HomeAbout / MissionScience deconstructedPseudo-skeptics deconstructedConsciousnessNondualityDMTThe control systemMSM destroyed

Articles by topic

(Some of) the truth about the ...

Mainstream Media

or: How the mainstream canon of knowledge is shaped by control over general public exposure to information sources

Page Summary: In a monumentally humonguous reversal, the mainstream "news" media is really the radical opposite of the "government watchdog" that it portrays itself as, and has become weaponized to such an extent that it has become the foremost mind-control tool and therefore the primary enemy/rival/challenge of Humanity, who are winning the infowar thanks to the new/alt/truth/free Internet media.

Despite colorful and slick outer appearances, the mainstream "news" media, especially in the English-speaking world, exists for the purpose of disseminating "approved" information and omitting the truly important news. In other words, the MSM is fake news.

Officially, contradictions do not exist in the minds of the citizens of the people’s democracies.

Czeslaw Milosz, The Captive Mind

First, the definition:

mainstream media (n.)

  1. [deprecated] Mainstream media (MSM) is mass media reflective of prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity.
  2. [modernized] One of the major mind control methods employed by the control system to brainwash human children and adults into becoming unthinking compliant conformalists that can be easily herded. [syn: fake news media, fakestream media, corporate media]

The word 'media' is the plural form of 'medium', which means "the intervening substance through which sensory impressions are conveyed or physical forces are transmitted", or "an agency or means of doing something." The word 'media' is used as a shorthand for the term 'mainstream media' or 'mass media', which can be defined simply as "the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively". However, the two terms (media and MSM) should not be conflated. The Internet is also a medium, yet it is the medium which undoes the façade of credibility of the mainstream media, merely by virtue of its decentralized uncontrollable and therefore uncensorable nature.

Internet vs. Television

Despite the Internet revolution granting effortless access to larger amounts of (searchable!) information than the librarians of Alexandria could have even imagined, the mainstream media (MSM) is still the de facto source of information for most human beings on the planet (simply what's most conveniently available), and the mechanism by which unconscious control-freaks, including the biggest liars in the world, distribute their lies and schemes unchallenged, thereby creating illusory narratives that underpin the fulfillment of large-scale long-term domestic and geopolitical agendas — most significantly war and control over (and depletion of) global resources (including human "resources").

The nature of the mainstream media machine

The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.

George Orwell

In other words, the "news" media doesn't merely report the "official story" — it presents the story as the default position that the viewer already believes. Of course, the viewer doesn't believe it (or know anything about it) until the moment it is presented and — by means of the long-cultivated pre-existing (unconscious) belief in the information's implicit "authoritativeness" — subliminally implanted into the viewer's unconscious.

The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity — much less dissent.

Gore Vidal

While the "corporate grip on opinion" is a valid observation, the very idea that one could become informed about relevant happenings ("news") by paying attention to the MSM is preposterous. There are billions of events ("news") happening every day — how does the media determine which ones are "newsworthy"? Is it driven more by a desire to inform the audience, or more by building an audience so as to make a profit from advertisers? When comparing the "news stories" of different countries that speak the same language, it becomes clear that, aside from devastating events like natural disasters or sports events, the only stories in common are the "international news" stories promoted by perceived "authorities" (both political and otherwise, e.g. scientific).

Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock.

Ben Hecht

Indeed, even if one were to read the most significant stories from all major media around the world on a website like What Really Happened, while one would be perhaps 3 or 4 orders of magnitude better informed than MSM viewers, one might still miss the greater truths, which are found in what has been labeled (by the false mainstream canonical narrative) as the "New Age" or the "lunatic fringe" of information sources such as channelers, ET contactees, mystics and gurus, and, most pervasively and significantly in that it is experientially grounded, in the entheogenic experience (particularly the DMT experience).

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Thomas Pynchon

The book Fringe Knowledge for Beginners (2008) by metaphysics researcher Tom Montalk concisely summarizes the problematic nature of the (old, decrepit, dying, mainstream) media:

Whereas school programs people up until a certain age, the media programs them for the rest of their lives. Newspapers, the nightly news, television, movies—these are all methods through which a person’s opinions can be manipulated. One would think that news exists to tell citizens what’s happening in the world, but in truth it is merely in the business of making money and taking orders from the government, therefore the stories it reports are carefully selected to carry out an agenda, to portray certain shady government actions in a good light, or to entertain viewers with cute stories that have no real practical meaning.

