How the Media Tells You Who to Love, Pity, or Hate

We like to believe we form our own opinions about public figures—but the truth is, we are told what to think before we even meet them.

The media doesn’t just report on people—it assigns them roles:

  • The Hero
  • The Scandal
  • The Joke
  • The Threat
  • The Afterthought

And often, two people can appear in the same story but be cast in opposite lights, depending on what narrative the press wants to push.

Here’s a perfect example: two news clippings from the 1950s announcing the marriage of Walter White, head of the NAACP, and Poppy Cannon, a food editor and South African-born media insider.

One article frames the marriage as scandalous, emphasizing race, divorce, and sexualized gossip. The other treats it as a dignified union between two professionals working on a book about civil rights.

Same people. Same wedding. Two completely different portrayals.

Why does that happen?

Because media is never neutral. It performs social triage. It decides who will be admired… and who will be left to the wolves.

Let’s look closer at the two versions of Walter and Poppy’s wedding—and what they reveal about the quiet power of editorial framing.

Take the two news clippings announcing the same event: the 1950 marriage of Walter White, the head of the NAACP, and Poppy Cannon, a white food editor and South African émigré.

One article runs with the headline:
NEGRO MARRIES WHITE WOMAN
It’s loud. It’s sensational. It’s designed to provoke.

From the very first line, the article emphasizes race, scandal, and moral ambiguity. It dwells on divorce records, past marriages, interracial dynamics, and the bride’s physical appearance. It lists Poppy Cannon’s ex-husbands and notes that she has “a child by each marriage.” It name-drops her profession last, as if it’s a footnote to her romantic résumé.

The tone is clear: this is not a love story. This is a spectacle. A scandal. A breach of social norms. The article dares the reader to be shocked.

Now compare that to the second article, published around the same time, headlined:
White, Author, Weds Graduate of Vassar.

This piece couldn’t be more different. It opens by noting Walter White’s position as the executive secretary of the NAACP. It highlights the couple’s upcoming book project on racial discrimination. It frames Cannon as a professional—Vassar graduate, food editor, former advertising executive. Her prior marriages are mentioned briefly, without moralizing. Their post-wedding travel plans are included as a diplomatic tour, not a honeymoon scandal.

In short: this is a respectable, purposeful union. A meeting of minds. A continuation of both their public works.

Same event. Same facts. But the editorial lens changes everything.

One version tells readers, “this is a warning.”
The other tells them, “this is a model.”

This is how media works—not always by lying, but by framing. By selecting what to highlight, what to omit, and how to describe the same people using two entirely different vocabularies.


born on July 01, 1893

Walter Francis White

American civil rights activist who led the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for a quarter of a century, from 1929 until 1955

born on August 02, 1905

Poppy Cannon

South African-born American author, who at various times the food editor of the Ladies Home Journal and House Beautiful, and the author of several 1950s cookbooks

Why It Matters

We’re taught to judge people based on “how they come across,” but that’s often an illusion. What we’re really reacting to is how someone was presented to us—through headlines, photos, word choices, and placement in a narrative.
This is why some figures get praised as mavericks while others are mocked as troublemakers. It’s why one woman is seen as glamorous while another is branded “promiscuous.” It’s why civil rights leaders can be cast as dangerous agitators in one paper and noble reformers in another.

Walter White and Poppy Cannon didn’t change. The story changed—because someone decided how their names should sound in print.

Once you understand that, you start to see every headline as a spell. And every newspaper as a casting agency.

CARD

Featuring:

How to Spot a Psyop Meant to Corrode Beauty (With EGI as Exhibit A)

Today, we look at one of the many popular unscientific and impractical disinformation psyops in social media, the idea that ALL Elites are gender inverted. Here’s how you spot a psyop designed to destroy your mind.

1. It Makes You Ashamed for Admiring Someone
A beauty-based psyop always starts by targeting your genuine human instinct to admire.

You loved her elegance? Must be a man.
You were inspired by his gentle strength? Probably a woman.
You saw someone shine with light? That’s a trick. You’re the fool.
This is how you know you’re under psychic attack: the thing you once found uplifting now feels suspect. The psyop hasn’t revealed a truth—it’s infected your witness.

