Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

The myth of the limited solution

The myth of the limited solution

by Jon Rappoport

October 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

From a certain angle, history could be called the sum of succeeding limited solutions to basic problems. The result is a pile and a mess, which appears to have no exit, except more limited solutions.

On and on it goes.

You hear people say, “WELL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the only thing we can do now is X.”

In other words, things are so far gone, so muddled, there can be no going back to the original basic problem. There can be no working on the basic problem. The basic problem is buried so deep, it can’t be retrieved and resolved.

Imagine a nation whose people, over the course of a few hundred years, have undergone a vast reduction in intelligence. At this point, a small group asserts, “If we few, who have somehow retained our IQ, want to communicate with these morons, we’ll have to deploy horrifically simplified language and ideas. We’ll have to bring them, one tiny step at a time, toward an even rudimentary consciousness about life, current affairs, and situations that need repair.”

“Only limited solutions will work.”

But this doesn’t pan out. It only serves to make things worse. The morons inevitably pervert these limited solutions and parlay them into more problems. Each glint of light turns into a cloud of darkness.

The history of public relations reveals these developments. Finding simpler and simpler ways to reach audiences, PR people discover they have to resort to more infantile strategies, because the audience is becoming more brain-addled.

No, it turns out that the way to resolve all this is to return to the beginning, where the corruption first took place.

That’s the place where individual freedom, power, imagination, and the desire for uncompromising justice were bent and twisted.

Returning to the beginning works because people never really forget. They try to, they pretend to, but they don’t.

Somewhere down deep, they recall freedom and power and they want it again. Somewhere down deep, they aren’t morons at all.

If you can strike THERE, astonishing things can happen. A tremendous amount of spoilage and degradation and passivity can ignite and burn off.

But this requires faith, and it requires the knowledge that time (opportunity) is endless. There is no deadline, despite all appearances.

This also requires realizing that offering limited solutions geared to severely limited minds accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want.

There is a further temptation. Often it is the limited solution that has backing, money, significant support, whereas striking at the heart of the problem and addressing it begins to pay dividends with only a whisper of a few people.

Imagine this: In the year 2982, all 600 million Americans are getting their food from Government Central bins. Instead of taking five of these people out to a farm in the wild and showing them food at its source, in nature, emerging from the earth in the rain and sun, you decide the way to go is:

“Let’s try to wean 500 million people away from the packets of ketchup at Central. It’s a start. If we can do that, then we might be able to show them the mayo is a bad idea. And then we can work on revelations about the fries…”

But lo and behold, this doesn’t yield positive results. People don’t seem to care about attacks on ketchup. They yawn and tear open the packets and squeeze the red stuff on their fedburgers.

“Well,” you say, “maybe we aimed too high. Let’s go slower. Let’s reboot and attack aspartame packets for the coffee. You see, people can always resort to sugar. They have an option. Let’s promote sugar, not aspartame…”

But again, nothing. No results.

Whereas, if you said, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL FOOD IS EVIL AND AN ASSAULT ON YOUR FREEDOM, a few people, at first, would wake up to the basic problem. A small spark, but one that travels deep.

Now you’re dealing with the subconscious memory of all 500 million people, where the desire for freedom still lives, where instinctive knowledge of what’s evil still resides.

The Matrix Revealed

Despite media attacks on Ron Paul, despite arguments about his credentials, his past record, his “horrendous” potential to steal votes from Republican candidates, when he said LET’S BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM AROUND THE WORLD NOW, a hundred thousand people started to wake up that day.

“What are we doing with all those soldiers of ours? Why are they overseas in hundreds of places? What the hell is this? What’s our agenda? BRING THEM HOME. The Constitution specifies military force for direct defense of the United States, that’s all. BRING THEM ALL HOME.”

Paul didn’t say, “I believe we can soon initiate a partial draw down of troops in the area surrounding Kabul, given that our effort to build A-frames and swimming pools in Afghan villages are bearing fruit…”

The method of limited solution is a mirror of what the individual tends to do with his own mind. He looks for potential answers that swim across the surface, answers that appear clever, “in light of what he’s dealing with.”

As opposed to going to the place where his freedom and power live.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Government shutdown: the takedown of America

Government shutdown: the takedown of America

by Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Another brick laid in the path to decimation.

While the Democrats and the Republicans, the White House and the Congress cross swords over the funding of government;

While the White House orders the shutdown of visible national parks and war memorials;

While the USDA threatens to turn off food-stamp benefits for 50 million Americans in November;

While this deadly game of “who will blink first” goes on;

Operation Chaos, the higher-level plan to bring America to its knees, proceeds. Its ultimate goal? Reducing the United States to the status of “desperately needs rescue.”

That is the status which elite Globalists demand for every nation on Earth, in order to introduce one currency for the planet, and one system of management for all nine billion people.

The Matrix Revealed

In such a system, all borders and sovereign countries would be eradicated, “for the greater good.”

No, this isn’t going to happen tomorrow, it’s a long-range op and a long-range plan. But it’s being implemented.

Presidents of the United States are agents of the plan, every one of them. They accept this future. They entertain various delusions about it:

One, the US will emerge as the leader of a Globalist world.

Two, US imperial conquests abroad will continue.

Three, the US will participate as “an equal partner in a kinder, gentler structure.”

Four, the US will be submerged in a glorious international collective, for “the greatest good of the greatest number.”

Five, mega-corporations and banks will make the need for national governments largely obsolete.

Six, the US will finally receive its comeuppance for centuries of oppression.

None of these views is really accurate.

The future which the elite Globalists are planning and implementing is a sluggish, morbid, depopulated Earth dominated from a point of Central Planning, and run by a bureaucracy which would make current national and regional bureaucracies look like streamlined rockets.

In this future, the individual as an idea and a reality would disappear.

Order out of Chaos is the guiding strategy for getting there.

Create crises, large and small, provoke a level of fear that results in people everywhere demanding “a restoration of security, no matter what it takes.”

Set person against person and group against group, cut off people who are on government benefits, while swelling the ranks of those who depend on governments for physical survival.

Characterize all this as “share and care” and even messianic rescue from above.

Make it appear there is no way out, no way to exit this future awaiting all of us.

Meanwhile, keep the world on wartime status, which has been the case since 9/11.

And up the road, to enforce this New World? A single linked international army, a single global intelligence agency, single energy and medical and money cartels.

The self-styled Globalist masters are doing everything they can to export the image that we are all helpless in the face of this onslaught.

This is the primary mind-control message of the 21st century.

The question is: when we, each one of us, throws off this programming, what do we see?

What do we know?

Whatever direction our varied faiths or lack of faith takes, we see freedom. We see our own power. We see the terms of the struggle. We see our own inner resources.

Are these resources small or great?

How much self-imposed ignorance does it take to believe we are helpless?

How we act, what we do has no time limit. No matter how bad things get, the war is never lost.

Freedom forever is a fact. Whether we like it or not.

It is a far greater enterprise than slavery.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

How to play into Monsanto’s hands: label GMOs

How to play into Monsanto’s hands: label GMOs

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

People are easy to manipulate. When presented with a problem and the apparent solution, they will choose the solution because it’s in front of their faces.

Worse yet, if the solution has a little momentum, if it is backed by a bit of cash, if “the good people” favor it, it will seem like the only choice.

“This is what we have. We have to support it. We can’t turn back.”

Spoken like a true believer, and a true loser.

People look for the easy way out. They look for an answer that involves the least amount of unpleasant conflict.

“See? Just vote for GMO labeling. If we win, that’s it. No muss, no fuss. Cast your ballot. Brilliant.”

Or how about this: “Look. Monsanto is pouring millions into defeating GMO labeling. That shows how scared they are. We’re on the right track.”

Wrong.

Of course Monsanto would like to defeat labeling, but at a deeper level they’re sucking the opposition into the game they, Monsanto, want. Monsanto can deal with GMO labeling. They can spend millions more convincing the consumer that GMO food is good food, if labeling comes to pass.

For Monsanto, labeling is the lesser of evils. The real dangers for them are 1) a ban on growing GMO crops, and 2) a million people on the streets and on college campuses revolting against the worst corporation in the world.

For Monsanto, labeling is a limited hangout. It’s, “Well, maybe labeling is a good thing if all you people want it. Sure, why not? We’ll support you, if you insist. But we still maintain there is nothing wrong with genetically modified food.”

Labeling is, in fact, very good for Monsanto if it keeps people distracted from the dangers I just mentioned. It’s a cover. It’s a dead-end, because while states try to pass labeling initiatives, the gene drift is sending Monsanto GMOs into plants from California to Maine. Fait accompli. The land of the nation is blanketed with GMOs.

Labeling is a misdirection. It sucks up people, time, money, and energy into the “officially certified” response to Monsanto.

It takes the weakness of the anti-GMO movement and uses it. That weakness is superficiality, the desire for the easy answer, the nice answer, the answer that requires no outrage, the consumerist answer:

“People have a right to know what’s in their food.”

When has there ever been a true revolution based on the consumer?

The thought of it is absurd.

When the labeling initiative in California, Prop 37, went down to defeat, I predicted that the next state campaign up for grabs, in Washington, would follow the same disastrous game plan:

“Tell people they have a right to know what’s in their food, and tell them nothing else.”

No, no, I was assured—Washington will be different. Voters will be shown all the horrors of GMOs. They’ll know why they need labeling.

That was just a pipe dream.

Washington is a replica of California.

The Matrix Revealed

I firmly believe the labeling movement has been infiltrated at the highest levels. The businessmen who are funding the initiatives have given in to their own weakness and shortsighted view of what moves people, and they have been steered by advisors and PR experts, who are the infiltrators:

“You need a one-idea slogan. Just one idea. Keep it simple. Keep it nice. You’re speaking to consumers. Just tell them they have a right to know what kind of food they’re buying. That’s your only chance of winning.”

The businessmen understand that kind of talk. They run companies. They devise ways of expanding their customer base.

When it comes to what works politically, they’re morons.

And they have no stomach for a real battle.

But they gain allies, because it appears (falsely) that these ballot initiatives are the only game in town.

Monsanto wants it that way.

Monsanto wants a landscape in which voting for ballot measures seems to be the only choice anti-GMO people can make.

Monsanto wants a landscape in which it appears these labeling initiatives rose up spontaneously out of the earth by popular acclaim.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

A small group of men with money made that decision in concert. They knew their money would talk. And it did.

These men are content to coexist with Monsanto. They have already surrendered.

Exit From the Matrix

On January 27, 2011, Ronnie Cummins, the head of the Organic Consumer’s Association, quoted a Whole Foods email:

“The policy set for GE [GMO] alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must.” – Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011

Cummins then wrote:

“In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation’s 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America’s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farms, has decided it’s time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for ‘coexistence’ with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.”

Who are the major funders of the labeling ballot measures? The CEOs of Stonyfield, Lundberg, Whole Foods, and Dr. Bronner’s.

Joe Mercola, too. I would like to hear him talk about his original decision to fund these ballot initiatives, what his thinking was, and how deeply he explored the concept of political action—what works and what doesn’t—back there at the beginning, when the die was cast on how Americans would oppose Monsanto.

In case anybody cares to think about it, we are not, first and foremost, consumers.

What moves people to great action is not shopping.

How are real political movements born?

Did the men who gathered to write and sign the Declaration of Independence say, “You have a right to know?”

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW?

That’s the slogan of these ballot measures.

“We’re not saying GMOs are good or bad. That’s not up to us. We’re gutless. But wouldn’t you agree you have a right to know whether you’re eating them?”

Speaking dumb because you believe people are dumb is a failed operation.

It can work during, say, a Presidential election, when the electorate is already hypnotized into believing they must choose between two criminal poseurs.

But in launching and sustaining a long-term political and social goal, it’s a loser from the get-go.

It doesn’t galvanize people. It doesn’t inspire people.

It might stir the folks who shop at Whole Foods, but I can tell you America isn’t going to change its mind about Monsanto based on “moms” who walk into those stores with yoga mats rolled up under their arms, trying to stave off emotional and spiritual collapse because their bodies are starting to blimp out.

“Yes, Mr. Franklin. I’ll sign the Declaration. My waistline is developing a ripple.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

The elite television anchor: mouthpiece for the Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from Douglas Edwards and John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the style. They define the genre.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, the audience can remain content in its own related role: watching the actor.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

Night after night, the anchor, working from a long tradition, confirms that he is delivering the news as it should be delivered, in both style and substance. The audience bows before the tradition and before him.

The television anchors are, indeed, a different breed.

From their perch, they can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right.” “You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold millions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must believe the narrow parameters and boundaries and context of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a story and reveal it as a cardboard facade. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

Then he can move on to the task of being the narrative voice of his time, for all people. The voice that replaces what is going on in the heads of his audience—all those doubts and confusions and objections in the heads of the great unwashed…the anchor will replace those and substitute his own plot line.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, that fact alone means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

Therefore, as night follows the day, the anchor is a mouthpiece for government and corporations.

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?” And the public buys it.

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news. When Diane Sawyer goes too far and begins dribbling (alcohol? tranqs?) on her collar, a danger light blinks on and a mark is entered against her in the book.

The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality gives assurance that everything is under control. And neutrality implies: the nation is so powerful we don’t need to trumpet our facts; we don’t need to become excited; our strength is that secure.

Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the soaps and the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.

In ancient Athens, if there were voices narrating the story line of the Polis, they belonged to the playwrights. They translated their myths into tragedy and comedy.

Now, the voice belongs to the elite anchor. He is the polished predator drone that descends on the nation every night to make his case for What Is Important.

The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to be suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

But it turns out that his answer is wrong. The people, at a profound level, want to be awakened. This is what they’re waiting for. This is what they’re hoping for, despite all appearances to the contrary.

They want to throw off the whole cloud of boredom and anxiety that surrounds them. They want to offload the whole stinking mess of lies.

If by some miracle, this revolution occurred on the evening news, the people wouldn’t collapse, the nation wouldn’t collapse. The news divisions of the networks would collapse.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to believing the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears. He would have to become a different kind of actor, one he has no training for.

“Well, folks, our top story tonight…it turns out that IG Farben, a famous chemical and pharmaceutical octopus that put Hitler over the top in Germany, was instrumental in planning what became the EU, the European Union. In other words, today’s United Europe is World War Two by other means.”

I don’t think Williams, Pelley, or Sawyer could deliver that line without going into a terminal paroxysm.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made at the top. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

For example, the famous event wherein King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba, would now officially be conceived as illustrative of The Arrival, a Church “headline” category, covering many disparate bits of the past.

Reinterpreted, Sheba and Solomon were nothing more and nothing less than the Church’s precise copyrighted and fully owned story of the entrance of Jesus into this world. One arrival became another arrival.

If this seems absurd, unbelievable, grossly puerile, and illogical to us today, it was very serious business for the Roman Church. Recasting history was an essential function of its news division.

You can go to a small church in the Tuscan town of Arezzo and see one of the greatest paintings realized in all of Western history, Piero della Francesca’s Legend of the True Cross. A panel of this fresco depicts King Solomon receiving the Queen of Sheba.

Why? Why is it there? Why was it part of the Legend of the True Cross? Because, suddenly, it was The Arrival. It had new official, historical, and technical meaning, as decreed by the Roman Church.

The Church’s news division had made it so, led by its universally trusted eunuchs, the priests, the bishops, the cardinals, the Popes, the elite anchors, weaving their Matrix.

Today, you could ask, how can people believe the popular stories of wars, when we know powerful financiers and corporations support both sides, for their own devious objectives?

People believe because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why can’t churches consign Monsanto to Hell from the pulpit?

Why can’t churches consign Monsanto to Hell from the pulpit?

By Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“When Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, farm advocates met with him to explain how biotechnology had ruined and changed the face of Argentine agriculture…” (David Andrews, National Catholic Reporter, October 8, 2013)

Priests and ministers spoke out against the war in Vietnam. They went after the drug-dealing Contras in Nicaragua. They are “of the people,” aren’t they?

At least that’s what they claim.

I’m talking about Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Unitarian, Shinto, Hindu priests and ministers. Men of the cloth, of all faiths, including the firebrands who bankroll sin into cash.

Sentence Monsanto to Hell.

Forget Limbo, Purgatory, and all the stops along the way.

And what about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? They don’t think the destruction of countless small farms and communities in Africa is a “good issue” for them?

Seems to me I remember reading the story of Joseph in the Old Testament. As a boy, he had dreams of sheaves of wheat dancing. Food. Clean food. Grown without poisons and injected genes.

What bubble are these churches living in?

Let me see if I understand their position: God made Nature and Nature is sacred. So if Monsanto comes along and shoots genes into food crops and the genes drift and merge with anything that grows, and the insidious effects on health spread, and it turns out that more toxic Roundup, not less, is required, and superweeds resistant to Roundup are taking over huge swathes of farm land…the churches will rise up and declare Monsanto evil…right?

No?

They don’t want to cause trouble? They don’t want to alienate their constituencies? They’re politicians?

Oh.

In that case, what right do they have to act as intermediaries or guides for their people of faith?

Under pressure from the US government and its allies, the last Pope came out in favor of GMO food. This one, Francis, has yet to make a clear declaration. With over a billion members of his church in tow, Francis could change the balance of world opinion.

One domino falls, many follow.

And while I’m at it, what about colleges? Forty years ago, American students rallied and protested and struck in great numbers, on the issue of apartheid. They pointed fingers at their own administrations and demanded dropping investments in any company doing business with South Africa.

Well, how about protesting and striking at colleges, across America, where Monsanto money fuels research? It’s a natural. Then on top of that, students can also demand their colleges sell off stock in the company.

Pressure. Exposure.

The Matrix Revealed

For example, in 2012 Salon.com reported that South Dakota State’s president, David Chicoine, landed a plum spot on Monsanto’s board of directors, “where he earns six figures.”

Here’s another one (Mother Jones, May 9, 2012): The University of Illinois accepted a $250,000 grant from Monsanto “to create an endowed chair for the Agriculture Communications Program…”

Then there’s this report from a PhD candidate: “When I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic agriculture in farmer’s markets, the first one told me that ‘no one cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the train tracks,’ said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who did not wish to be identified. ‘My academic adviser told me my best bet was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland Security to fund my research on why farmer’s markets were stocked with “black market vegetables” that “are a bioterrorism threat waiting to happen.” It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my education out of pocket.” (May 2012, Salon.com, “Monsanto’s college strangehold”)

There’s a lot more. A lot.

Instead of drinking the corporate Kool-Aid (Agent Orange, Dow), it’s time these college students woke up to what a real rebellion feels like.

Instead of proudly wearing T-shirts from Target and American Eagle Outfitters, they can gather on the campus and take over research buildings and make Monsanto feel some pain.

Churches and colleges.

Trance or action?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Who will narrate space and time in the future?

Who will narrate space and time in the future?

by Jon Rappoport

October 14, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Since I wrote this piece seven months ago, there have been so many public scandals and eruptions I might miss one or two, if I tried to name them all.

But through the twisted belching landscape, there has been one constant for millions of people: the elite television anchor.

He is the guide who tones down meaning and supplies assurance. He stems the tide. He stays in the dream.

He sells the soft way. He hints at fractures in the mass consensus, but then he sutures them together.

He is the voice and the rhythm and the pace of time. He exposes conflict, but he packs it with plastic bubbles to exclude the clamor.

He is on top of the moment and thereby cuts off the future.

He edits space down to a manageable size. He has his own version of sacred geometry.

He heralds spectatorship as the only answer.

He never lays an egg on-air. Instead, with a fine sense of where the power is, he keeps alive the corporate-government-banking-military goose that lays the golden eggs.

Humans love to study animals and catalog their unique habits. If we could back up far enough to see ourselves, surely we would rank our modern method of gaining something we call “the news,” through network television, one of our strangest customs.

A face and a voice on one of three preferred channels tells us what the world is like every day.

Millions of us consider such transmissions not only informative but authoritative. Somehow, the capsulized squibs and fragments form for us a picture of truth.

The first principle applied to the training of an elite anchor is: pay no attention to what opposing sides agree on.

It may seem like a strange place to start, but it’s absolutely crucial.

As a hopeful anchor rises up through the ranks toward cherished positions on the national evening news at NBC, CBS, and ABC, he is exposed to Washington politics. He learns those ropes well.

He perceives conflict and battle and anger and hatred. He is looking at issues on which the two major parties differ in the strongest possible terms. This is what he is supposed to see. This is his indoctrination.

He gets a feel for this. After all, it is what he is already predisposed to observe, because he knows that all news involves side A versus side B. Without that, there is no news.

“…a scheduled meeting between House leaders was canceled after a rancorous confrontation between…”

But here are a few items that are largely ignored: paid lobbyists and secret councils shaping legislative decisions; fraudulent medical research; the federal government aligning itself with Globalist policies; federal support of illegal corporate activities; enormous and illegal Federal Reserve power.

To the degree that both major parties agree in these areas, there is no news. It doesn’t exist.

The aspiring anchor learns to ignore such “dead subjects.”

Therefore, he’s conditioned to define what is news in very narrow terms with narrow boundaries. He consistently misses the big picture.

A reporter for one of the major networks once told me, “It’s useless to pitch stories [to producers] where there isn’t any clear conflict among the recognized players.”

Of course, a conspiracy consists of people who wholeheartedly agree on something behind the scenes. Conspiracy is often what the noisy out-front conflict is supposed to hide.

When a major news reporter makes light of conspiracies, part of what he’s saying is: “It wouldn’t be news because people aren’t fighting with each other about it.”

As a reporter moves closer to winning an elite anchor’s slot, something else happens. He’s introduced to what used to be called “the Eastern establishment.” At parties, at charity fundraisers, at meetings of the CFR, he meets players:

bankers, Congressmen, lobbyists, key lawyers, leaders of non-profit foundations, favored academics and technocrats, PR agency people, Beltway “facilitators,” corporate big shots, a few intelligence-agency friendlies, Pentagon execs.

He understands very well that his new friends are feeling him out and vetting him. They expect him to be earnest, glib, and facile. They watch for signs that a cloud of doubt is hanging over his head—meaning that he is skeptical of entrenched Power. That would be an overwhelming mark against him.

Essentially, a subliminal unspoken pact is forged. The heavy hitters assert: “We are the core of the country. What we do in secret is not to be discussed or aired.”

The anchor replies: “I understand that. Don’t worry. I won’t cover it unless you can’t conceal it. It’s not news. I’m looking for conflict.”

The reporter who is on his way up to an elite anchor’s job can affect a strong moral sense, because that is part of his persona, because being able to invoke it sells advertisers’ products on the evening news; he can and does apply his morals selectively.

Through tone of voice and facial expression, he can make his disapproval known to the viewing audience, when he “objectively” covers a drug recall—the drug in question having caused deaths among patients.

“The best-selling drug Vioxx was taken off the market today when it was revealed that…its manufacturer nevertheless suggested that many people were helped by…”

But the anchor would never recommend collecting many such stories and welding them into a wide-ranging indictment of the FDA or the drug companies. That’s not on his radar. That’s not permitted. That’s called inventing a conflict that doesn’t exist.

A crime dug up solely by reporters is almost always non-starter. At best, it might run as a brief “feature” on the evening broadcast, and then the coverage would contain sufficient generalities to obscure the perpetrators. And once this feature is aired, it is forgotten. It was filler.

Take a story like Wall Street bankers committing huge and ongoing RICO financial felonies. A certain amount of coverage is allowed, but it’s verboten to highlight the fact, over and over again, that these people aren’t being arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison terms.

A Bernie Madoff gets the full treatment, but only after the Justice Department arrests him. And then Madoff is portrayed as the crazy Ponzi-scheme hustler, the exception, the lone wolf.

The vetting of an elite anchor is very thorough, because normally he is going to be the managing editor for his own national evening broadcast. That means he will have the final word on which stories run and where they run in the line-up.

His bosses want no blowups. They want no visible wrangling between the anchor and his editors and producers. They definitely don’t want the anchor going off the reservation to bring in a dangerous (to favored players) story out of left field. A few of these gross transgressions and he’ll be fired. But the whole point is to avoid the mess by choosing the “right” anchor to begin with.

Several years before golden boy Brian Williams was tapped to sit in the prince’s throne at NBC, it was obvious he was the heir apparent. He could affect an aura of honesty, a sincere dedication to the truth. He passed the “character test” with flying colors.

On the scale of “believable moral sense,” Williams was within shooting distance of a young Walter Cronkite. Of course, if you started to qualify where and how his moral commitment would be exercised, and where it would be excused from duty, you would find yourself traveling down into a very deep and disturbing rabbit hole.

If you’re looking for Williams to cover the nexus of the CIA, the Pentagon, mega-corporations, NATO, and other players in their ongoing program of destabilizing foreign nations, you’ll be wasting your time. Unless some giant blow-up over this issue surfaces in the Congress, Williams will be silent. And in this regard, you’ll see an effort to minimize and distort coverage of Rand Paul, because he, like his father, states that he wants to bring US troops home from their massive foreign deployments.

If, by chance, a long-form interviewer at C-Span or PBS, addled for the moment by a prescription drug, throws out a question to Williams about US government empire-building, Williams will talk out of several sides of his mouth simultaneously, leaving the impression that this is “a profound issue he really cares about.”

The elite news anchor a) believes the news only involves visible conflict, b) misses the big picture through ignorance, c) understands there is a big picture and intentionally ignores it, d) is truly honest, e) is a liar down to his shoes, f) opposes undo corporate influence on government and politics, g) is completely sold out to the corporate-government partnership, h) has no clue about the true intentions of US foreign policy, while purposely omitting coverage of those intentions and their consequences.

The elite news anchor is an actor who can know and not know, at a moment’s notice, that he is acting.

He can deal with these massive internal contradictions because he is a roaring success; he is admired; he banks a big check every month; he exerts influence; he has a certain amount of power; he thinks about ratings and what he has to do to improve them; he lives in a bubble where all the important people lie all the time. He is familiar with the culture and is part of it.

If everybody else in his world is a multiple personality, he can be, too, and it isn’t disturbing. It’s how the stage play works.

Over time, though, the elite anchor performs a kind of psychic surgery on himself, cuts away the rough edges and the doubts and the consciousness of the con and the scam. It’s more comfortable that way.

In other words, he lowers his own IQ and blurs the boundaries of his perception. The lies he never really believed before he does believe now.

His own multiplicity and contradictions are mixed into a sludge, whereby the apt summary and the capsule explanation, beamed out to millions of people every night, are “the best that can be done under the circumstances.”