Out of a million things that happen every day, only a few events ever make it onto the news. If a certain theme of events is selected, the viewer sees one picture of the day’s events. If a different set of events are selected, the viewer sees an entirely different picture. For instance, the American Media paints a picture designed to make Americans overly paranoid and fearful of terrorists and criminals so that they will support the government’s actions to bomb more countries and take away more of our rights and privacy. In this way people’s perceptions of what’s happening can be manipulated simply by showing them what the media companies and government want them to see. Anything they should not know about is not shown. Important stories that would threaten the Control System by giving people greater awareness are passed over for less significant news like celebrity gossip or some rescued puppy story.

Tom Montalk

For example, when has the MSM ever talked about consciousness, or ran a "news" story about it? Given that consciousness is obviously the greatest mystery of all, one would think that some airtime would be spent discussing it. And as the psychonautic philosopher Terence McKenna pointed out, if we were to weigh the magnitude of the phenomena appropriately, we would probably spend over half of our talking time discussing DMT — a subject which the media, if mentioning it at all, refers to only in the context of what our supposed "leaders" have said and commanded about them, without ever examining the subject itself.

The idiot box: Immersion into a fictional manufactured reality

Most human beings are operating under the false impression that the "news" reported by the MSM represents the most relevant happenings in the world, when in reality that impression represents, or has come to largely represent, the desires of the control system.

Immersion is the experience of losing oneself in a fictional world. It's what happens when people are not merely informed or entertained but actually slip into a manufactured reality.

Frank Rose

The hypnotic and stupefying effect of TV, combined with it just simply being in the "living room" of most homes, makes it probably the most addictive and common vice in the West, with Americans reportedly spending upwards of 6 hours per day watching and listening to the mind-control propaganda and other assorted garbage (mixed with the occasional useful idea) being spewed out of the idiot box.

Watching television is like taking black spray paint to your third eye.

Bill Hicks

As one detaches from the hypnotic MSM information bubble, it becomes ever-increasingly evident that the "issues" discussed within the MSM bubble are essentially insignificant; the parameters of acceptable discourse are artificially defined, the protocols rigidly followed under threat of unemployment, and the illusion of relevance maintained only by the ability to be conveniently observed at any time in one's "living room" via the zombifying drug known as TV.

Artist's hyperbolic rendition of the average contemporary American

The television, that insidious beast, that Medusa which freezes a billion people to stone every night, staring fixedly, that Siren which called and sang and promised so much and gave, after all, so little.

Ray Bradbury, science-fiction writer (1920-2012)

Generally, the longer one has been watching MSM "news", believing its illusion of relevance, the more difficult it is to realize (and accept and integrate the knowledge) that one is not really more informed than one's football-watching colleagues (who are at least entertained without false pretenses). The Internet again comes to the rescue in this respect, as newer generations grow in an environment that facilitates the mentality of choosing what media to consume/use, instead of the traditional TV's deprecated de facto model of broadcasting "programming" at particular times rather than on an on-demand basis.

Negative stories vs. positive stories

Comedian and social critic Bill Hicks summarized the situation perfectly (emphasis added):

Always that same LSD story, you've all seen it. 'Young man on acid, thought he could fly, jumped out of a building. What a tragedy.' What a dick! Fuck him, he’s an idiot. If he thought he could fly, why didn’t he take off on the ground first? Check it out. You don’t see ducks lined up to catch elevators to fly south—they fly from the ground, ya moron, quit ruining it for everybody. He’s a moron, he’s dead—good, we lost a moron, fuckin’ celebrate. Wow, I just felt the world get lighter. We lost a moron! I don’t mean to sound cold, or cruel, or vicious, but I am, so that’s the way it comes out. Professional help is being sought. How about a positive LSD story? Wouldn't that be news-worthy, just the once? To base your decision on information rather than scare tactics and superstition and lies? I think it would be news-worthy. 'Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves... Here's Tom with the weather.'

Bill Hicks

It could not have been more accurately stated. Many researchers coming across this quote assume it is hyperbole or metaphorical, but it is an accurate description of the nature of reality — a precise description of the subjective reality metaparadigm. The idea is that we are, and everything is, one consciousness that is experiencing itself subjectively from different points of view, and each soul or spirit (higher-frequency individuations of the whole) may choose to have incarnational experiences that involve the idea of temporarily (often for a lifetime) forgetting the higher-dimensional aspects of self, thus experiencing oneself as separate from the environment, and even creating the experience of making it appear as if one is existing inside an objective reality that is outside of one's consciousness, rather than perceiving it as a projection of one's imagination. The soul is dreaming the physical reality experience in much the same way as we dream during sleep, and the idea of biological death is merely a return to the innocent primordial non-physical state of spirit.