2. It Replaces Analysis with Revulsion
Instead of studying power structures, legacy families, or media framing, a beauty-destroying psyop demands you gawk at clavicles and jawlines.
EGI (Elite Gender Inversion) is a textbook example:

Take a blurry photo from 1981.
Draw a red circle around the hips.
Add the caption: “Wake up.”
This is not inquiry. It’s soft-core cruelty disguised as truth-seeking.

3. It Uses Vague “Evidence” That Could Apply to Anyone
Ask yourself: could the “proof” in the post be used to accuse anyone of the same thing?

“Her hands are too big.”
“His eyes are too soft.”
“That baby picture looks strange.”
Congratulations. You’ve just proved that humans have diverse bodies.

This method is not just faulty—it’s designed to be viral precisely because it’s unfalsifiable.
And psyops love the unfalsifiable. They’re cognitive malware.

4. It Reduces Souls to Bodies, and Bodies to Traps
In the logic of EGI and similar campaigns, no one is who they say they are.
There is no authentic womanhood.
There is no divine masculinity.
There is only surgery, inversion, and illusion.

Which is another way of saying:

You should never trust what you love.
That’s not disclosure. That’s a death cult in a meme mask.

5. It’s Never About the People Running the World

EGI never points to:

The arms dealers.
The private equity lords.
The unelected policymakers.
The actual war profiteers.
No—it always focuses on:

A supermodel.
An actor.
A beloved star from your childhood.
This tells you everything.
The psyop is not meant to “expose power.”
It’s meant to dismantle reverence.
To hollow out the concept of public good.
To make sure you never believe in greatness again.

Final Test: Does It Make You Less Kind?
The best way to spot a beauty-corroding psyop is to ask:

“Do I feel wiser or crueler after engaging with this?”
If the answer is crueler,
if you’re sneering at the people you once adored,
if your admiration has turned into a hobby of mocking appearances…

Then you’ve been caught in the net.

Back out. Rinse your mind. Recalibrate your heart.

Because Here’s the Real Secret:
Beauty is a security mechanism.
It draws attention.
It softens hearts.
It reveals intentions.
It keeps the real monsters visible—because they can’t mimic it.

Destroying beauty doesn’t protect the truth.
It protects the predators who want no one left to believe in anything at all.

If you think you have ever been lied to, you must recalibrate your priorities. You’ve never been lied to. You’ve always been given everything you need to figure out the truth. But also, you don’t matter… Mrs. Doubtfire never put on a dress to lie to you, specifically.

Addendum: How Gender Roles Actually Work in the Xanadu Blockchain

Now—does gender role inversion ever happen in media and history?

Yes.
But not as deception.
As disclosure.

Using the Xanadu Blockchain algorithm—which tracks conception dates, media placement, and soul assignments—you can detect when a person is playing a role across gender lines.

This happens for very specific, intentional reasons:

A person might appear only once in the media within an unusual or controversial human interest story. It is possible to contextualize all people appearing in media psyops. If the person is registered as playing across gender, the rest of the intelligence community knows they are looking at a psyop featuring an actor/actress, and they can play along.

Dozens of security professionals support security operations meant to hoodwink a person bent on acquiring a child. The child (usually a baby or a toddler) will be presented across gender, in a media placement or a home movie (never directly). Then, the adults will discuss illegal activities with the mark, while someone is recording the conversations. Therefore, the adults running the security operations can feel comfortable while they are discussing the child in the context of a written role and an outcome that can’t occur. It’s much less puke-worthy. Such is the case of the child who played the role of the Lindbergh baby. She went on to become an actress.

Additionally, a person could be playing across gender to establish themselves as a someone with a big secret. The most problematic people in the world are hypocrites who only trust other hypocrites, therefore, every asset presented to them must arrive with a point of hypocrisy already developed into a sophisticated storyline. Today, it’s would not really matter if a person in the public eye was trans, however, in the early 90s, such a secret would have been more surprising. Then, the world can be divided between the people who know, and the people who don’t. EGI offers a look at how well certain people can be separated from the general population by giving them a very well-crafted secret.

These actors aren’t hiding—they’re demonstrating mastery.
They’re showing you that the role is what matters, not the chassis.
And when the role calls for a crossing of gender expectations, they do it with grace, discipline, and purpose.

