Hollywood strike? Sounds good!

Source: RT America
February 16, 2017

A bunch of celebrities signed their names on an anti-Trump ad by a group called RefuseFacism.org in the New York Times, and that somehow turned into reports of a “Hollywood strike.” While the strike is fake news, The Resident thinks it sounds like a real good idea.

Nicole Kidman’s “Bizarre Behavior”: How Mass Media Destroys Those Who Dare Not Follow its Agenda

P.S. Before posting a comment saying “I can’t believe you support Trump” or something of the sorts, please take note that this is not a political site. It is about analyzing mass media and its clearly defined agenda. 


Source: VigilantCitizen.com
February 1, 2017

On January 10th, Nicole Kidman told an interviewer that “we need to support whoever is the president”. A few days later, mass media reports that Kidman exhibited “bizarre behavior” during the Golden Globes … which took place over a week prior. Free speech is under attack using underhanded methods.

There is something seriously wrong with mass media and today’s political climate. Free speech is gravely under attack. Censorship is sharply on the rise. Character assassination is rampant. The absurdly Orwellian term “fake news” is used to dismiss important stories. Rational discussions about important issues have been completely evacuated from all platforms to be replaced with angry agenda pushing.

Those who dare go slightly out of the ideological boundaries set by mass media are shunned, harassed and destroyed. If we’ve learned something in the past year is that one of mass media’s boundaries is: “Do not show any kind of support for Trump”. But things are getting worse. The boundary is now: “Do not even acknowledge democracy”.

A few weeks ago, Kanye West was handcuffed and forcibly sent to a hospital shortly after KIND OF showing support for Trump. Indeed, during one of his shows, West praised Trump’s strategy of bypassing mass media (and its outdated methods) to reach his electorate. While this fact alone might not explain his forced hospital visit, it was nevertheless oddly timed.


Shortly after his release from “psychiatric evaluation”, Kanye met with Trump. His hair was bleached and his face was somewhat swollen. What happened during his internment?

After news got out that Jennifer Holliday would sing at Trump’s inauguration, she was subject to violent backlash.


Jennifer Holliday reportedly cancelled her performance at Trump’s inauguration due to death threats.

“Jennifer Holliday pulled the plug on her inauguration performance because people threatened to kill her and her family … TMZ has learned.

The “Dreamgirls” star agreed to sing at an inaugural event but did an about-face Saturday, saying she bailed because she was taking heat from the LGBT community.

But we’ve learned when her agent contacted the Inauguration Committee, he said the reason was death threats. We’re told the LGBT concerns were not even mentioned.

A rep for Holliday told TMZ Monday … both the death threats and the LGBT reaction were factors in her decision.

The rep tells us, “It was all of those things. She wasn’t scared to perform. She didn’t want to put her family at risk based on the death threats and she also didn’t want to offend the LGBT community which was especially upset that a past ally would perform on a program with President-Elect Donald Trump.”
– TMZ, Canceled Trump Inauguration because of death threats

Nicole Kidman appears to be a new target. At least, she is being severely warned. Not unlike Kanye West and Jennifer Holliday, Kidman did not even openly support Trump. She simply shared her views about democracy. But that does not fit with the current mass media narrative.

Backlash Against Nicole Kidman

On January 10th, Nicole Kidman told Victoria Derbyshire on BBC television:

“[Trump is] now elected and we, as a country, need to support whoever is the president. That is what the country is based on. And however that happened, he’s there, and let’s go.”

Since this blasphemous remark, Kidman has been the subject of attacks. She even felt the need to defend her claims by later adding:

“I was trying to stress that I believe in democracy and the American Constitution, and it was that simple.”

Here’s the video where she basically tells people to stop harassing her about this.

Continue Reading At: VigilantCitizen.com

The PsyOp To Neuter The Rebel

DareToBeDIfferent!

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 17, 2017

If you want to track a civilization as it collapses, watch what happens to the concept of the rebel.

From the 1960s onward—starting with Lee Oswald and the assassination of JFK—the whole idea of “the rebel” with power has been sequentially updated and repackaged. This is intentional.