These ideas are of course below the radar of the MSM, which axiomatically treats such ideas as "fringe" (a euphemism for "could not possibly be true") in the same way as it treats alternatives to the "official" narratives as "conspiracy theory" (also a euphemism for "could not possibly be true; no need to investigate"). Even many researchers derisively labeled as "conspiracy theorists" by mainstream "officialdom" axiomatically dismiss ideas that are not based on the axiomatic assumption of physicalism (fundamentalist-materialism), being unknowing (unconscious) adherents of scientism.

Axiomatic siding with suppressors of consciousness expansion

For the same reason, that of conflating truth with "authoritativeness" (a meme which the pseudo-skeptics have turned into an art form), just about no reporter or "newsreader" in the mainstream media have gone anywhere near such things as LSD, a powerful hallucinogenic psychedelic consciousness alteration tool that, used correctly, helps dissolve the illusions that most humans have come to assume as axiomatic (and thus operate under) after more than 15,000 hours of indoctrination into sanitized and disempowering information in "government"-run schools, especially some of the more obvious larger lies such as "wars are for benevolent reasons" and "the government works for us and cares for our well-being". At higher doses, subtler deceptions may unveil themselves one after the other, and, voyaging deeply enough, as Terence McKenna most eloquently explains, even the cheerful scientific/scientistic models of reality may crumble. The same is true with DMT (our frequency neuromodulator), except it happens far more rapidly and brutally and grandiosely.

Consuming media

What the acronyms really meanWhat the MSM acronyms really mean.

As Adronis of Sirius puts it, if one only pays attention to media sources in any of its forms, "you're only looking through a looking glass, relating to what reality truly is, because, not any aspect of your media — be it mainstream media, be it alternative media, be it grassroot media — can tell you what the world is about; it's not possible. As long as you use the conveyance of media, you are looking through a looking glass; you are simply seeing it through a prism." So "as long as you see the world through the media's eyes, you adopt an archetype pertaining to perception, relating to the idea of it being fragmented, relating to the idea of it being negative, in that particular way — you've adopted that criticism, based upon what the trance-based programming is attempting to tell you." The media focuses on the 3-5% of negativity, while in reality our world is "95-97%" a wonderous fertile soil for the imagination, which many of us train ourselves not to pay attention to after prolongued exposure to the media looking glass(es).

In other words, our world is nowhere near as bad or negative as the media (mainstream and alternative/counter-mainstream) paints it. Happy stories of puppies and sunny days and human interactions (everyday reality) have no value to neither profit-driven organizations nor truth-driven organizations.

The 3 types of lies: fabrication, distortion, and omission

The MSM sometimes lies by fabrication, often lies by distortion, and always lies by omission. Omitting critically important information is an automatic result of treating "government" sources as "authoritative" (believed to be truthful), rather than treating "government" sources as highly questionable and suspicious.

Lies by fabrication are easy to detect or uncover, while lies by distortion often have built-in safeguards that allows one to claim incompetence which is indistinguishable from an innocent mistake. Lies by omission, however, are by far the most pervasive type, yet lies by omission are seemless, in that the liars by omission don't notice that that's what they are doing in effect, being content to "report" about the subjects they are told about, and even believing that what they are "reporting" is relevant information and even a rather complete picture.

The (formerly) awesome power of the MSM is the centuries-old ability to control public exposure to information sources, so that only information that has passed through several different kinds of filters ever reaches public perception. The MSM thus broadcasts a grossly incomplete, and thus false, image of world events, having by now reached the point where there is an almost unfathomable disconnect between the deceived public mind and what is actually going on "behind the scenes" — which seems to include not only mass-casualty false flag operations and hoax shootings and bombings, but even such outlandish ideas as a decades-old secret space program and an off-planet breakaway civilization.

Televised revolution

Aside from fundamental assumptions, flawed premises, propaganda, distortions, etc, the act itself of "covering" an ongoing revolution or major grassroots change of any kind changes the outcome by inducing passivity. As YouTube commentator Frank Castle put it:

[+Rocky Burns] Is that what the media has been calling for, or is the media simply reacting to sentiments of discontent that have become more palpable in recent years? Keep in mind that a major function of entertainment is wish fulfillment - the media presents us with images of "revolution" (often one ruling class being replaced by another) because the corporate executives sense dissatisfaction with the status quo and seek to capitalize on it whilst placating the masses (as wish fulfillment aspects of entertainment are often substitutes for real action - by observing "revolution" on screens the viewer [which is having a passive experience] feels like a part of what is observed, thus placating his desire for action and change without him doing anything meaningful).

In other words, the calls for "revolution" are a complex form of reverse psychology - by telling the masses to revolt in a context of a passive entertainment experience, the real message they glean from it is to not do anything because what needs to be done is done for them on-screen: allowing the public to overthrow their oppressors from the safety of their sofas in their shared fantasy - meanwhile the actual ruling classes aren't affected at all...

