how the news is delivered and skewed.
I've often wondered why certain news items just seem to disappear. Take for instance the shooting of the news gal, Alison Parker. who was on-air at the time. Her camera man, Adam Ward, was also killed.
Disclaimer before continuing: I don't believe the official story. After much research, I don't believe anyone was killed. I think it was a fake and a false flag.
One of the reasons for believing this is how quickly the story disappeared. Within days of the event, no one was talking about it anymore. I would think a shooting, live on-air, would be a pretty big event. It's the sort of story that the news agencies could drag out for weeks and weeks.
The actual video of the shooting was shown many, many times. Don't you find it odd that they would show that footage? Where is the sensitivity to the families of these dead people? When showing victims of crimes, in most cases the faces are blurred out. But here we can all watch this women being blown away over and over.
I think the reason it was pulled was because too many people were not buying the story. It was intended to show how mentally unstable people should not have guns. When they weren't getting the angry response they were hoping for, they moved on to bigger and better propaganda.
One person shot on-air vs hoards of little kids at Sandy Hook? No comparison. By the way, no one died at Sandy Hook, either.
This piece by Jon Rappaport is excellent, and points out how the news is skewed to get the response they want.
My advice is the same as always - question everything you read or hear.
Mind Control Achieved Through the “Information Flicker Effect”
by Jon Rappoport
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
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
In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information.
The topflight television anchors are getting their information from…
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 know
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
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
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.
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.
Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a
segue (transition) that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done
about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive
audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if
it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:
Give up the guns.
In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why
law-enforcement agencies are so massively armed to do police work in
America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of
ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive
surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.
Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and
should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers also assume the
television anchors are government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t
those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and
Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?
In case you think the public is too stupid to emerge from its trance,
and would never be able to follow a line of rational discourse, if by
some miracle television anchors presented one, I disagree.
During my investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, I
encountered several local citizens who were exceedingly awake, alert,
and helpful. Again and again over the years, I have had help from
private citizens in my research.
This is why I’ve always supported the idea of citizen grand juries,
convened to investigate crimes in the area where they live. Tasked to
discover the truth, wherever it leads, such people would suddenly
display surprising skills. Opportunity is all that is necessary.
The media put people under, flick the on-off switches that
short-circuit logic. The media practice hypnosis. The media work for
surrender of the mind. The media present boggling absurdities that put
the mind to sleep. The media appoint themselves as the final
This is perverse theater.
That’s all it is.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple