaper was turning against the senator’s political party. I learned something. If you want your own words to stand, publish them yourself.

Once my career as a reporter was launched, magazine editors began contacting me with all sorts of proposed assignments. The subjects of the stories were boring, to say the least. I soon realized the editors were using those stories to fill out their no-context version of reality. I learned something. If you don’t want your words to be published, don’t submit them.

A newspaper editor once told me (paraphrasing from memory): “This story you wrote…part of the reason we don’t want to publish it is we don’t want to give it the contagion factor. If we publish it, other news outlets will pick up on it. We’re in an echo chamber. We ricochet stories back and forth. We all use the same experts to bolster our stories. So we take your controversial story and publish it, and then when the roar gets loud enough in the echo chamber, people are going to object. And we’ll be the ones they blame because we started it.”

I said to an editor, a year or so after 9/11: If I could give you ironclad evidence, from many reputable sources, proving that the planes crashing into the Towers couldn’t have caused them to fall, would you print the story? He said: The official story is already in place. There’s no way anyone could dislodge it now. I said: So it doesn’t matter what the truth is. He said: It matters, maybe 30 years in the future, but probably not.

A publisher once told me: We have our own definition of “controversial.” We decide what that is. It’s not your definition. It’s…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

US anti-propaganda legislation ‘Orwellian, plain and simple’ – Lionel

Source: RTAmerica
February 9, 2017

In one of his last acts as president, Barack Obama signed the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, proposed by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), which allocates $160 million to the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) to counter foreign propaganda. Legal and media analyst Lionel, of Lionel Media, joins “News with Ed” to help us understand what’s going on.

Why Is The Deadstream Media Ignoring These GMO Studies?


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
January 26, 2017

Despite new research indicating health concerns and conflicts of interest related to Genetically Modified foods, the corporate media has, once again, remained silent. 

In late December, a series of studies and news stories went largely unreported and ignored by the corporate, deadstream media. These reports covered blatant conflicts of interest between the biotechnology corporations promoting genetically modified or engineered products and the researchers and politicians guiding legal policy. There was also the issue of a new study that shows negative health affects with rats who ingest genetically engineered food.

This study, Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat, which was published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, showed that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 suffered serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum, an important part of the small intestine. The signs of damage were apparent after only 90 days, according to the researchers.

The study used Monsanto’s MON810: Ajeeb YG, a genetically modified version of Ajeeb,  a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market. The rats who were on the GM corn  consumed MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group had the same amount of non-GMO corn. The GM group experienced damage on the finger-like structures within the intestine known as villi. These villi are responsible for absorbing nutrients from food. The researchers found them to be distorted and flattened. They also found signs of inflammation, disturbed mucosal glands, and congested blood vessels.

“Consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure,” the researchers concluded.

Despite this astounding study, there has been little to no mention of its conclusions in the independent or corporate media. The study alone is not hard evidence that the same results will be found in humans, or even necessarily that the genetically modified corn is the sole reason for the damage, but it does absolutely warrant further investigation. Especially in light of growing concern around conflicts of interest.

In late December, researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research announced stunning findings in their study of potential conflicts of interest within the biotechnology industry. Published in the journal PLOS One, the study found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study, Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies, also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.

The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or had received funds directly from the company. Given that America is one of the world’s largest consumer of GM foods, it was not surprising to find that our of the 579 studies examined, 404 were American and 83 were Chinese.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told AFP.

The authors also admit that the study was limited in its scope.  “We used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered,” the researcher wrote. “However, authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”

Again, silence from the corporate media on these conflicts. It should also be noted that other than Activist Post reporting on this, the only other link came from the Times of India, an English language website for news in India. There was one story regarding conflicts of interest that made the deadstream.

In early December 2016, the New York Times released a report that was quickly forgotten or ignored by the masses. The article details how committees associated with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) were being questioned for their own conflicts of interest. The NAS provides policy guidance to the U.S. government. They distribute this guidance via written reports from scientific committees.

The NAS’s committee on biotechnology has recently been challenged regarding how its members are selected. According to the NY Times:

Critics say that several committee members have financial ties to biotech businesses that could color the panel’s report, expected to be published soon, potentially giving short shrift to health and environmental worries.