Frank Castle

This is of course only if the MSM even covers the event at all, as opposed to covering it up by simply ignoring it and pretending that it isn't happening (lying by omission). A common example is the mass protests in European countries in the last few decades, about which the MSM will usually only show photos or videos of angles that make the mass of people seem orders of magnitude smaller than an overview shot would reveal it to be.

"News" scripts

Not only are the premise and parameters fundamentally flawed (in terms of the idea of being a positive influence on minds), the MSM at times even runs cross-channel scripts clearly written by the same source:

Mainstream Media News Exposed as Controlled TV Brainwashing Propaganda

One gets the impression that economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunnies' step this year... and that the final days of the political campaigns can get a little salty!

If the MSM does this with trivial "news" stories, one can only imagine what they do with more serious stories in which the (people who call themselves) "government" get(s) involved, and are by default assumed by the presstitutes to be the ones with the scoop.

Media references to anonymous activists vs APAs if AP wasn't already corrupt enough! "Anonymous activists" can only be assumed to mean "media editors criminally complicit in manufacturing war", because "activists" is newspeak for insurgents/rebels supported by Western powers who are staging events with full support from the largest MSM outlets.

"News" wire services

Each major MSM channel has its own reporters that travel around the country and/or world to report on stories in or around where they take place, but most "news" stories come from "news wire services". The largest of these are Associated Press (AP) and Reuters. As YouTube commentator Scott Hopson wrote:

It's called AP. They all rely on Associated Press to provide all the stories they report. Most news reporting programs don't actually gather any news they just report what's given to them. A long time ago these companies actually had journalists who worked to get stories but now most journalist are employed a a very few agencies and most work for the AP. In fact you can get regular reports from AP for as little as $1000 dollars a month for a web based reporting service.

Scott Hopson

So, in a sense, whoever controls the largest "news wire services" largely controls the MSM, or at least the types and depth and direction of information or "things to report on". Interestingly, research website GlobalResearch.ca points out that, in more recent times, the MSM has been increasingly sourcing less to AP and more to the idea of anonymous activists.

The mainstream media's enabling and support of war

The MSM's main "news stories" are essentially synonymous with "government-provided statements". Way back in 1880, John Swinton, a preeminent New York journalist known by some as "The Dean of His Profession", stated:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

John Swinton, 1880

How the news media works

William Randolph Hearst, the influential newsman credited with founding "yellow journalism" (and an early Zionist), once (in)famously told his correspondent in Cuba: "Stay where you are. You provide the pictures; I'll provide the war." He was referring to what would become the Spanish-American War of 1898-1901, which was started by means of a mysterious explosion (possibly a false flag operation, possibly a convenient accident) on the USS Maine. Hearst's newspapers, as well as those of business rival Joseph Pulitzer, racked up public support by blaming Spain for the Maine attack (along with a string of exaggerated and completely fabricated stories of Spanish atrocities against the Cubans) as planned, and denounced anyone still opposing war as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American". Amazing how 103 years later the same wordplay worked.

In those times, supporting the Cuban revolutionaries was the "right thing to do", but half a century later, the new Cuban revolutionaries, led by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, were to be disposed of by any means necessary, as they would not be subservient to U.S. interests (as was the U.S.-puppet dictator they overthrew, Fulgencio Batista) — eventually expanding their covert operations to the point of bringing anti-Castro Cuban hitmen into the fold of the plot to kill JFK, who had been attempting to shut down their operations.

The media's enabling of false flag terrorism

In most cases, the trigger for a war is a false flag event — something which could not occur if the media were a "government watchdog" as it implies it is and even presents itself as being.

The largest example is of course 9/11. To mention but one obvious glaring anomaly, a truly free press would've conducted interviews with the families of the alleged 19 hijackers. Big media channels send reporters overseas to cover meaningless events all the time, but no reporters were sent to Saudi Arabia to talk to hijackers' relatives and friends, or to try to find some of the "resurrected" hijackers who were reportedly protesting their innocence. The TV news didn't even report that some of the hijackers had reportedly turned up alive in the first place — as if such a magical feat was not newsworthy! The entire mainstream media operating on our planet, with the exception of a few Islamic media outlets, simply accepted whatever the "authorities" (the good guys, "us") said about the "terrorists" (the bad guys, "them") from the very beginning.

So long as they are the ones telling the story, and being listened to more than anyone else, thus being able to control the narrative, it doesn't matter how sloppy, how unfeasible, how improbable, and how illogical the "official" (mainstream) story actually is. All that is required is that it be repeated sufficiently before any alternative to the by then well-established narrative is heard by the media consumers (the target audience of the story).

All it takes to be regarded as a decent person by establishment punditry is the willingness to avoid offending people; do that and you can murder as many children with explosives and butterfly bullets as your withered heart desires.