The elite anchor comes to know, intimately, the mad rush and the deadline and the fever to beat the competition. If he needs a final distraction to lead him away from what he once comprehended about reality at a deeper level, this is it. “We have to get this story on in five minutes…”

The elite anchor is everything the CIA would program into existence, if they needed to. But they don’t. Because all over America, children are growing up who want to do the news. And out of all of them, the few who will rise to the top are already internalizing the personal and professional requirements of the job, day in and day out. They haven’t even visited Washington DC yet, and they’re sopping up psychic clues like sponges.

This is a piece of how the Matrix operates. In a highly organized society, roles are available. People will cast themselves in those roles and learn how to play them. They’ll reach out for the brass ring. Some will do a better imitation than others. Some will do the imitation and believe in it. And the winners will believe it and not believe it.

The Matrix Revealed

The elite anchor knows that if he wanders too far afield, if he becomes too real, if he brings in stories that don’t fit the mold, if he goes up against the forces with whom he is allied, he will suffer.

There is no need to point this out to him. There is no need, because the anchor has already geared his persona and intelligence to the machine he represents.

Once in a great while, he probably plays out a little scene in his head: he brings in an incredible story that mangles the highest people he knows in the pyramid of power; he achieves great recognition for his courage; and then one night he dies on a lonely road.

But this cautionary tale is sheer fantasy, because he is the incarnation of what social planners and engineers and psyops specialists and spooks and mind-control researchers and PR experts would have cooked up to fill his chair in the studio of NBC, ABC, or CBS. He’s that guy.

And he did it himself, which always works better because the result is more convincing.

A retired propaganda operative once told me that the index of an anchor’s performance is his sources. For those shadowy types who keep track of how well an anchor is working his mass deceptions, an examination of sources is revealing.

More specifically, who is feeding stories to the reporters who work for the anchor? A list compiled over the years will tell you whether the anchor is staying within the prescribed boundaries. When you see hundreds or even thousands of names from government, from foundations, from corporations, from think-tanks, from favored academia, and almost no names from anywhere else, you know the anchor is in the right wheelhouse.

The anchor is the magnet created to attract specific kinds of metal filings.

He can say, “We take our information from the most reliable people out there. What else can you ask for?”

Not much, if you want the news to emanate from a sealed universe, with one highly structured hole for IN and one for OUT.

Because of that architecture, the major news businesses of the country are failing. Their bottom lines are shrinking. They’re going up against this other universe we all know about and access, which has at least 500 million holes for in and out.

Exit From the Matrix

But don’t discount the hypnotic effect an anchor like Brian Williams has on the public. There is a marriage there, no question about it.

Williams, like others before him, fits the stripped down concept of the operator, one who can push and pull all the right gears, to convey Factoid and Summary.

Sit down at the meal, Brian’s here. He’s a smooth server. He brings only what is necessary, and because of that, we can trust him.

America wants (and therefore gets) a newsman to tell its national stories every night in terms a salesman who has risen through the ranks would use: he doesn’t persuade or cajole or push; he’s above that; he’s shed the big smile and the glad hand.

He’s a pro’s pro. He need only tilt his head in a direction and people follow. He need only indicate with a glance and the message is picked up by the millions. He informs us, by his very manner, that we are all now operating in a vacuum jar. All our battles and oppositions are being played out in a strange silence at the core of the surrounding noise.

We’re all dead, except we’ve forgotten the fact. In this limbo, he will guide us. There is no boat to take souls across the river. There is no inner life of the individual; that is over. There are only the slight changing shades of feeling that signify one thing is more important than another.

Postmortem America presents its own peculiar problems, and Williams understands them well. He schooled himself to be the guide in this moonscape, where his ministrations are like changing ticks in the stock market of drained souls.

Up a little today, down a little tomorrow. A crisis here, a crisis there. This is better, that is worse. Today the machine outperformed the machine yesterday by seven degrees of calculation.

He speaks in atomic strings of thought, adjusted and groomed.

Yes, this is a marriage. The public wants this. It wants the conversion rate of consciousness at 6:30 every night, presented in terms a computer can fathom and store until the next modulation.

He, the anchor, will decide how horrible an event can become. He will draw the line. He will make the distinctions. Nothing is measured or given meaning outside the vacuum.

Underneath and between his words, the alive Desire that once animated souls washes up on the beach of television like a dead fish, every night.

Spiritually and cosmologically speaking, it is his job to move steadily ahead, broadcast by broadcast, and present debris, fragments of existence after the Fall. It is his job to walk the parched deserts and translate into beveled English the aftershocks of detonations set off by the crime bosses called leaders.

What he conveys, and what the medium through which he reaches us proposes, is a declaration of surrender. The loss of a war. We’re supposed to believe that the war fought on behalf of the inner fecund life of the individual is lost.

This is the imperative peddled by our official salesmen.

They don’t realize that such a war can never be lost. Any person can pick up the scent and the sound of the river within his own psyche and awaken his need for open water.

Any one of us can stop calculating gains and losses by a serial morbid clock. Any one of us can stop hammering new pieces into a mechanical fortress, which is only an impregnable symbol of despair.

We can awaken from the dream of motion, time, and energy inside the vacuum. Then we will see there are trillions of other dreams, none of them yet created, but wholly dependent on our capacity to invent Something from Nothing.

This is the spark. After the fire begins to burn in the true soul, not the fabricated one, The News will fade away like an old skin, no longer needed.

The hunger for a voice to tell us what death after death is like will vanish, and so will the news, as we know it.

