ELLIS MEDAVOY SPEAKS ABOUT NATO SUMMIT
by Jon Rappoport
May 10, 2012
It’s rare, these days, for me to get messages from retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy. He’s always been a difficult man. Now, he’s even tougher to coax out of his cave.
Nevertheless, because I’m persistent, I interview Ellis 28 times (290 pages) in my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED. The quality of his information on the nuts and bolts of The Matrix is priceless.
Today, I’m presenting a one-way conversation, in which Ellis begins by discussing the upcoming May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago. It’s the jumping-off point for one of his fantastic voyages. Then he and I go into Q&A format. Eventually, the conversation gets a bit contentious. I’m used to that with Ellis. He isn’t a drink that goes down easy, like chocolate milk. He’s like a few shots of gin.
ELLIS 1: Chicago. No-fly zone. Shoot down planes. Shut businesses. Station troops. Lock down apartment buildings. Tell business employees to dress like protestors to avoid assaults. Project evacuations.
Most observers looking at the Summit are missing the boat. There is NO consensus for a gigantic protest filled with violence in Chicago.
In the US, people have no particular opinion about NATO. It’s not G-8 or WTO. What NATO has actually been doing, covertly, for decades, in war zones, has occurred under the radar.
Reports out of Chicago are claiming the crowds of protestors are going to be much smaller than predicted.
Organizers are straining to get their people to march in the streets.
The G-8 conference was supposed to take place at the same time as the NATO Summit, which would have attracted big numbers of protestors to Chicago, but then Obama moved the G-8 to Camp David.
Michelle Obama will be hosting a few events for NATO spouses, and the president will show up in town. So what?
So that leaves three possibilities, all of which are psy-ops.
One, the crowds will be small, but the military/police/DHS and various other agencies will have a chance to do a live drill and see how their systems work and mesh…while scaring the citizenry of the city.
Two, related to One, this kind of gigantic military and law-enforcement presence (with accompanying media coverage) further conditions the population of America to martial-law conditions.
Or Three, behind the scenes, a violent op is being mounted by the very people who are pushing martial law. This incident will spark sufficient chaos to maintain the idea of “imminent and continuing threat to the Homeland” and justify crushing action by troops and cops. For example, these lunatic martial-law pushers might be putting together a threat against the president or the first lady. If so, and assuming the threat is contained, this will be a ploy to gain support for Obama’s re-election campaign. “Embattled heroic president vows to never surrender to terrorism…”
Unless protest organizers can manage to invent a march out of nothing, involving large numbers of people, most of whom will have virtually no idea what they’re doing in Chicago, you’re looking at the three scenarios above.
The NATO Summit jitters are a synthetic creation. As far as genuine public awareness of NATO is concerned, it provokes no images stronger than a march against Velveeta.
So this is all psy-op. It STARTED with announcements in the press about security measures that would be taken in the city. Get it? That’s where it STARTED. Those stories were planted. All of a sudden, before anyone cared about the Summit, we were told that security would be overwhelming. The security is really the only story.
They didn’t even fake a possible threat. They just said, “We’re going to blanket the city with security.”
This is also a covert announcement to potential protestors. The message is:
GET ORGANIZED. MARCH IN THE STREETS. DO SOMETHING BIG. WE WANT YOU TO DO SOMETHING BIG. GET YOUR BUTTS IN GEAR. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU’RE LAGGING BEHIND. IF WE’RE GOING TO LOCK DOWN CHICAGO, YOU HAVE TO PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU CAN’T JUST BRING OUT THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE AN EMBARRASSMENT. IF WE’RE SHUTTING DOWN CHICAGO, THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON FOR IT. YOU’RE THE REASON, IF YOU SHOW UP IN HUGE NUMBERS. SO BE THAT REASON. THIS IS A GOLD-PLATED INVITATION TO YOU FROM US. MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN. DON’T LET US DOWN.
It’s backwards, sure. Many ops are backwards.
The press will never cover a psy-op because the press are part of that psy-op. The tool in the master’s hand doesn’t turn around and bite the master. THE PRESS EXISTS MAINLY TO PROMOTE PSY-OPS.
ELLIS 2: “Defense of the nation” is a much larger psy-op designed to convince the masses that there IS a nation, when in fact it has been stolen out from under them, and all that is left of any significant size is the partnership between huge corporations, banks, and government. Government is rapidly being assimilated into a globalist scheme and pattern of management. These are cartels.
You have to understand the mental and emotional quality of people who are hired to deliver the news. They’re basically dolts. But they’re a particular kind of dolt. They’re bright in certain ways. They’re quick on their feet. BUT they can’t grasp the possibility that the information being presented to them, the information they pass on to the public, is twisted at the source. They just can’t imagine that. They know about lies, sure. But the real nature and scope of a psy-op evades them. They are information hounds, you might say, and they NEED a reputable source for that information. They’re addicted to information and for them there has to be a constant stream of it, or they would go crazy. They have to fill their minds with news and pass on that news. That’s their itch and they have scratch it. So they need a place to go to get the information and they have to trust it. They need a place where the news pours out to them all the time. They have to have that. Their primary source is government. They rely on it. They accept it. If not, they would be at a loss, psychologically. They would have to start vetting every piece of news and that would take too much time. There wouldn’t be enough news. It’s exactly the situation a drug addict finds himself in. He has to have a dealer he trusts to be there, to have a supply of the drug.
The quality of the information or news or drugs is of secondary importance to the addict. I’ve known many newsmen and women in my time, and they mostly start out with their addiction when they are young. They’re fixated on the flow. They’re tied with a chain and anchor to the flow of news. They eat it up. They remember it. They are married to it.
Therefore, the very idea that most of the news they’re reporting has an agenda is anathema to them. They reject that proposition violently. Put a newsman on a desert island and he would go crazy. He’d start broadcasting to the bushes or the sand.
So if a particular stream of news comes into him about heavy, heavy security in Chicago for the NATO Summit, that’s a very good thing in itself. That’s information. He never questions WHY this news has no foundation. He never asks why Chicago is being targeted. That would be like a drug addict asking why the flow of heroin is suddenly picking up on the street. Would never happen.
Just as the audience for news has to be able to replace one story with the next, the newsman has to be able to do the same thing. When you stop to consider this ability, it’s again like the drug addict. It isn’t yesterday’s fix that’s important, it’s what’s going to happen right now.
All newspeople are dedicated to The Story, but they have to believe the stories are factual. If they started to realize they’re reporting fiction, they’d come apart at the seams. Their lives and their minds are founded on the idea of facts. It doesn’t really matter that the facts are fictions—the newspeople believe they’re facts. This is a very strong belief. It’s religious.
When you step back and think about this, it’s strange. Reporters want to have a death-grip on facts. Information is their addiction; pretended facts are their religion. Where do these people come from? What breeds them to be the way they are? They’re dysfunctional in a deep sense. From an early age, they’re mesmerized by “knowing what’s going on.” They’re the “know-what’s-going-on” people. It’s absolutely vital to them.
They’re perfect, perfect dupes.
Q & A with Ellis Medavoy:
Q (Jon): So the job of the propagandist is to make fiction look and feel like fact.
A (Ellis): Propagandists know who they’re feeding, and they know what morsel will be snapped up by these newspeople. They know how to shape the morsel and color it and flavor it so that it becomes a drug.
Q: The memories of these newspeople…
A: Are data banks. Their memories are all data all the time. The memories form their reality. INTERRUPTION of reality is the primary sin. It can’t be tolerated.
Q: What do you mean by interruption?