Caitlin Johnstone (source)

The true nature of the largest media channels

The two most internationally-respected worldwide English-language news channels are CNN and BBC. Both of them have been caught deliberately creating fake media to (help the warmakers) justify war. The first war against the people of Iraq (known by its normalized name: First Gulf War) was the first war to be televised in detail, and CNN wasted no efforts to create a completely staged scenario of an on-scene reporter finding himself in a bio-warfare zone, complete with gas masks and lots of simulated fear.

More recently, the BBC pushed as hard as they could for the idea of war against Libya and Syria, going so far as to create fake media and clearly fake news reports to promote the "Syrian chemical weapons" lie — including digitally editing "napalm" to "chemical weapon" in a woman's testimony — apparently making BBC editors directly complicit in (what they themselves would've labeled) "crimes against humanity":

The Truthseeker - Media 'staged' Syria Chemical Weapons Attack

BBC 'total fabrication from beginning to end' of Syria 'atrocity'; call to revoke visas for intelligence agents posing as reporters in NATO targets; CIA caught infiltrating CNN, and Operation Mockingbird is back. Seek truth from facts with UK Member of Parliament George Galloway; Illinois University Professor of International Law Francis Boyle; investigative reporter John Helmer; ordinary Syrians; and Ukraine covergirl 'Julia'.

According to RT, citing a Cardiff University study, in the run-up to the Iraq War, 97% of BBC airtime was given to pro-war speakers, the highest of any media.

The runner-up is the English version of Al Jazeera. These pretend journalists, owned by the Qatari "royal" family, were so ridiculously one-sided that they quite openly practiced many deceptions to garner support for war against Libya and Syria, such as cheering on Libyan rebels (and the foreign mercenaries among them), not only siding with the rebels(/terrorists) and their sponsors the Western "democracies", and generally being even more pro-war and less "neutral" than the Western English media.

The true nature of the dominator media

The above are just a few examples, however, for the entirety of the MSM, especially Western MSM, is essentially, to put it poetically as did the late great comedian George Carlin, swimming in bullshit:

George Carlin explanation of media bullshit

"They are sitting in Bullshit Junction", where all the top bullshitters from showbiz, financial, political, marketing, PR, congregate.

The minds that make up the mainstream media

Researcher Mark Passio puts it about as bluntly as it can be put:

[The people in the mainstream media] are psychological infants; children. They don't wanna determine truth for themselves, and report it in any kind of a responsible way, or any kind of a direct way. All they care about is a paycheck — that's it. [...] So, these people, what they're really saying is "I'm too much of a low-life coward to tell the truth, so I repeat lies for a paycheck." [...] This is what's really going on deep down in the psyche — these people are sick. You have to understand, I'm not just attacking these people, I'm trying to help you — somebody who is partially well, if not all the way well — to explain [that] you're dealing with psychologically ill people. These are broken individuals that need healing, and need to be put back together, to remember who we really are. And we're not gonna do it unless we deal with these issues.

Mark Passio [source]

The few exceptions that do exist — the investigative journalists who do from time to time uncover some interesting happenings — have no ability to get the truly groundbreaking stories published. Any story or idea that strays too far from the "official" narrative of the (people who call themselves) "government" that the MSM is serving simply doesn't make it through the content filters (with some sparse rare exceptions), being axiomatically dismissed as "conspiracy theory" without investigation. In this way, covert operators (i.e. compartmentalized order-followers working under the commands of perceived "authorities") are able to carry out (often poorly-executed) false flag operations in order to kick-start wars and further various other control agendas, hardly even needing to consider how the MSM will frame the story, knowing that they will only pay attention to and give credence to "official" sources of information.

The total weaponization of the MSM as witnessed in the 2016 presidential election

In the 2016 presidential election season, an unexpected phenomena began due to the unexpected loose cannon that is billionaire business magnate Donald Trump, who essentially managed to switfly take over the entire Republican Party under the surprised noses of the incompetent and crooked establishment politicians. The response from the politicians on both sides of the statist coin was to band together and lie and cheat and collude to avoid having to give Trump the Republican nomination, and some even openly expressed their desire to rather see Hillary Clinton in the White House than a member of their own party — one that cannot be bought by special interests (donors such as groups advancing geopolitical agendas) because he is already a self-made billionaire.

Donald Trump is such an unexpected, unprecedented, and unknown factor in politics, that I don't know what to make of him, because he does not match any of the standard statist paradigms that I know of today. [...] The fact that he's self-funding his whole campaign means that he is not directly beholden to special interest groups.