By the academies’ own account, two of the scientists already violate the group’s extensive conflict-of-interest policy. The National Academies play an outsize role in the debate because of their stature in the academic community and connections to the federal government.

The NAS is also the organization responsible for a May 2016 study which claimed to have completely debunked any environmental or health dangers related to genetically engineered foods. However, once again, conflict of interest was an issue. Following the NAS study, the environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of GM foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Food and Water Watch claims that the NRC and NAS:

  • takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology companies
  • invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards overseeing the NRC’s work
  • invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC reports
  • draws scientific conclusions based on industry science
  • operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research

Food and Water Watch also points to the fact that Monsanto, DuPont and other agribusinesses that produce or support GMOs have donated millions of dollars into the NRC’s parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences. The report also alleges that corporate representatives participate in “high-level decision-making processes at the NRC, including sitting on the board that oversees the NRC’s work on GMOs.”

How are Americans supposed to trust the corporate media, the scientists promoting genetic engineering, and the political bodies if they are completely corrupt and wrapped in conflicts of interest? We can’t. Grow your own food and vacate the unsustainable food systems that promote genetic engineering, factory farming, and pesticide use.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Watching Major Media Commit Suicide

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 21, 2017

This article goes to many places. I think you’ll find a place that works for you.

I’ve been investigating and reporting on deep medical fraud for 29 years. I’ve been around the block a few hundred times. I’ve spoken with scientists who work for the government and universities, and the media operatives who support them. I know the game.

If Robert F Kennedy Jr is, indeed, given the green light by President Trump to investigate vaccine safety, he’s going to need a truck and a chain and DOJ threats of prosecution to drag key CDC scientists into the light and elicit specific statements from them.

Even then, the odds are these scientists will keep repeating the party line: vaccines are overwhelmingly safe; they have no connection to autism or other neurological damage; the science is settled.

Kennedy could run up against an organized wall of silence—scientists refusing to speak with him, on the basis that he isn’t qualified to make judgements in their “field.”

In that case, he will need subpoena power, for starters.

Many years ago, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He had been trying to obtain medical-research information from the federal National Institutes of Health. He told me he was given the absolute cold shoulder: “If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.”

Arrogance par excellence. Scientists rebuff the White House with a yawn.

Fortunately, Kennedy is a relentless investigator. He understands how science is corrupted and paid for. And the ace in the deck is this: there is already enough evidence in the open record to refute the CDC’s claim of vaccine safety.

Trump has blazed a trail of rejecting major media. As a result of his merciless attacks, press outlets are going mad pushing numerous outlandish fake stories. They’re ripe for further incursions on their territory.

In the past, this was the pattern: an outsider enters the scene and accuses the government of vast fraud; media operators assemble their usual cast of sordid characters, who dismiss the charges; everybody goes home and the story dies.

But that’s not working anymore. Media pomposity is exposed as fakery. Millions of people see through the ruse.

The media emperor is naked. He can prance around and around, but his fundamental nakedness keeps compounding the joke.

Truth be told, as their financial positions sink into dire red ink, press operations are trapped. Why?

Because they are partners with the high-level criminals whose activities are the very stories the public wants to know about.

Reporting on these crimes in great depth, day after day, would resuscitate the newspapers and broadcast networks. But that will never happen.

For example, these crimes:

* The Federal Reserve/a clandestine private corporation.

* Medically caused death.

* Toxic vaccines.

* Trillions of dollars of missing US government money.

* The power of the Trilateral Commission over US government policy.

* The covert implementation of the UN agenda of destruction in US communities.

And a hundred more issues.

Expose these down to the core, and people would buy newspapers off the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and fast food. The Times would have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand. Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.

You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and present him with an ironclad plan for pulling his paper out of its deep financial hole, based on covering true stories like those above, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down with the ship than go up against the Matrix.

The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.

“We’ll show you a tree in the forest, but not the forest.”

I know how it works, because as a reporter I’ve been there. I’ve approached editors of various media outlets with stories that crack the trance, and I’ve had those stories tossed back at me.