A: A place in the mind where a corrosive question or doubt is inserted about the nature or character of a fact. For the regular human, this can be dealt with, at least to some degree. For the newsman, this is like a hammer blowing time to pieces. The flow is interrupted. It would be like one of those old stock brokers, when he followed the second-to-second transmission of stock prices by looking at a narrow piece of paper tape. He’d hold the tape in his hands and read it as it came through, yards and yards of it. But suppose the tape came out of the machine blank for a few minutes. This is why some people can’t meditate. They’re instinctively afraid they might come upon a silent moment where thought stops.
Q: So to ask your own question back to you, where DO these newspeople come from?
A: They, at an early age, see power as the capacity to know “what’s going on.” They plug into that kind of power.
Q: It’s strange.
A: It’s superficial. It’s all about surface flow of information. They stick to the surface. What they’re looking at, what they’re fascinated by is a kind of theater. They’re looking at theater. I’ve known that for a long time. It was part of my job to know it, because then I could present stories that would get through to reporters in a form that would have that theatrical feel.
Q: The players know their roles.
A: The reporters know, their editors know, their reliable sources know, and people like me, who feed those reliable sources, are like directors. It’s hard to describe this, but there is a certain pulse and pace and feel to the way you should supply stories to sources or reporters or editors. You know when to go fast and when to go slow. You know how to plug into their sense of theater. Their need for theater.
Q: So the addiction of these newspeople has a theatrical dimension to it.
A: Have you ever seen a junkie operate? A great deal of his action and talk is theater. He presents theater and he wants theater back. The newsman confuses theater with facts. It’s all rolled up into a big space. I’ve sold stories to reporters based purely on the theatricality of my presentation. See, let me tell you something. When I talk to a reporter, I know I’m walking into a theater where the play is ALREADY underway. It never stops for a reporter. So I hit the ground running. I enter the scene mid-stream. I don’t think, “Now, I’m starting to pitch my lines, now the scene is beginning.” No. I’m intuiting and seeing where he [the reporter] is right now, in the middle of one of his scenes, so to speak, and I plug directly into that place, that moment. Do you understand? This is the subtlety of the art.
Q: You understand his psychology.
A: Yes, and I understand his flow. I read the signals. Oh, this is Death of a Salesman or Streetcar Named Desire, or Hamlet, and they just shoved me out on the stage, and I have to know how to match the emotions of the moment, where the scene has already been going on for five minutes. It sounds a little odd, but that’s how you play the game if you want to win. It could be a very quiet moment in the scene, and then I need to talk in a whisper. It could be the peak of the scene, where the emotions are running high, and I have to drive right in and be there for it, with my feelings turned on high, too.
Q: But behind that, you were doing something quite different.
A: Of course. I had my marching orders and my agenda.
Q: You know, it’s almost like you’re talking about frequencies.
A: I am. Propaganda runs on carrier waves. What are you using to transmit messages? What wave? I knew my targets: reporters and editors and their reliable sources. So I had to understand and tune into the frequencies they would accept. If you watch the best television news anchors, you see they’re adopting several tight emotional frequencies, and they use them to transmit, with their voices and demeanor, the news to the public. They use a nearly perfect imitation of several things: concern, objectivity, dignity, intelligence, with a bit of a rosy glow of sincerity and humanity. That’s the recipe.
Q: Imitation, you say.
A: Yes. They’re a cartoon. They create a cartoon persona. A very well crafted one. And the audience is a cartoon, too.
Q: Why is the audience a cartoon?
A: Because, underneath it all, they know they’re being conned. At some level, they realize it’s a show. So they pretend, and they do it well. They pretend they’re very involved.
Q: You can see that?
A: See it? I lived by it for many years. I staked my reputation on all of this, on everything I’m talking about here. It wasn’t just theory. I went into the trenches with my understanding, and I made it succeed.
Q: You’re talking about using your skills on people who report the news, who tell the public what’s going on.
A: As I just said, it’s all a cartoon. On both sides. Broadcasters and audience. You may not like it that I take a hard line on the audience, but too bad. The audience is faking it just as much as the newscasters. You have to admit there are levels to the mind.