Stefan Molyneux

It seems quite clear that, when looking at what Trump does and says, rather than what the MSM say he does and says, one can quickly see that he's not handled or managed by "sponsors" or by anyone; that Trump is out for Trump. Due to the relentless MSM lie-filled propaganda narrative about Trump, most people are operating under false assumptions, some reasonable and some not, before coming to examine Trump's mindset directly by watching videos of Trump speaking (for example on YouTube).

Clearly, Trump is not a politician at all, but rather a manager, an effective businessman who knows how to leverage and delegate tasks to "get things done". Unlike the vast majority of politicians, including all his rivals in the race, he seems to believe what he says, i.e. he is not lying/pretending/politicking and making empty promises designed by campaign managers from PR firms. He is a self-made billionaire who cannot be bought, who accurately perceives the Orwellian "political correctness" dumbification to be one of the biggest problems in political and societal discourse. Without such absurd concern for being "politically correct", this antipolitician feels at liberty to tell the uncensored truth about the political candidates, even early on in the campaign before confronting his final rival, Crooked Hillary:

Donald Trump's Top 20 Insults

[Published on Aug 1, 2015] Seems like the Donald just doesn't know when to stop. From John Mccain to President Obama to Hillary Cliton to Jeb Bush. The day has come to pass when one of America’s wealthiest men will attempt to take the white house by storm. Real estate mogul Donald Trump has announced that he will be running for president, after persistently denying he would. Real Estate isn’t his only trade, he’s a television personality, founder of the Trump Entertainment Resorts, and of course his buildings are all over the world. He has made it perfectly clear that he doesn’t need anyone to donate to his campaign for he is as wealthy as they come. He has a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and some experience in the political world. But money runs the world right? So lets see where his campaign takes him and what Americans think of a billionaire running the country.

While the MSM would do best to ignore it, and have increasingly learned to do so, Trump has been (highly accurately) lashing out at the extreme dishonesty and fraud of the (mainstream) media, to such an extent that they often took the bait, predictably portraying his "insults" as baseless and even "dangerous". As Trump has summarized it:

The media is very dishonest — unbelievably dishonest. Unbelievably; they're bad. They're bad people. [...] Obviously you have some good ones, [...] but you have some unbelievable scum, you really do. [...] And they are so totally dishonest.

Donald Trump [source]

The MSM's coverage of the 2016 election and the two party candidates, i.e. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, has been so exceedingly anti-Trump and so shockingly pro-Clinton that, even without the Wikileaks revelations in the form of hacked emails, the MSM made it crystal clear that they are working directly for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the globalist forces behind it.

2016 is the year hackers became journalists and journalists became hacks.

Kim Dotcom

Hence, during 2016 the "sides" became clearly defined as those who are tricked into believing the lies on the one hand, and those who have broken through the horrifically false MSM narrative and gotten to listen to what Trump actually says (and information beyond that in the form of alternative/truth/real/new media analysis).

He's a litmus test as to one's capacity to be programmed. [...] Trump is revealing the degree to which people allow their emotional biases to run away with any last shreds of their rational capacity.
Trump is bringing information to the public that goes counter to the programming of the last 30 or 40 years, which is the leftist argument that all races, all cultures, all ethnicities, all regions, all historical momentums are all fundamentally identical.

Stefan Molyneux [source]

In other words, a right-brain imbalance is happening by which MSM watchers and cultural consumers lose interest in logic and facts (which is the domain of the left hemisphere of the brain), instead making choices based on how words feel, thus being easy prey for the MSM/Clinton gang and their globalist puppetmasters. This is incredibly evident in what could be called "Hillary zombies" who will seemingly defend her until the end, regardless of what she does, or how horrific her crimes may be.

The MSM's rigged election narrative

Candidate Misdeed Comparison

The MSM's narrative of who Donald Trump is, what he does, and what he represents, are for the most part not even lies, just fear-based slander. They start with the conclusion that Trump is a horrible human being and then ignore all evidence of good and try to find nuggets of bad — and there are almost none, as evidently no one has yet found a definitively significant/major wrong action done by Trump. The worst they could dig up was a 15-year-old audio tape of him making nasty sexual remarks about women. This is in stark contrast to Hillary, whose crimes, no matter how grand and harmful, are actively covered up by the entire left-leaning MSM and much of the right-leaning MSM, who'd rather spend days or even weeks on each anti-Trump nugget of not-quite-but-almost dirt.

The fear-filled people absorbed into the MSM fear frequencies — i.e. "liberals"/"progressives" (or, perhaps more accurately, "libtards"/"regressives"), many of whom have allowed themselves to become dependent on the welfare state and thus have a great fear of change because change decreases their sense of security — then spread these slanderous lies as if important facts that prove that no one in his/her right mind would support Trump, and that him becoming President would be catastrophic. From that false/inaccurate fearful belief, many people feel justified in initiating violence against Trump supporters (whom they commonly absurdly baselessly equate with Hitler supporters).