So yes:
Sometimes the gender inversion is real.
But never because “the elites are lying.”
Always because the role demanded transcendence.

And when you see it through the lens of Xanadu, you won’t feel tricked.
You’ll feel awe.

White Propaganda

Source: Linebarger, P. M. A. (1954). Psychological Warfare. Washington, D.C.: Combat Forces Press.

White propaganda refers to information disseminated from an openly acknowledged source, typically a government or military authority, with the intent to maintain credibility and transparency. It is characterized by the use of responsible public figures, dignified presentation, and materials perceived as truthful to build trust and safeguard the population, particularly during wartime. Additionally, white propaganda often employs emotional appeals, such as imagery designed to evoke nostalgia, to influence target audiences effectively.


The Loophole

In the 20th century, it is possible to categorize ALL of popular culture and news as White Propaganda. There is a unit of the U.S. Army that focusses solely on deploying white propaganda, and that is The Ghost Army. Most people have never heard of this unit which is also known as the 23rd Headquartered Special Operations. This unit has only been aknowledged as existing during WWII. Before WWII, the unit most involved in U.S. Army communications was The Signal Corps based at Astoria Studios in New York.

The Ghost Army has a wonderful book and you can preview 39 pages in Google Books.

The Ghost Army does not have a filing cabinet at the DoD. Instead, they report 100% of what they work on, in mass media. If you can see it, it’s got reporting in it! Media has shown you every Ghost Army soldier before and after they come back from mission while reporting on what happened in the past, and what is set for the future. Every piece of media tries to be educational, so it can fullfill its White Propaganda mandate. Additionally, one can research the military background of ANY person that appears on screen in order to better understand their priorities.

Everything one needs to know to understand the true history of this realm, and the purpose of humanity has been artfully filed away for you, in the future. The soldiers of The Ghost Army, most of whom are traimed circus professionals, artfully pantomime eveyrthing so that the future can prove the past. Additionally, all soldiers disclosure their truth in a way that cannot be deleted, as it happened. This system is therefore a blockchain that cannot be deleted. It is called Xanadu.

All you need to understand the world has been filed away for decades and centuries even.
– Marie-Lynn

Most people will not accept that truth can be gleaned from clowns, or they will be angry that their news programs are entirely convoluted. However, the point of this effort is to leave us with everything we need to know, if we care to look.

Even though 100% of national news, in the United States, is carefully constructed propaganda, it is still functional. The media’s job is NOT to inform people, it is to move along a storyline that was developed 100 years ago. If you want newsworthy content, you must look for a trade journal.

I have studied this system for 5 years full time, and I am the only person in the world who does it. I understand that nobody else can invest the time I have in studying over 17,000 people and events related to the war we are not allowed to see.

And that is the basic premise of all of this, to wage war discreetly, on American soil, while Americans go on with their lives. After the war is over, people will be given a new story to move along their education.

Read the new Statement of Purpose.

The Surprising Meaning Behind James Bond Supervillains: A Closer Look at the Themes and Motifs of the Iconic Film Series

Here’s a list of James Bond films in order of publication, including the year they were released and a description of the main villain in the film.

Dr. No (1962) – Dr. No, a scientist with plans to disrupt an American space launch with a radio beam weapon, played by Joseph Wiseman.

EVENT CARD

Dr. No, the first film in the James Bond series, Opens in The United Kingdom
It happened on 5 October, 1962

Dr. No, the first James Bond film, was released in the United Kingdom on October 5, 1962. It was directed by Terence Young and starred Sean Connery as James Bond. The film was based on the 1958 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming and was the first appearance of the character James Bond on the big screen. It was a critical and commercial success and established many of the conventions and themes that would become characteristic of the James Bond film series.Featuring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Peter Burton, Bernard Lee, Eunice Gayson, John Kitzmiller, Zena Marshall, Anthony Dawson, Berkely Mather, Johanna Harwood, Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, Harry Saltzman, Jack Lord, Joseph Wiseman, Albert R. Broccoli, Ian Fleming.

From Russia with Love (1963) – Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the head of the international crime organization SPECTRE, played by Anthony Dawson (voice) and Eric Pohlmann (face). (coming soon…)

This post will be updated with new content as it becomes available.