The objective is to equate “rebel” with a whole host of qualities—e.g., runaway self-serving paranoia; random destruction; out-of-control drug use; generalized hatred; the commission of crimes…

On a lesser, “commercialized” level, the new rebel can define himself by merely showing up at a concert to scream and drink heavily and break something, having already dressed to make a dissident fashion statement. He can take an afternoon off from college classes and have his arms tattooed. All the while, of course, he functions as an avid consumer of mainstream corporate products.

You even have people who, considering themselves rebels of the first order, support a government that spies on its people 24/7, launches military attacks all over the world, and now funds a Manhattan Project to map every move of the 100 billion neurons of the brain, for the ultimate purpose of controlling it.

Even going back as far as the 1950s, the so-called decade of conformity, psyops professionals sculpted notions of The Rebel: He was the person who didn’t want to take part in the emerging bland corporate culture.

He was imagined and presented as troubled, morose; a wobbly unfocused JD Salinger Holden Caulfield, or a beatnik, a Madison Avenue caricature of somebody who opposed Madison Avenue.

In other words, the people who were shaping the consumer culture were creating the image of the rebel as a cartoon figure who just didn’t want to buy into “the good life.”

Time Magazine ran a cover story on the beatniks, and characterized them as a disaffected trend. Marlon Brando, heading up a bunch of moronic motorcycle riders, invaded a town of pleasant clueless citizens and took it over, wreaking destruction. The 1953 movie was The Wild One. James Dean, who had the same trouble Brando did in articulating a complete sentence, was “the rebel without a cause” in the “iconic film” of the same name. He raced cars toward cliffs because his father couldn’t understand him.

These were all puff pieces designed to make rebels look ridiculous, and they worked. They also functioned to transmit the idea to young people that being a rebel should be a showbiz affectation. That worked, too.

Then the late 1960s arrived. Flower children, in part invented by the major media, would surely take over the world and dethrone fascist authority with rainbows. San Francisco was the epicenter. But Haight-Ashbury, where the flowers and the weed were magically growing out of the sidewalks, turned into a speed, acid, and heroin nightmare, a playground for psychopaths to cash in and steal and destroy lives. The CIA, of course, gave the LSD culture a major push.

For all that the anti-war movement eventually accomplished in ending the Vietnam war-crime, in the aftermath many of those college students who had been in the streets—once the fear of being drafted was gone—scurried into counselors’ offices to see where they might fit into the job market after graduation. The military industrial complex took its profits and moved on, undeterred.

The idea of the rebel was gone. It later resurfaced as The Cocaine Dealer, the archangel of the 1980s.

And so forth and so on. All these incarnations of The Rebel were artificially created and sustained as psyops. At bottom, the idea was to discredit the Individual, in favor of The Group.

Now, in our collectivist society of 2016, The Group, as a rapidly expanding victim class, is the government’s number one project. It’s a straight con. “We’re here to make you worse off while we lift you up.”

In the psyop to demean, distort, and squash the rebel, there is a single obvious common denominator: the establishment media are doing the defining; they are the ones who are setting the parameters and making the descriptions; they are the ones who build the cartoons; looking down their noses, pretending to a degree of sympathy, they paint one unflattering picture after another of what the rebel is and does and says; they have co-opted the whole game.

These days, the ultimate rebels, the media would have you believe, are “gun-toting racist bitter clingers who have religion.” Another attempt to shape a distorted unflattering portrait

You can take a whole host of political films and television series of the past 50 years, and look at them for signs of the Rebel: Seven Days in May, Advise and Consent, The Candidate, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Dave, Primary Colors, The Contender, Good Night and Good Luck, The American President, West Wing, Scandal, The Newsroom…

Good acting, bad acting, drama, message—at the end you’re looking for the core. What do the rebel heroes really stand for? What are their principles? It’s all bland. It’s vague. It has the posturing of importance, but little else.

As I was finishing this piece, a friend wrote with a quote attributed to Robert Anton Wilson: “The universe is a war between reality programmers.”

This is exactly where the real rebel enters the scene. He’s not trying to program people. Freedom means cutting loose from programming.

The Rebel doesn’t go to the market and choose which reality program he wants. They’re all used up as soon as they come out of the package.