The moral principle used against Donald Trump is this: If you speak words that are upsetting to other people, then they are fully justified in threatening or using violence against you. Or, I guess more precisely, if you speak words that can be perceived as divisive, then violence is justified against you.

Stefan Molyneux [source]

It is easy to notice that a majority of Trump critics are quite visibly living with a lot of fear (negative beliefs), and have (at least to some extent) become dependent on the welfare state and the "security" it provides them, and are for that reason driven to attack what they sense represents very big change. Their arguments are so bad it's at once sad and funny, and they just ignore all the good, focusing instead entirely on trying to dig up nuggets of dirt — i.e. aiming at straws, and very often inaccurately so, in subconscious emotionally-charged knee-jerk reactions in abject disregard of the ideas of logic, facts, and truth.

A democratic election or a power consolidation event?

If a group of motivated psychopathic people, hungry for the dopamine kicks produced by feeling (a false sense of) "power" or "control" over other people, were to attempt to rig an election event with the intent to consolidate and firmly entrench their "power" (influence) within the government of the largest empire/superpower on the planet, their main target would be the interface to public perception/opinion, i.e. the mainstream media. So if they can manage to reach a point in which they control the majority of the most influential members of the MSM, from the media conglomerate owners down to the editors and journalists for each major newspaper or TV network, complete election rigging becomes possible because the public would simply not be sufficiently exposed to information about their crimes. This is exactly what seems to have happened, as grandiosely revealed by Wikileaks' publishing of thousands of hacked internal emails among Clinton campaign staff. As Julian Assange of Wikileaks has said, the operating plan by the Clinton political machine is/was one in which "Trump won't be permitted to win".

What they did not expect, however, was the way the MSM would be forced into revealing their agenda so blatantly as to lose almost all remaining credibility in the public's mind — in part due to the cunning winner mentality of Donald Trump and the grassroots movement he generated by simply saying what the Internet research community (a prominent example being Alex Jones of Infowars) have been saying for many years. Despite the MSM's best efforts, after the 3rd presidential debate on 19 October 2016, and even before the debates, Trump was already leading by a significant margin — the MSM's rigged polls notwithstanding.

The U.S. intelligence countercoup via Wikileaks

The other major reason for the MSM's self-destruction of credibility is the game-changing Wikileaks revelations. According to US intelligence veteran and psyops specialist Steve Pieczenik, the Clinton machine's rigging of the election constitutes a soft coup d'état, planned a long time in advance and to succeed by any means necessary. Some of the most prominent means, as we know, include such tactics as:

... and many other unethical and often illegal fraudulent schemes, all while constantly blatantly telling lies with fake smiles and overdone grins that thinly veil an evidently astoundingly dark plot to attempt to control the USA and the planet, amorally using any and all means necessary. As researcher Mike Adams put it:

The desperate democrats are going to try to cheat, steal and rig every single thing they can manage to get their slimy hands on. This includes all polls, news coverage and even the actual votes in November. You should expect this by default, knowing that the term "democrat" is now synonymous with "criminal." Why are they so desperate? Because they know if they lose the White House, a whole bunch of them are going to be indicted and imprisoned by the Trump administration.

If Trump is looking likely to win, watch for a massive false flag attack on a U.S. city in order to declare a national emergency, institute some form of effective martial law, and delay the election so that the fake leftist media can change the narrative (and alter the election outcome). This false flag attack could involve EMP or even nuclear terrorism. There is nothing the criminal class of corrupt government won't try in order to stay in power, including the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. (Which, if it were to happen, would instantly set off a civil war across America.)

Mike Adams [source]

As a response to the "clear and present danger" of the internal soft coup — assuming Pieczenik is to be believed — American patriots within the US intelligence community loosely organized together a countercoup against their soft coup, using Wikileaks as the primary medium, giving Julian Assange thousands upon thousands of hacked emails which seemingly contain sufficient evidence to convict the core members of the Clinton crime network, and innumerable associates, to life imprisonment in some individual cases.

How criminal can the MSM become?

Thanks to Donald Trump, another wave of awakening to the MSM's criminality has swept the USA, as the contrast between the real Donald Trump and the MSM's supervillain caricature is so yuuuge that the entire MSM — with the notable exception of Fox News — can only be perceived as being a Clintonite propaganda machine.

We know what they're up to. This has been the agenda of the Soros-MoveOn people and the Clintonites from the beginning[:] to disqualify Trump by branding him as a violent, misogynist, racist, bigot, madman, trigger-happy lunatic. A caricature that isn't even close.