“We’re just not interested,” they say. “This isn’t our kind of piece.” Or: “Well, we already covered that.” But they didn’t cover it. They did a limited hangout on it. They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of a whole bloody mess.

I say this—as simple fact—if any intelligent, aggressive, truly independent investigator were the managing editor of the New York Times, and if he were given free rein, he would have that paper back in the black in a year. He would have it roaring on all cylinders. He would have people fighting each other in the streets to grab the last copy off the newsstand. Journalism schools all over the country would close down in shame. Because he would be running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of cartel-control along many fronts, and he would be filling up a planned vacuum of truth with fire.

A decade ago, here is what a working reporter for a major paper told me: “We know what stories we can’t cover. Nobody needs to prep us. Our editors know, too. Otherwise, they’d never get to be editors.”

A player in a non-profit group once told me I could have a job with a paper on the east coast. In a roundabout way, he hinted at what they were looking for. In five minutes, I saw the handwriting on the wall. Essentially, the editor was searching for a reporter who would cover politics in Central America. The stories would have to favor the repressive governments in power. The basic cover was: these leaders were fighting the good fight against Communism. The death squads they were sending out, in cooperation with the CIA, were freedom fighters. And of course, any mention of cocaine trafficking as a means for obtaining weapons was off-limits.

None of this was spelled out. But the message was clear. They wanted a propaganda specialist. If I, as an up and coming reporter, decided to play ball, I could advance up the ladder.

Apparently, some travel was necessary. But I knew I could turn out reams of copy without ever leaving my apartment, because I grasped the fundamental angle I was supposed to pursue. Needless to say, I turned down the offer.

It was the first time I fully realized how easy the job of reporting could be. Assemble a list of reliable sources (who would support the mandatory point of view), walk right into a prepared group of corporate and think-tank allies, pull down copy from wire services, and re-write stories in a way that bolstered the idea that American Empire was really “spreading democracy” to the less fortunate. A walk in the park.

Twenty years later, I saw the same overall pattern in hundreds of major-media stories—but the point of view and the mandate had changed. Now it was all about Globalism. The covert op was the takedown of America, in order to squash the last vestige of political freedom and integrate the nation in “a new economic order.”

However, over the mountains, a new dawn was rising: the Internet. Independent media outlets. The resistance.

It was immediately obvious that, unless someone could shut this new creature down, major media would have no way to challenge the invasion. Independent news sources would gradually wreck MSM financial bottom lines.

Fronting for Globalist princes, Big News would see their bias exposed time and time again. The blowback on them would be enormous.

Trapped and corned like rats, they would attack, but their efforts would only compound their problem.

Then a populist named Donald Trump strolled on to the scene. He knew major media were suffering great losses. He knew online media were in the ascendance. He had people like Steve Bannon (Breitbart) who were bringing him up to speed. He saw how Matt Drudge was obliterating traditional news sources, even while (selectively) linking to them. A revolution was in progress.

Trump had the right stuff for this situation, because he didn’t care about offending people. He was mercurial, reckless; an opportunist. He could fly by the seat of his pants. He realized where and how, in America, the Globalists were causing great damage.

Trump accelerated the fall of major media from their thrones.

People around the world, untold millions, thought to themselves, “Trump is finally giving major media what they deserve.”

Giving the major media what they deserve is a force to be reckoned with, because there is no effective response to it. Nothing works. Who can lead the fight to preserve mainstream news? Answer: mainstream news. That isn’t going to go anywhere, because more and more people are rejecting the mainstream wholesale.

Think of major media as a ship. In full view of the passengers, the captain has just steered it into a shore of high rocks. The craft is beginning to tilt, and it’s taking on water. As the passengers scramble to safety on the beach, the captain is yelling, “Don’t leave, come back, everything is all right, I didn’t do anything wrong, it’s your fault, you’re too stupid to understand the correct principles of navigation!”

Translation: “I’m committing suicide. Go down with me.”

