How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event


(NaturalNews) Mind control. Mass hypnosis. Operant conditioning. Brain entrainment. That's what we're talking about here.

We're so conditioned to how television covers life that we rarely step back and take notice.

In the case of massive disasters and crimes, network news rules the roost.

First,
the premiere anchors, who are managing editors of their own broadcasts,
give themselves the go signal. They will leave their comfortable chairs
and travel to the scene of crime. "It's that big."

The anchors
lend gravitas. Their mere presence lets the audience know this story
trumps all other news of the moment. That's the first hypnotic cue and
suggestion.

Of course, the anchors were not in Newtown,
Connecticut, as reporters. They weren't there to dig up facts. Their
physical presence at the Sandy Hook School and in the town was utterly
irrelevant.

They could have been doing their newscasts from their studios in New York. Or from a broom closet.

But much better to be standing somewhere in Newtown. It imparts the sense of crisis to the viewing millions.

At
the same time, the anchors are also there to give assurance. The
subliminal message they transmit is: whatever has happened here is
controllable.

The audience knows the anchors will provide the
meaning and the official voice of the tragedy. The anchors are, in a
way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their
elegies to the dead.

This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get.

This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime.

For
example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began
interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions about
contradictions in the official scenario. Suppose that became the primary
focus. Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God
forbid, the truth.

In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers. What a concept.

No, a priest doesn't browbeat a parishioner. He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption.

But
if, by some miracle, these anchors launched a quest for truth, the
whole scene would devolve into uncertainty and even chaos.

"First,
there was a man in the woods. You people chased him. You pinned him
down and brought him back into town. Who is he? What's his name? Where
is he? Is he under questioning? What are you asking him? What gave you a
clue that he might be a second shooter? Come on. Talk to us. People
want to know. We aren't going anywhere. We want some answers."

This is called reporting, a foreign enterprise to these blown-dried kings and queens of media news.

"Sir,
I know ABC definitively reported there was a second shooter. They said
you gave them that information. Where did you get it?...No, I'm sorry,
that's not an answer, that's a non-sequitur."

Those of us
reporting online declare there is something amiss when the
second-shooter story is dropped like a hot potato...and we are called
conspiracy theorists.

Get it? Trying to ask relevant questions becomes conspiracy only because the major media didn't do their job in the first place.

"Sir,
was it one gun found in trunk of the car or three? Show me the car.
Yes. Let's see it. I want to get the license plate. Excuse me? The car
is what, some kind of state secret? I don't think so. There are twenty
dead children in that school over there, and we want to get to the
bottom of this. Take me to the car."

It's called an investigation. Reporters do that.

"Sir,
your newspaper ran a story about a man's body being found in Adam's
brother's apartment. Then that became Adam's mother found dead in her
own house here in Newtown.
What exactly happened there? A mistake? Wouldn't you say that was a
pretty big mistake? How did it happen? What's that? Typical confusion in
the early reporting of a crime? I don't think so. Thinking a woman was a
man and thinking he or she was found in New Jersey instead of
Connecticut, that's not typical at all. Did police find a man's body.
Speak up."

Your typical American television
viewer would cringe at such demanding questions. You know why? Because
he has been entrained and conditioned by news anchors to refrain from
digging below the surface. In other words, that viewer is hypnotized.

"Dr.
Smith and Officer Jones, we understand that this boy, who was autistic,
extremely shy, who had some sort of personality disorder, went into
that school and methodically carried out the slaughter of twenty-seven
people. In order for him to do that, he had to reload clips at least
twice after the first clip ran out. Does that make sense? We're not just
talking about a violent outburst here, we're talking about a methodical
massacre. How do you explain that?"

If these anchors kept on
asking questions like this, do you know what would happen? The viewing
audience would begin to stir, would begin to break through their
hypnotic programming and wake up.

"You know, he's right. That doesn't make sense. Maybe there really was a second shooter."

"Or that Lanza kid...maybe he didn't kill anybody at all."

"What? You mean he was...set up?"

"Maybe he was a patsy."

Yes.
Instead of this kind of talk being consigned to "conspiracy nuts," it
actually becomes part of the evening news experience. Because reporters
suddenly ask tough questions.

But no. We have to go with grief and shock. We have to lead with it and stay with it.

But
that is an artificial construct. Yes, of course people in Newtown feel
great shock and pain and loss and grief and horror, but the news
producers are consciously moving minutes and hours of it through the
tube and filtering out everything else.

They do this every time
one of these events occurs, and so the audience expects it and soaks it
in and, in that state of entrainment and hypnosis, the audience doesn't
want anything else...because anything else would BREAK THE FLOW and the
spell, and the grief would no longer have the same impact.

Newtown
is presented as a television event. From the outset, the mood is
funereal. It has that tinge and coloration. The audience absorbs it and
wants no intrusion on it.

This is Matrix programming.

The
anchor is not only the priest, but also the teacher. He/she shows the
audience how to experience the event and what to feel and what to think
and how to act.

One of the great skills of an anchor is the
ability to present the news seamlessly. This is what those big paychecks
are for: the blends and segueways and the underlying tone of sincerity
that bleeds into every detail of what is being reported.

That is
also hypnotic. It sets up a frequency that moves into the brains of the
audience. In those brains, it's an Acceptance-frequency. It's the mark
of a great news anchor, to be able to transmit that and achieve it.

Scott
Pelley (CBS) has only some of that. Diane Sawyer (ABC) is decidedly
inconsistent in her ability to deploy it. Brian Williams (NBC) is the
contemporary master. That's why he's been called the Walter Cronkite of
the 21st century.

"Sir, we have a report that police pinned a
second man on the ground just outside the school. What is his name? What
did you do with him? Where is he now."

