On Orlando, mind control, effective political action
Of course, everyone is saturated with the standard ZNN[1] coverage of the Orlando, Florida, incident. I say incident, because at this stage it’s difficult to say truly what happened at the Pulse nightclub where a lot of official-looking vehicles—though few, if any, ambulances—and public officials position themselves interminably, sucking up overtime pay. And newscasts stating “world-record massacre,” “Islam radical responsible,” “50 dead and 53 wounded,” “gun violence,” and so on. But nobody answers observations that any person with the IQ of a soup can might pose:
- Too many bullets alleged to have been fired in the time allotted
- Reports of multiple gunmen which we have seen in other false flags attacks
- Absence of ambulances taking away dead and injured
- Absence of any evidence of bloody carnage
- Purported injured persons being carried toward the nightclub, in one scene the man being put down while those carrying him simply walk away
- Victims simply standing around to be shot, rather than fleeing the club
- A smiling policeman taking a position in the back row of a somber official briefing
- No video footage from security cameras
- No apparent interference from security personnel with the alleged gunman
- The alleged gunman’s ties to and contacts with individuals and organizations involved in previous acts of state sponsored terror
- G. Edward Griffin reports that a new would-be shooter, James Wesley Howell, emerges blowing the whistle on a larger government gay-club-shooting black op
Like Sandy Hook and Boston, anyone who thinks for himself knows that he’s being lied to by all the public officials on the scene, behind the scene, and by the media who are willing accomplices in the act of subterfuge for political purposes.
Mind Control
Why can’t large numbers of Americans see through the obvious ruse? Here’s an excerpt from a vital column by Jon Rappoport on the information flicker effect:
I wrote this piece in 2012, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. I re-post it now, because it equally applies to the Orlando shooting.
No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.
The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.
First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.
In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The topflight television anchors are getting their information from…where?
Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.
In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.
The anchors are PR people for the cops.
This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.
The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring.
The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.
So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.
The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle.
Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.
Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.
That old thread has gone down the memory hole.
What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.
This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.
Which is the whole point.
The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”
This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.
At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”
But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer alert. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.
“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”
“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”
“Or was it really a rifle?”
“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”
All these obvious and reasonable questions (and many others) have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.
This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.
He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.
This is mind control.
The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.
He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.
He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.
And the viewer pays the price.
Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.
Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.
The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.
The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.
Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.
Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.
The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.
Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.
Interesting how they never disagree.
Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.
What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?
But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.
They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.
And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.
Why?
Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next fix.
“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”
And the anchors oblige.
They deal the drug.
But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.
And the drug deal is consummated.
Welcome to television coverage.
Indeed, I cover the general problem of mind control in my novel, The Truman Prophecy. This observation by Mr. Rappoport gibes with what Neil Postman was talking about in his major work, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985): that aided by TV, the modern younger mind has become so perceptual-emotional bound that it cannot maintain logical consistency over a time span more than a microsecond. This observation is, in fact, a key discovery in unraveling and deprogramming the mind control barrier shroud. More on that later.
Effective Political Action
I keep coming back to the watershed Libertarian Party National Convention in 1983. In retrospect, the fight for the presidential nomination—which laboriously went to party insider and author of the outstanding primer, Libertarianism in One Lesson, David Bergland—was not the most important activity of that event. What I recall most is one of the least promising candidates—an older, very conservative gentleman with a butch haircut from Waco, Texas—for president addressing the convention. By golly he was going to GET ACTION! He was bone tired of and angry about the supper club discussion syndrome the Libertarians had fallen into:
“All we ever do is MEET, EAT, AND RETREAT!”
Many of us laughed at him, then. But after 30 years of failure, you start to think maybe the so-called ‘Wacko from Waco’ had a point. The truth is that the LP for its 45-year duration has adopted at the state level a quantity-over-quality candidate-running strategy combined with an ever-deteriorating[2] local dinner-meeting, public-outreach approach. That, combined with an entrenched national party bureaucracy devoted to the same ideas, has led IMHO to a dead end of ineffective political behavior.
I’ve discussed how I see the root problem before. FWIW. And I don’t believe that Johnson-Weld or Johnson-Anyone solves it. Gary is a good man who has gotten good numbers (for a Libertarian presidential candidate), but at the end of the day he’s playing in a rigged game. He and the party hierarchy in general lack awareness of the fundamental political reality of our world—the Threat Matrix of the Men of the Power Sickness that bears down on humanity like the plague. Thus, regardless of his vote totals, the essential and urgent dangers will remain unaddressed.
Only those whose actions fight the actual evils being inflicted are effective.
Case in point: highest priority effective action IMHO is restoration of people’s grand juries all around. Next in priority are those actions that directly defy and refuse the powersicks’ crimes, such as nullification of unconstitutional statutes and citizens’ initiatives to deny government acts of aggression.
For example, ‘Concerned Citizens Anonymous’ of Michigan is gathering signatures to put ordinances on the November ballot in five SE Michigan cities that prohibits those cities from conducting civil asset forfeiture. This is a doable task requiring at most a few hundred signatures, and we will certainly have enough to put the initiative on the ballot in three or four of the targeted cities.
I am participating in the initiative for Auburn Hills. On reflection, any person acquiring one signature for such a cause—or otherwise helping to stop the exercise of corrupt power and arrest the crimes of government officials—is worth an infinite number of social gatherings, organization maintenance acts, or third-party paper candidacies.[It is also, I might add, infinitely more conducive to liberty than pontificating anarchy and refusing to face the need to bring specific individuals in government to justice for their specific violations of specific individuals’ lives and liberties.]
As the gentleman from Waco said, “No more meet, eat, and retreat… for me.”
[1] Zombie News Network. We’ve wholly transcended the former PNN (Propaganda News Network). Well-dressed people talking into microphones in front of cameras and newspaper journalists utter a steady stream of unverified Official Story assertions as if handed down from an oracle. The people who buy this BS without question, technically lack minds of their own. Hence, ZNN.
[2] In the golden times of the LP—roughly 1979 thru 1983, with a year or two after that—the social aspects were energizing because they folded in directly with a highly spirited party that seemed to be making headway in the culture by running its candidates (who en masse seeded the early concepts of liberty).
This post has been read 1162 times!