Roger Stone [source]

While at the same time doing everything possible to cover up Hillary's crimes and even health problems. The only reason Hillary seemed to have a chance, or even ever had a chance, is because the entire leftist mainstream media are working for her and/or her sponsors.

I know Hillary met my campaign manager, and I got the chance to meet the people who are working so hard to get her elected. There they are: the heads of NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC; there's The New York Times right over there, and The Washington Post. They're working overtime. True.

Donald Trump [source]

Fox News is not really much better, in the sense that they are on the other side of the statist coin and will support anyone on "their side", as it was designed to do, be it warmongering Israel-first neo-Trotskyite neocons, or now Donald Trump. However, however much they may be characterized by their chauvinistic groupthink, Fox News did not seem to engage during (and do not seem to be wholly engaging after) the presidential campaigns in outright criminal "divide and conquer" deceptions to further irrational anti-Trump sentiment and other divisionary tactics such as artificially escalating "identity politics" (e.g. racial) tensions by commanding their paid thugs and triggering their zombified hordes of brainwashed "Social Justice Warriors" to engage in violent "protests" that are more accurately described as riots.

Why nothing shown on TV can be assumed to be real

Even with the idea of possible disinformation programs attempting to make it seem as if all TV "news" is fake in order to make all "conspiracy theories" seem insane, videos like the following one demonstrate that by today there is no good reason to trust anything at all being broadcast by the MSM:

New Tech Shows Why You Can't Trust Anything You See on the News

[Published on Mar 20, 2016] I'm not even sure what to write for a description. What else can you say? It's the Matrix.

More info on Stanford's website: http://www.graphics.stanford.edu/~niessner/thies2016face.html

Is it unreasonable to suggest that this technology is already being used? Even if used subtly, such as for manipulating body language, it is a perception alteration method and propaganda tool so useful as to be hard to imagine it not having already been used.

The mainstream media as a catalyst for transformation

Luckily for humanity, with the giant exception of the fraudulent hack journalists that have been promoted to the top of their "profession" by the shadow government actors behind the Clinton campaign, possibly under horrific trauma-based mind-control programs, the majority of the "news" casters and reporters are not motivated by ideology (dogmatic belief systems), but rather by money and status/career. Thus, as researcher and purported galactic historian Andrew Bartzis put it, "the weak underbody of the system of domination and control is the individual propaganda news casters."

Once the government power structure becomes imbued with benevolent intentions, functional, and efficient under the leadership and moral integrity of Donald Trump — assuming that that much will happen — will we then see the MSM beginning to actually report honestly and accurately? If so, will we see within those 8 years major false flag events and covert organizations being exposed in the living rooms of American citizens, such as 9/11, the funders of ISIS, the Secret Space Program, the lies about all the wars, or the various genocidal agendas, such as the agenda to mongrelize Europe and obliterate European cultural values and identities?

It's those individual news casters that can be gotten to that can turn around and become [truth tellers]. When those people begin to tell the truth like that, is when you will know that we are going through our awakening process.

Andrew Bartzis [source]

In other words, those presstitutes who are neither ideologically-driven nor installed victims of trauma-based mind-control programs such as Project Monarch, and maybe even some assets of Operation Mockingbird, will have the opportunity to become truth heroes and become appreciated and beloved by the people rather than despised as members of a criminal syndicate — which they will remain until the traitorous liars are sufficiently exposed and thus presumably eventually removed and hopefully prosecuted by a renewed Department of Justice and FBI after Trump delivers on his promise to "drain the swamp" of corruption.

The idiot box has brought us a tremendous amount of trouble; imagine if it could be turned around into an instrument of global awakening by means of a new media seeking to uncover layer after layer of hidden truths, once the pursuit of truth becomes more profitable than the mindless destructive following of despised political agendas.

In fact that seems to be what is happening: the fakestream media is beginning to turn into the mainstream truth media. Such a process — full disclosure and integration of all hidden truths — channeled sources unanimously whisper, is a requirement for our ascension, for one cannot build a new world on top of an old world of hidden lies, only from its ashes.


People who demand neutrality in any situation are usually not neutral but in favor of the status quo.

Max Eastman, journalist and poet (1883-1969)

Our conscience is not the vessel of eternal verities. It grows with our social life, and a new social condition means a radical change in conscience.

Walter Lippmann, journalist (1889-1974)

What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.

Herbert Simon

Many of [people in the alternative media arena] are still caught in religion, and if they're not caught in religion they're caught in mainstream science — that's why both so many people in the alternative arena even ridicule and dismiss what I say. We have to go beyond that, cuz if we don't, we will misperceive ourselves into the Orwellian nightmare that is currently planned, but does not have to be.

David Icke