People will say, “Yes, there was once a rare specimen who narrated reality to the rest of us. It was a hypnotic dream we were all engaged in. But that specimen is now extinct. It outlived its usefulness.”

Is such a heraldic future possible? The answer each one of us makes draws a line in the sand. On one side are those who consent to the declaration of surrender. On the other side are those who intimately understand the terms of the struggle and never give in.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Coexist with Monsanto or destroy it? Follow the organic money.

Coexist with Monsanto or destroy it? Follow the organic money.

By Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Let’s stop screwing around and go to the heart of the matter. Whether the public campaign against Monsanto takes the form of GMO-labeling or putting millions of people in the street protesting against an evil corporation…

Depends on who has the money and what they’re willing to use it for.

I’m talking about the billion-dollar natural health industry.

If companies like Whole Foods, Stonyfield, Dr. Bronner’s, Lundberg, and the big-time nutritional-supplement outfits want to bankroll a popular and very visible uprising against Monsanto, they have the dollars to do it. And they have the PR people to ignite it.

If they decide they don’t really want to co-exist with Monsanto and GMOs, they could start funding something a lot hotter and more effective than GMO-labeling ballot measures.

But that’s not in their playbook. They don’t have the stomach and courage for it. They don’t want to get their hands dirty.

So they go for GMO labeling, the ballot measures, coexistence with Monsanto, the lite version of a campaign.

It’s a lot easier. It doesn’t risk everything that goes with taking on Monsanto directly.

“Hey, we’re all really nice people. Don’t get nasty. Monsanto is terribly misguided, so let the consumer know what he’s buying and let him make up his mind…”

Suppose, in the 1960s, we had this: “The Vietnam War isn’t really evil, we don’t want to promote a few million outraged Americans going out on the streets, so let’s just have a ballot measure…I buy Vietnam or I don’t buy Vietnam…and then people can decide whether to support the war…”

Last May, two million people in 436 cities across the world protested against Monsanto. So far this weekend, it’s 250,000 people in 50 countries. That’s a drop in the bucket.

Those demonstrations could expand by millions, with some major PR dollars behind them. Organic dollars.

The Matrix Revealed

Here’s a quick piece of personal history that gives you a parallel to what’s happening now with Monsanto.

Back in 1994, I took an active part in what was called the Health Freedom movement. The campaign was bankrolled by a few nutritional-supplement companies.

The objective, from their point of view, was passing a federal law that would protect them from the bad guy. The bad guy was the FDA. The FDA was going after supplements, threatening to close off consumers’ access to the full range of products.

My position was: okay, pass a law, but that isn’t going to stop the FDA. We have to attack it with the truth, from every possible angle, as a rogue federal agency committing major crimes. We have to put the Agency on the defensive, back on its heels. We have to make it scramble. We have to make this a very public war.

The nutritional companies and their toadies said no. They were the equivalent of the GMO-labeling funders of today. They wanted a nice neat solution, after which they would withdraw their dollars and go home.

And so a bill was passed into law (DSHEA), and the FDA has continued, in various ways, to go after nutritional-supplement companies, saddling them with red tape…accusing them of marketing unreliable products…harassing them.

Meanwhile, the FDA approves medical drugs for public consumption, drugs that, by conservative estimates, kill 106,000 people in the US every year. The supplements kill no one.

Exit From the Matrix

Sure, pass GMO-labeling measures, but that’s not the real answer. The thing is, the people who are funding these measures are basically putting all their money into the ballot campaigns—all the money they intend to contribute.

For them, it IS an either-or situation. Pass ballot measures, or launch an all-out attack on Monsanto. They’ve made their choice.

They SAY they believe they can sell GMO labeling to the public. They SAY that’s all they can sell, because the public is too ignorant to go for anything else.

That’s a very convenient position. It automatically excludes a real rebellion against the evil corporation, Monsanto.

“Well, you see, educating people to understand why GMOs are dangerous to health and how Monsanto is destroying the sanctity of the food supply…that’s too much. We can’t achieve that.”

I don’t buy it.

Everything looks bleak until you take action. In other words, we’re looking at a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The CEOs of these natural-health companies would turn pale at the prospect of going after Monsanto directly. It’s fear.

They opt for the ballot measures. They assure us that this is the only option. They stage their own version of reality and defend it with “rational” assertions.

It’s a con.

Take on Monsanto…directly? Take out ads exposing Monsanto? Promote a million people in Washington DC Mall on a Saturday afternoon? Reveal the names of the Congressmen who are defending Monsanto? File new lawsuits against Monsanto? Put small farmers on television who are being harassed and driven out of business by Monsanto? Show the American people the faces of the men and women who spend their lives growing food for us, and listen to what they have to say? Bring the outrage to a boil? Expose (gasp) Obama as the number-one supporter of Monsanto in the nation? Name the people he’s appointed to protect Monsanto? TELL THE TRUTH?

Oh my God! Run for the hills!

No no no no!

Let’s have a ballot measure. For labeling. Let’s calm down. Let’s be nice. Let’s coexist. Let’s play together in the sandbox, even if the sandbox is polluted with GMOs. Easy does it. Relax.

Take a deep breath. The cosmic glob Goo-Goo is with us, and all will be well. He instructs us thus:

“Less energy. Less action. Less outrage. Less imagination. Less truth.”

Thank you, Goo-Goo. Thank you.