As a reporter starting out in the 1980s, one of my first glimpses of trouble involved a few of the papers I was writing for: they were definitely on the political Left, but at the same time they were businesses. You only had to look at the ads choking the pages to see that. They were capitalist enterprises. But they would never fully admit that. They were operating under a self-induced, self-serving delusion about fundamental economics. Eventually, larger publishers bought them out, and a few of the old guard made significant dollars on the deals. It was an old story about socialists getting rich.

This contradiction plagues every major media outlet today. They claim to serve the public interest, but they want to be rich. Their reporters want very nice salaries. And this is all in the service of Globalism, which aims to bankrupt economies and drive populations into the arms of technocrat planners of societies. It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t work.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and working hard to achieve it. But claiming, at the same time, that you want the government to run the economy is a sick joke. A transparently sick joke, on the order of wealthy celebrities stumping for socialism, while they hire more armed security and dig bunkers on their walled properties.

Suppose you could approach a well-known and well-paid reporter for the New York Times. And suppose you said this: “For years, you’ve been writing about the less fortunate and giving back and more government support for the downtrodden and humanitarianism and so on—so I want to know, would you be willing to donate two-thirds of your salary, for the sake of equality, to those who need the money? Would you be willing to sell your co-op and give the money to the poor and move into a small apartment?”

The duplicitous and slimy major media are obviously engaged in a long con. They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they also want to appear as architects of “a more humane planet.”

They care about a more humane order in the same way an ant cares about space travel.

They care about serving their bosses, and those bosses have other bosses who are engineering a future of poverty for all, as a mechanism of control. That’s who’s paying reporters their salaries.

Do you know what a tired rich media liberal (fake socialist) looks like? Of course you do. You can see one every night anchoring the national news. Over the years, I’ve spoken with a few of these types. In every case, I’ve gotten the impression they’re sitting on a keg of dynamite. They know how precarious their position is. They’re surprised they’ve lasted as long as they have. Their spouting of liberal homilies is transparent. Where did they go wrong? Answer: the first day they accepted their first job as a reporter. That’s when they sold out. They knew it then, and under cheesy layers of vast pretensions, they still know it now. But they can’t turn around. They’ve made a commitment.

They tell themselves: “It’s business. It’s not personal. This is the business I’m in.”

But of course, it is personal. Everything is personal. We’re talking about lives and minds and souls.

That’s what these reporters traded, in the perverse corner of the marketplace. They chose the rackets, the information mafia, the law of omerta, the dishonorable underground that lives in the highest penthouses.

Whatever gloss they lay on, the trap they’re in stays in place.

And now, they’re sinking and sinking.

I could try to work up pity for them, buy why bother?

Damage is damage, and they’ve done a great deal of it.

A full confession would make a start, but that’s not going to happen.

They’re in a race with themselves. How long can they keep erecting delusions about their work, vs. their growing realization about those delusions?

It’s inescapably personal.

It always was.

The night is falling on them, and the rain is coming down, too. Their mandate is to be on the Inside, but they’re on the Outside now.

They’re the walking dead. They’ll keep walking, but things will never be the same.

As a long addendum, here is a backgrounder, an article I wrote headlined, “Howard Beale, the last sane man on television”:

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky’s scorching masterpiece, Network (1976). Yet it 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.

Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
___________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Americans poised for ‘complete and total re-evaluation’ of news sources – Lionel

Source: RTAmerica
January 18, 2017

Telecommunications giant AT&T intends an $85billion merger with Time Warner. Some are speculating that AT&T will ditch CNN after the deal in order to curry favor with the Trump administration, despite AT&T’s denial of such rumors. Legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel Media joins RT America’s Simone Del Rosario to discuss the implications of the merger in light of Trump’s presidency after his fierce criticism of CNN.

The Social Media Exodus Has Begun – Here’s Where Everybody’s Going

Source: CorbettReport
James Corbett
January 13, 2017

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=21349

10 years ago, everybody was on MySpace. 10 years from now, the Twitters and Facebooks and YouTubes of today will be dinosaurs, abandoned by users sick of censorship and centralized control. Thankfully, the alternatives to these social media dinosaurs are already here, and they’re blockchain-based, torrent friendly, decentralized and censorship resistant.