Albert Camus once wrote: “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. It would be easy, however, to destroy that good conscience by shouting to them: if you want the happiness of the people, let them speak out and tell what kind of happiness they want and what kind they don’t want! But, in truth, the very ones who make use of such alibis know they are lies; they leave to their intellectuals on duty the chore of believing in them and of proving that religion, patriotism, and justice need for their survival the sacrifice of freedom.”

“THIS or THAT” is the history of Earth: choose reality program A or B. The choice was always a con.

We’re well into a time period when the experts and scientific authorities are settling on the human being as a biological machine that can only respond to programming. That’s their view and their default position.

It’s sheer madness, of course, but what else do you expect? We’re in an intense technological age, and people are obsessed with making things run smoother. They treat their precious little algorithms for control like the Crown Jewels. They’re terribly enthusiastic about the problem they’re solving, and that problem is us.

We’re the wild cards, a fact which they take to be result of our improper and incomplete conditioning. They aim to fix that.

“Why not stop diddling around and just make the whole thing over? Why not reshape humans?”

Having decided that, the battle begins between competing programmers of the mind. Which program for humans is better?

The rebel is against all such programming, no matter how “good and right” it sounds. “Good” and “right” are the traps.

“Well, certainly we could make a list of qualities we want all people to have. You know, the best qualities, like bravery and determination. Who could be against that? So suppose we could actually program such qualities into humans? Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Then people would just BE that way…”

The ultimate rebellion is against programming, whatever it looks like, wherever it occurs.

Programming is someone else’s idea of who and what you should be.

It is never your idea.

Your idea is where the power is.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

The Individual Vs. The Staged Collective

individuality
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 26 2016

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.

And once again, I find it necessary to return to the subject of The Individual.

This time, I’m prompted by the madness swirling around the film, Vaxxed. I’ve written about the film and the controversy from several angles, but here I want to point out another factor. The CDC whistleblower at the heart of the story is one man going up against The Group.

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, he buried evidence that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in children, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

But the group, his employer, the grotesque CDC, his fellow scientists—and especially the hideous rotting press, a dumping ground for professional agents, front men, con artists, shysters, wormy night crawlers (and I’m speaking more kindly of them than I should)—have attacked Thompson and the film mercilessly.

Beyond all political objectives in this attack, there is a simple fact: those group-mind liars 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…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Book Review: Propaganda And Mass Persuasion – A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 To The Present

propaganda-mass-persuasion-historical-account
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
December 13, 2016

Propaganda And Mass Persuasion – A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 To The Present by Nicholas J. Cull, David Culbert & David Welch is broad surveying of a large portion of the propaganda that has historically taken place the last five centuries or so.

For the record, the book has many other contributors than the ones listed above.  The ones listed are only three of the entire group.

In any case, the book is divided alphabetically, which certainly helps, and is footnoted to the hilt, which is greatly appreciated.

Showcased within the book are the smorgasbord of ways propaganda can be used.  Common methods such as television, radio, and media are delved into, while also cursory glances are given to posters, leaflets and other tools used historically.

A wide sprinkling of Individuals, methods, movements, ideologies, movies, countries and more are each given a decent gander within the confines of this piece.

Propaganda And Mass Persuasion exegetes the precise historical periods of some of the largest propaganda campaigns that have taken place.  From World War 1, to World War 2, Vietnam War, and even many other wars, the book delves into how propaganda played a role in assisting and/or countering an opposing side.  Along with this, the book even shows how mass persuasion has been viewed by the establishment, and how it has served a major purpose in pushing particular agendas.

Ultimately, steering vox populi is the main focus of any propagandist, and this book shows why.

In its totality, Propaganda And Mass Persuassion is quite didactic for a neophyte, given its expansive historical range.  That said, given the size of the book, it can only really home-in on certain historical applications with great precision.  Because of that ome areas were somewhat lacking however.

The data set addressed was rather scholarly, although admittedly from an establishment point of view.  Much deeper layers of this topic are only given mere glances, or simply glossed over in their entirety. Simply stated, the book is congealed – or so it feels – to cement official narratives.  Giving you enough scholarly data for it to be legitimate, but not following additional published documents/data sets that that would confect a much larger and complete picture.