No, no, no, no, no. That would crack the Acceptance-frequency like an egg and send the evening news to hell in a handbasket.

"Sir,
I'm glad we finally located you. We understand you were getting ready
to go to Bermuda. Now, you were Adam Lanza's doctor. What drugs did you
prescribe him? Not just recently, but going all the way back to the
beginning. You see, we've compiled a list of possible drugs for
Asperger's and autism and depression, and of course we see that they do,
in fact, induce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. Speak up, Doctor."

The
egg not only cracks in that case, the news anchor is suspended the next
day, and the network releases a statement that his "breakdown" on
camera was brought on by stress.

Pharmaceutical companies put him on their "to-do" list.

Yet,
the questions about the drugs are exactly what a real reporter would
ask. Not a "conspiracy theorist." A reporter, on the scene in Newtown.

Anyone who thinks that is absurd and out of bounds is hypnotized, programmed. That's all there is to it.

Traditional
media are dying in this country. Their money is drying up. They could
revitalize themselves in a New York minute if they really started
COVERING stories and waking up their audience, but that's not on their
agenda. They would rather die.

They are the hired hands of the
elites that own this country. They are the whores sent out every day by
their pimps, and they know what their job is and what it isn't.

The direction of elite television news
is squeezed down the path of consciously constructing artificial
events, for mass consumption experienced in a state of emotional,
mental, physical, and spiritual mind-control. Those reporters who
venture outside that framework are labeled fringe figures on the
margins.

"Lieutenant, excuse me. Hello. Brian Williams, NBC News.
I was wondering: if there had been armed employees inside the school,
what are the chances the killer could have been stopped before he shot
all those children? You know, people who have been trained to shoot and
have concealed carry permits. Strong people who could confront a
murderer."

Oh, people say, that is not a reasonable question.
That's a nutcase question. That question shouldn't be asked. Why not?
You want the real answer? Because it destroys the hypnotic frequency
that is being delivered by the television networks. That's the real
answer.

The viewer: "Don't bother me, I'm hypnotized. Don't interrupt the frequency my brain is absorbing while I'm watching the news."

And
of course, under those conditions, the very last person who should
interrupt the hypnotic flow is the anchor himself. He's the one who's
inducing the hypnosis in the first place.

That tells you the the anchor is quite definitely NOT there to dig up new facts or perspectives himself.

Entrainment
means: the brain is being bathed in rhythms and frequencies that
literally train it to accept the information that is being transmitted
at the same time.

In the same way, a song can succeed because the melody (carrier frequency) makes the trite lyrics seem important.

Entrainment
also makes the recipient feel he is part of something larger. This is a
key component. The recipient senses he is a member of a collective that
is sharing a moment, an experience.

"I feel this way, and everybody else does too."

This is what substitutes, in our society, for individual experience and self-sufficiency.

But
this collective is not real community. It only appears and feels that
way. It is mass hypnosis. You can find that in Gregorian chants and in
sermons. You can find it in political speeches.

The brain is bathed in certain harmonies and responds by Accepting.

The
Globalists' language is replete with entrainment. "We are all in this
together." "We are healing the planet." "All of us must strive to make a
better world for our children."

It sounds right, it seems right,
but it is delivered to create a collective instead of a real community.
Take a few minutes and read Monsanto's literature. Read it out loud.
Listen to yourself. Try to impart convincing rhythms to the phrases. All
of a sudden, you're in the flow. You're practicing entrainment.

This
is what network television news does. And we aren't even talking about
the hypnotic effects of the physical signals that deliver the picture to
the audience.

In a previous article, I pointed out that, if we are to believe the network coverage of the Newtown massacre, there wasn't one angry outraged man or woman in the town. Because we didn't see them onscreen.

The networks made sure of that. This was a conscious choice on their part.

"My
son died in that school and I want to know why. I want to know exactly
how the killer got in there. Who let him in? How did he get in? I WANT
TO KNOW."

Sorry, that isn't part of the coverage.

It would interrupt the entrainment.

"Sorry, sir, you'll have to back away. We're doing mass hypnosis and mind control here. You're breaking the rhythm."

Instead, that angry man will be funneled to a grief counselor, who will try to soothe his outrage.

"Sir, we all have to find a way to begin the healing."

Events
like Newtown are extraordinary teaching moments for television. Network
newscasts display a constellation of emotions that are deemed
"acceptable and appropriate" for the audience to experience. And the
audience is thereby trained to mirror those emotions, to feel them, to
express them, to soak in them.

It's a closed system.

This
is how, incidentally, gun control works so well. It's part of the
overall message. The audience, existing inside that closed system, in
that state of mass hypnosis, can be pointed to exactly the wrong remedy
for the tragedy.

All the network anchor has to do is frown and
shake his head a little, when the subject of guns arises. That's all it
takes, and the brains of the audience suck it in:

"Yes, of
course. Take away the guns. If no one had guns, no one could shoot guns.
No one would die. No crimes would be committed. How obvious."

The
capstone that makes this puerile grand solution seem reasonable is: the
police are always the good guys; we can trust them; they can have all
the guns and then everything will be all right.

That message is
also imparted by the big-time network new anchors. These kings and
queens don't ask police the tough questions. They refrain from doing
that.

In fact, the anchors ARE surrogate police chiefs. They express what the police chiefs would, if they had the anchors' skills.

The
anchors do stand-ups in Newtown and give us the absolute best of what
the police would if they could. And in the process, they transmit:

Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning.

It's perfect, if you want to be an android.

Jon Rappoport
The
author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a
candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California. 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 www.nomorefakenews.com


About the author:
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California. 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.
www.nomorefakenews.com


Source:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/038400_Newtown_massacre_mind_control_television_news.html