We Are The Real Movement To Destroy Fake News

lightbulbmoment
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 9, 2016

The new mandate is: throw off the tattered tasseled layers of horseshit.

The bottom line: we are the real movement.

We’re the people who have the job of exposing big-time mainstream news as the frauds they are.

Along the way, we’ve encountered some strange ghouls and goblins. Just to sketch in a few recent editions:

Scott Pelley (CBS) is careful to watch himself. His tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a pro surgeon making an incision without bothering to administer an anesthetic. Pelley’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human. It’s not going well.

Diane (formerly of ABC) “don’t cry for me, America” Sawyer wandered into sloppiness. She poured syrup on her words, as if she’d had a few cocktails before breakfast. She affected a pose of “caring too much” and “refusing to apologize for it”—“I’m suffering for humanity and I won’t cover it up.” Sniff, sniff.

Before being put out to dry for lying about being shot at in Iraq, Brian Williams (NBC) was head and shoulders above his competitors. You had to look and listen very hard to spot even a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knew exactly 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.

Of course, Brian is now back. His bosses let him sneak in the side door at MSNBC, the only major news channel with ratings lower than Howdy Doody reruns.

Brian just let loose with a sober reasoned criticism of “fake news sites” the other day, claiming the real news has a responsibility to shoulder the load of truth. He neglected to mention he was kicked out of the news business for spreading fake news about himself—but no problem, the past is dead, and he’s a new man thanks to the love of his family and his deep reflections on character, mission, devotion, fidelity, and shilling for his masters…

Those are a few ghouls among many.

We are in the middle of the death throes of the old guard, and we need to recognize that. They’re going away. Independent media are taking over. It’s called decentralization.

Blackouts and censorship are the only weapons they have left. And guess how they’re trying to make that happen? They’re appealing to social media—Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Google (which through its rankings is a form of social media). Amazing. Social media numbers are far higher than those of major newspapers and television news.

On the Fade to Black show (twitter: #f2b) with host Jimmy Church on Jimmy Church Radio last night (I have a regular Thursday slot, 10:30 – 11:00pm ET), I discussed the death-rattle of major media. Host Jimmy Church made an interesting point. When CNN started out as the first 24/7 all-news global network, they were the “rebels.” They were the new faces and the interlopers, and they were hell-bent on muscling into the game. (Of course, their predilection for honesty was just another con.) Eventually, they turned into the media giants they purportedly hated. And now, with their ratings in the tank, they can’t go back. They’re trapped. They can’t reinvent themselves as new kids on the block. They’re slow, they’re Clinton fellow travelers, they’re racists accusing other people of being racists, they’re basically a bunch of miscreants who—if they didn’t have their jobs—would be lucky to land gigs pumping gas in Death Valley. It’s a sight to behold.

For the most part, FOX, another upstart, became a parade of young blondes who, one after another, rose and then fell. Remembering their names was like remembering winners of the Miss America pageant. Megyn Kelly, the latest edition, thinks she’s immune from that fate. Watch out, M. A few years from now, you could become just another tired face on one of the major network’s morning gab shows, listening attentively to some tattooed teen rocker talk about the drop of his latest album, his interest in wildlife sanctuaries, and his love of brisket sandwiches from some NYC deli 300 million Americans have never heard of.

You have a choice. You can read, listen to, and watch any of a hundred thousand sites and blogs for your news, or you can attach yourself like a barnacle to the slow moving spewing ships of state/corporate media.

You can hope that the consensus status quo will hold, and reality will basically remain unchanged, or you can dump that fairy tale.

You can believe that all significant events on this planet emerge organically/randomly/accidentally, or you can investigate the concept that elite groups are steering us toward their New World, because they live for control.

You can live in a hazy gauzy dream that siphons away your energy, or you can embark on a new course of adventure that strips away the veneer and the shadows.

You can believe you are helpless before larger forces, or you can invent a different vision for yourself.

You can raise your children to be pawns, or you can inspire them with the knowledge of their own freedom and power.

You can “leave things to others,” or you can join in the fray.

You can claim you don’t know what to do, or you can figure out what to do on your own.

When I started this site in 2001, I shoved in all my chips on the idea that there were MANY individuals out there who could re-grasp their own power and figure out what to do on their own.

I haven’t moved off that premise. And I won’t.

I welcome the old layer of media reality being stripped away, because that leaves the individual in charge.

Toss that old chunk of mind control and hypnosis into the garbage and cross the threshold into a new time. The time you make.

Don’t complain, don’t explain. You’re the new elite.

Accept it.

An elite without the desire to control others. An elite based on merit. An elite based on life-force showing up when you know the future is unwritten.