It is up to the reader to take cognizance in the lacking breadth and scope of the book.

As a starting point, it’s certainly quite superficially comprehensive, and it certainly belongs in a researcher’s library.  However, the glaring omission of social engineering – which is propaganda’s ultimate goal – are to be looked at quite askance.   That subject alone could be written about at length, and isn’t even given a glance.

If you are a student of propaganda, mind control, social engineering and the like, and happen to get this book, just realize this isn’t the end-all-be-all of sourced material.  There are many books by many great people on Amazon, and countless documents published which go into farther depth than this book has.  Make sure to spend time and search for those in order widen your repertoire and be more able to keenly ascertain when such tools are being used against you, and your kith and kin.

Lady Gaga Channels Hitler in Chilling Speech At Hillary Clinton Rally


Source: TheAntimedia.org
via: ZeroHedge.com
November 10, 2016

Lady Gaga made waves on social media Monday night when she took the stage at Hillary Clinton’s final rally, sporting an outfit eerily resembling a Nazi uniform. The pop starpounded the podium and pointed at the crowd, ironically mimicking the powerful speaking style made famous by Adolf Hitler himself. At one point, Gaga declared “Hillary Clinton is made of steel. Hillary Clinton is unstoppable.” Despite a social media backlash, numerous mainstream media sites rushed to her defense.

Lady Gaga made waves on social media Monday night when she took the stage at Hillary Clinton’s final rally, sporting an outfit eerily resembling a Nazi uniform. In a black military jacket complete with red armband, the pop star gestured emphatically while delivering the despotic speech, often pounding the podium and pointing at the crowd, ironically mimicking the powerful speaking style made famous by Adolf Hitler himself. At one point, Gaga declared “Hillary Clinton is made of steel. Hillary Clinton is unstoppable.”

In response to the social media backlash, sites like Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, and ET were among many to rush to her defense, pointing out that the very-Nazi-looking ensemble once belonged to Michael Jackson, who wore the jacket when he visited the White House in 1990.  It’s unclear why the fact that it was previously owned by someone else makes it less…Nazi, especially given the fact that Jackson has been rumored to have been obsessed with the Nazi dictator.

But that’s not the only thing Lady Gaga’s media white knights conveniently overlooked.

Despite the many Hitler references, what many people — among both the media and the general public — failed to associate with Gaga’s outfit during the final Clinton rally was hiding in plain sight.

The black jacket fitted with a red armband and silver medallion is part of the same outfit worn by Jackson at the White House in 1990. At the time, the King of Pop was meeting with then-president George H.W. Bush — just three years before he was first accused of sexually abusing children.

By mid-1993, dentist Evan Chandler had accused Jackson of having an inappropriate relationship with his 13-year-old son Jordan. After the attention he got from the media due to his son’s proximity to Jackson, Chandler later talked to his attorney, bringing the accusation directly to Jackson. By August, the allegations were being investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit. In the winter of 1993, Jackson’s sister, La Toya Jackson, claimed she had proof her brother was a pedophile. He later forgave her after she claimed those accusations stemmed from her financial troubles.

After the investigation was carried out in full, the LAPD cleared Jackson of unfounded molestation charges from the Chandlers. A civil lawsuit was later filed in September, and on January 25, 1994, the lawsuit was settled out of court. Jackson was ordered to pay $15,331,250, which was mostly held in a trust fund for Jordan.

In 2003, Jackson was charged with several counts of child sexual abuse and several counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit a child sexual abuse felony. The trial, which began in January 2005, ended in June of the same year. The jury found Jackson not guilty.

By wearing his jacket to Clinton’s rally, it’s possible Lady Gaga may have wanted to make a statement. After all, Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, is often accused of sexual misconduct.

Three women publicly accused the 42nd President of the United States of sexual misconduct, including rape and sexual harassment. Clinton later admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. But in 2015, a young woman alleged in a sworn affidavit that American financier Jeffrey Epstein had used her as a sex slave. At the time, she claimed she had been at parties on Epstein’s private island, along with former president Clinton.

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com