Q: Meaning?
A: On one level, the audience appears to accept what the mainstream news is telling them. But on another level, as I’m saying for the third time, the audience knows it’s a fake. And why don’t they admit it? Why don’t they say, ‘I’m sitting here at night buying what I know is fake. I’m watching the screen and the anchor is giving me the news and I know it’s cooked.’ Why don’t people do that? Because they refuse to look at their own little drama of stimulation, in which they are titillated by what the newspeople are giving them. They don’t want that professionally produced titillation to go away.
Q: You may have heard of something called the Internet. It’s changing things.
A: Sounds vaguely familiar. Yes. The ground is splitting beneath the audience’s feet. I’m not a praying man, but I do something close to that every day, as regards The New York Times and NBC. I ask for them to go bankrupt. The Times is on the road to perdition and insolvency. If they go, it will make an interesting sound.
Q: Is your blood pressure okay? You’re a retired senior citizen.
A: I think I can hold my own.
Q: If you need to take a break, we can do that.
A: (laughs) Everybody needs to take his medicine.
Q: I can think of two or three meanings for that sentence.
A: See, I’m a little sick of people saying that the great unwashed masses of very fine people are being fooled and duped by the big bad controllers. It’s a mutual dance. I knew that thirty years ago. Everybody has to own up to his part in the cartoon, in the theatrical presentation. I know the difference between real victims and fake victims.
Q: What is that difference?
A: The real victims, in certain countries, are being taken out by massive corporations with their assisting government troops and all sorts of other support. The fake victims are sitting in front of television sets eating sugar and tuning right into the frequencies of the presentation of the news. They’re frequency addicts, and I’m very serious about that. This is exactly what they’re hooked on. Why do you think all this research on the brain is being done? To home in on the best frequencies for the insertion of information. That’s what we’re discussing here. But good newspeople already understand the frequency game. Intuitively. They understand it better than the brain researchers. And the audience needs that human face and voice to transmit the addicting frequencies to them. It isn’t just the old flicker rate of the TV or the frames per second or the illuminated screen. It’s the person delivering the news. He’s the prime force. He’s addicted to the frequencies he’s using! He’s addicted, too, and he’s transmitting and sharing his addiction with the audience.
Q: And what’s the cure for this addiction?
A: The world is resonating every day with what humans want. Here is what they want: they want to ingratiate themselves with each other. Ingratiation. Acceptance. Those are the frequencies. That’s the theme of the play. Those are the resonating frequencies. That’s how information is built and fabricated to invoke belief and faith. That’s the carrier wave, the resonance.
Q: When did you realize this?
A: When I was nine. But that’s a whole other story. Realizing it pushed me into the work I did. It also rescued me from continuing to do that work. I got out. You know what getting out means? It means I don’t any longer accept what I was doing, AND I refuse to accept the conditions that made it possible to do that work. I didn’t just get out part way. I got out all the way. I don’t buy the basic theme of the play or the ingratiating resonance anymore. I offloaded the whole thing. You know what? Tomorrow, if I wanted to, I could start a new religion. And it wouldn’t really involve any of the factual deceptions I used to use in my work. I could start a non-denominational religion based, say, entirely on charity. That’s all. And it would look like a very good thing. But I WOULD be using my ability to put out my messages on frequencies and resonances that would attract people. See? That’s how I’d build my audience. And I won’t do that. I know how to do it very, very well, but I won’t do that. That’s what getting out all the way means.
Q: You know—
A: I know a few solid truths. You can get people to sleepwalk from “bad things” to “good things” and they’re still sleepwalking. And that’s the real problem. That’s one element of The Matrix.
Q: Scientists tend to believe in operant conditioning. They believe people think and act according to one type of operant conditioning or another, and there are no other choices.
A: That’s right. That’s the problem. Waking up from the frequency game altogether is the real goal.
Jon Rappoport
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.
