Breakaway Ruminations #4 – Divide & Conquer Left | Right Paradigm

LeftRightParadigm
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
February 16, 2017

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.”
– John Adams

“They don’t want to see us unite: All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting.  They don’t want to see us live together: all they want to do is keep on killing one another.”
– Bob Marley

Given the enormous amount of division taking place the last year or so, and specifically the last three months, it seemed prudent to take a gander at the Divide & Conquer Left-Right Paradigm again.

Nowhere was the socially engineered fracturing of the populace more obvious then within the bowels of social media, where individuals of all walks of life were attempting to make other people conform to their points of views, or cease their relationships altogether that in many instances were years in the making.  It is a quite unfortunate state of affairs that people’s values have declined so much to even ruminate on such possibilities.

Divide and conquer is a concept that takes an enormous portion of most of the populace’s time and yet receives no attention from mainstream media, and barely even the alternative media, and with good reason, for the media usually serves the job of stoking the fires of division.

What exactly is this system-installed and bifurcated left-right paradigm?

To simplify, the left-right paradigm is a concept from political sciences and anthropology which proposes that societies have a tendency to divide themselves into ideological opposites.

That’s certainly one way to look at it.

Another way of viewing this would be proposing the establishment carries out this division on purpose to make it seem like there are only two sides to every debate, thus making the populace a lot more malleable and easier to control.  After all, two sides are magnitudes easier to control than say, hundreds, or thousands.   Rarely are things ever that simple.

First things first, let’s take a cursory glance at some – although certainly not all – of the permutations that the left/right paradigm is often bandied as. Being cognizant of these will make it easier for an individual to center their mind onto particular divisive agendas that are taking place within the media.

The Left/Right paradigm includes, but is not limited to:

– Back people vs. White people
– Muslim vs. Christians
– Republicans vs. Democrats
– East vs. West
– US vs. Russia/China
– US vs. Middle East
– Poor vs. Rich
– Liberals vs. Conservatives [could dovetail into politics, but it need not]
– Religion vs. Atheism
– Gay vs. Straight
– Women vs. Men
– Young vs. Old
– Prolife vs. Prochoice

There are many more derivatives, but those examples are some of the most salient ones out there.

In any case, take a good minute or two to ponder at that list again. What don’t you notice anywhere?

The individual.

To those in power, the individual is antithetical to the establishment’s plans.  The individual is a rebel, someone to be avoided at all cost.  This is why from youth, particularly through schooling, society has been indoctrinated to conform to fit within these divide and conquer structures that fracture the populace.

A keen glance at how the system operates is crucial in order to understand the full breadth and scope of this issue.  For this we will take a gander at some snippets provided by John Taylor Gatto’s system breaking book, Dumbing Us Down The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling.

Below are a handful of the many countless passages within the book that speak a length about how this pervasive and constant divide and conquer issue takes place beginning in childhood, brought about through public schooling:

“It is absurd and anti-life to be part of the system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class.  That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much the same way television does” [1][Bold Emphasis Added]

Not allowing individuals to be part of other points of views in life, to diversity – other shades in the endless spectrum of life – stultifies their growth because their mind doesn’t expand as it would if they were exposed to many points of views.  Furthermore, in inculcates the meme that the box – whatever reality the comptrollers are parading around – is all there is, and anything beyond the box is to be seen as suspect.  Ideas do not get considered and creativity gets incinerated at warp speed, like a snowman in a blast furnace.

Moreover:

The highest value to the Combine [those in control] is neither democracy nor accountability, but compliance, pure and simple, and its favorite stratagem is to divide and conquer.  And if that doesn’t work, there’s always drugs.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added, Italic Emphasis In Original.]

Life a hot knife that slices through butter, this particular thought by Gatto minces no words.

The favorite strategy is divide and conquer, which undoubtedly takes place by individuals being cut out from the diversity of life and is manifested from youth by behavior that’s been socially engineered to be predictable.

This is why ultimately, freedom from conformity is as vital as ever if the individual is to survive and keep their inherent nature, and if society is going to shed the shackles of division that benefit the comptrollers.

In fact, being free and not conforming and melting into the collective was so important, that Thomas Jefferson, echoed these poignant words:

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”[Emphasis Added]

In other words, as long as the individual is lucid enough to think for themselves, and has the foresight, logic, and critical thinking needed to understand the issue, individuals should remain just that, individuals.

The self-cognizant and critical thinking individual will never be part of the group. They will always be a person within a group, there’s a difference, and this distinction is crucial.

How can an individual rectify this relentless situation?

Perhaps it’s best to heed the words of Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, which they shared in their notable book, How To Read A Book

The best protection against propaganda of any sort is the recognition of it for what it is.  Only hidden and undetected oratory is really insidious.  What reaches the heart without going through the mind is likely to bounce back and put the mind out of business.   Propaganda taken in that way is like a drug you do not know you are swallowing.  The effect is mysterious; you do not even know afterwards why you feel or think the way you do.“[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

A person can’t tackle issues they are blind too.

And isn’t it ironic, that people, immediately after taking a hit from the mainstream media – and even alternative media – divide and conquer left right paradigm pill, soon forgo all logic and reason, acting in primal fashion based on the box-version of reality most media parades?  It’s almost like a scheduled hatred session, not unlike hateweek in Orwell’s 1984.[4]

And it always happens when and where the mainstream media tells you, and never otherwise.  This goes to show how integral the mainstream media is in socially engineering this divide and conquer at the outset.[5]

Knowing this, what’s an incisive individual to do?

Cut these issues off at the pass.  See the deceptions taking place by what your intuition tells you, and be wary about anything that stirs the fires of division.

Realize that following your intuition is merely the first step in a long process of growth that the individual will go through once their mind is open capable of discerning divisive mechanisms for what they are.

Once individuals fully comprehend how the system strives to use every single individual as pawns in a game, it’s easy to quit the nonsense altogether.

But more importantly, the individual should relish their inherent capability of knowing that, if they are cognizant of the modus operandi, no amount of propaganda or divisive tactics will ever seep into their mind.  Thus, this brings the ability to think lucidly, decisively, and proactively.

Breaking away into total awareness is the key.

___________________________________________________
Sources & References:

[1] John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling, p. 24.
[2] Ibid., p. xvii.
[3] Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How To Read A Book, pg. 194.
[4] George Orwell, 1984, in reference to Hateweek, at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week
[5] Breakaway Guide To The Mainstream Media

Mainstream Media Journalism Is An Illusion

fakenews

via: TheEndOfLies
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 2, 2017

—Some of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This is the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher and more credible authorities rejected all these studies? What if they’ve scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and have come to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“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.” —Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored [drug] trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or…

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.

 

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

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.