Is that too much to ask?

I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all.

The game is afoot. The game is always afoot. If you can see 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.

 

Google/Facebook Now Targeting “Fake News Sites”; I’ve Been Doing It For 15 Years

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 16, 2016

Only I’ve been doing it for real, here at NoMoreFakeNews.com. That’s the difference. Google and Facebook are up to something else. They’re attacking truth emanating from the alt media.

It’s a reverse play on their part. Google will refuse to allow “fake sites” to use their AdSense Program. FB will try to limit “fake” posts.

They’re really getting desperate.

Major media election coverage was so phony it was laughable. Inside their bubble, Hillary was winging her way to victory. She was way out ahead in the polls. Wikileaks and Project Veritas were spooling out devastating revelations almost every day, and the press was studiously ignoring the implications. Why don’t FB and Google go after the NY Times and WaPo and CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN and FOX, if they want to limit fake news? Why? Because all those jokers, including Google/FB, are on the same page. They’re all PR firms fronting for the concoction called Globalism.

And they’re losing.

In mainstream news, everything should begin with the concept of a staged event.

Every television newscast: staged reality

“The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.”

Now consider a “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases.

In the matter of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce…

Continue Reading At: NoMoreFakeNews.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.

Why The Mainstream Media Refuses To Talk About The Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]


Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Claire Bernish
August 2, 2016

United States — After two years with nary a mention from the mainstream press, the corporate windfall otherwise known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) finally earned some, albeit still inadequate, attention.

Considering a New York Times poll from June 2015, which found an alarming 78 percent of respondents had no substantial knowledge of the looming agreement — 30 percent said they hadn’t heard or read much about it, while 48 percent had zero knowledge of it whatsoever — the dearth in coverage by mainstream media allowed the TPP to go virtually unnoticed by the public it directly affects.

From August 1, 2013 through January 31, 2015, Media Matters for America tracked how often the TPP earned a mention from the Big Three major cable news outlets: CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. During that lengthy period, CNN andFox acknowledged the TPP just one time each — and while MSNBC appeared more on the ball, with 73 mentions, the now-canceled The Ed Show was responsible for 71 of those.

While it might seem remiss, if not wholly irresponsible, for such an expansive international trade agreement to escape the mainstream media’s attention, the omission wasn’t unintentional.

As Zaid Jilani explained in the Intercept:

“MSNBC’s owner, Comcast, has lobbied for the TPP. Last year, it fired host Ed Schultz, an outspoken opponent of the agreement.

“Time Warner, the parent company of CNN owner Turner Broadcasting, also lobbied for the TPP. 21st Century Fox — the legal successor to News Corporation, which operates Fox News — lobbied for passage as well.

“But using the television transcription service TV Eyes, The Intercept found that during the month of July 2016 alone, the TPP was mentioned 455 times by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — about six times as often as during the entire 18-month period studied by Media Matters.”

Those mentions, most assuredly, demonstrate progress in bringing light to the shady deal; but, with the exceptions of The Ed Show and Bernie Sanders and his supporters, the content has been generalized, rather than substantive, as a component of the presidential election. Donald Trump frequently decries the TPP as unacceptable and undesirable, though — in typical form — his tirades lack a depth of explanation.

As revealed in documents obtained by Wikileaks and reported by independent media, the TPP is nothing short of a grand corporate coup — some have even termed the measure ‘NAFTA on steroids,’ for its resemblance, exponentially, to the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA notoriously facilitated the ability for manufacturers to seek lower-wage workers outside the United States with little restriction — leaving at least one million skilled workers without employment, while lining the pockets of countless big businesses.

Now, the TPP promises to do more of the same — with countless nefarious additional provisions that go far beyond the manufacturing sector to directly impact the lives of every person in the U.S. And that, in itself, summarizes precisely why the pending trade agreement has been negotiated covertly, with secrecy normally provided only to matters of utmost national security.

But perhaps even the shallow attention brought to the TPP by the presidential election has sparked curiosity sufficient enough for the public to begin to question its efficacy.

As David Dayen wrote in Salon:

“Here’s one of the best indicators that Congress won’t approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership: business groups are running a public campaign in support of it. I know that sounds like a paradox, but if the image of the TPP weren’t so tattered, there would be no need for such an overt PR campaign.”

Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey


This article (Why the Mainstream Media Refuses to Talk About the TPP) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com.

Former Secret Service Officer Calls Clinton A ‘Dictator’

Source: FoxNews
Hannity

On ‘Hannity,’ Gary Byrne says he wrote the book ‘Crisis of Character‘ because he wants Americans to know what the real Clinton administration is like