Your serene bullshit will sustain us in the days to come.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Staging the news and staging reality are the same thing

Staging the news and staging reality are the same thing

by Jon Rappoport

October 12, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Hi! We’re the news…manufacturing witnesses, creating dupes, and using true believers. Just like an intelligence agency. Come join us!”

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

The managing editor, usually the elite anchor, chooses the stories to cover and their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. We want to government to avoid a shutdown. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a thousand are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot. Do the Chinese doctors know what they’re doing? Crowded cities. Maybe more cases all of a sudden. Ten thousand, a hundred thousand.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut, school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? People in small towns. I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against Autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. Germs. The brain.”

The Matrix Revealed

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned almost nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When the researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about Autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context small and narrow—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this, yes, staging, is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Billions of dollars are spent by the networks to build a reality the size of a room in a cheap motel.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

How about this: two-day-old footage of runners approaching the finish line of the Boston Marathon. A puff of smoke rises at the right of the screen. A runner falls down in the street. The anchor is saying: “The FBI has announced a bomb made in a pressure cooker caused the injuries and deaths.”

Must be so. We saw the pictures and heard the voice explain.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It works.

Why?

Because it mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what the world is, at any given moment.

Exit From the Matrix

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a followup, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to the last year of news, the population is ready to see the president or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Don’t know what it is, but it must be okay.”

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them. They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

“Here are the photos. Just look at these photos. Don’t look at any other photos. These are the killers. Here’s what it means: we’re going to send in SWAT teams and rout you out of your homes at gunpoint, we’ll search your homes, no warrants, and you’re going to comply, and when it’s over and we’ve caught them, you’ll cheer.”

“Sure. Okay. We will.”

Pictures, explanation, obedience.

The staging of reality, the staging of news; they’re the same thing.

At some point in time, the television audience begins to experience an itch. “If reality is the news, then maybe I could become a visible piece of reality. Maybe I could get on the news. What would I have to do? How can I stand out? What outlandish thing could I cook up?”

Anyone’s face could appear on the screen and flicker there and be driven into the minds of millions of people as something hypnotic.

If not fortune, then at least fame.

Whereas an honest television news anchor, if one existed, would say:

“The battle over the government shutdown and its funding continue as a piece of planned chaos. Events like this are shaped well in advance by men who manipulate the One Political Party With Two Heads, and you, the viewer, are reacting predictably. You’re choosing sides. You’re angry. And I’m sitting here on most nights adding fuel to the fire. The fix is in, and I’m going along with it. Here in the studio, I’m staging the news about staged reality.”

The news is a movie of a movie.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake reality of products takes over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial.”

Which devolves into: reality is an advertisement for itself.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Who really runs things in America?

Who really runs things in America?

By Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelette, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, can help engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidencies, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a new international currency, ushering in a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003)

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

The Matrix Revealed

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

Source: Patrick Wood, “Trilateral Commission Endgame,” http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick133.htm

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, 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

Obamacare sign-up crash: what’s really behind it?

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

It’s easy to say the government always screws things up and, therefore, the crash of its Obamacare sign-up system is merely another example of gross incompetence.

But this is shortsighted. White House officials knew, months ago, the online site was an unmitigated disaster, and yet they let the train continue speeding down the track to its inevitable crackup.

To understand this, we need to go back to the opening salvo in the Obamacare drama.

To his advisors’ shock and surprise, Obama, taking office in 2009, announced that his first big move was going to be national health insurance.

His people assumed jobs would be the top priority. The nation was clamoring for a solution. People were out of work. Banks were foreclosing on homes. Families were in peril.

How could the President misread the national mood so badly? National health insurance? Now? Where the hell did that come from?

The 1993 track record of earlier efforts, headed by Hillary Clinton and her buffoon of a consultant, Ira Magaziner, had run aground, failed miserably, and stirred up considerable animosity.

Obama was going to lead with this again? Bring on a storm of contentious clashes in the Congress, the press, and the nation at large?

What was he thinking?

He wasn’t. A super-ambitious campaign on this issue had to come from somewhere else. Obama’s high-flying humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the man was acting as an agent of change. An agent.

He was taking dictation.

And sure enough, he sank the country in a hostile grinding debate that persists to this day. Meanwhile, the economy and jobs went begging.

When the Obamacare bill finally passed, without anyone reading it, and when subsequent arm-twisting led the Supreme Court to call the individual mandate a tax (a transparently preposterous strategy), thus clearing the way for implementation, amid loud cries of fraud, there remained another opportunity for promoting disaster:

A system for enrollment that wouldn’t work, that would crash, that would look like a bevy of drunken idiots ($634 million richer) had put it together with scotch tape and a random number generator.

At a much high level of op, Obamacare was always invented chaos.

It was intended to be.

The target was America itself. As in destabilization.

This is a strategy as old as the hills.

In this case, the people in charge, behind the scenes, are Globalists (think Rockefeller, for starters). For over a hundred years, their objective has been the takedown of the United States, one of the strongest holdouts against a planetary management system, in which, ultimately, national borders are erased and individual countries cease to exist.

In 1971, David Rockefeller’s intellectual consigliere, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “…[the] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Achieving such a goal, however, is not simply a matter of standing back and watching evolution take it course. It involves torpedoing major institutions, regardless of how well or poorly they are serving the public interest.

In other words: promote chaos at every possible opportunity.

The extreme oddness of choosing national health insurance as the first planned shot out of the White House, in 2009, was, at the most important level, an exercise in stirring the national pot with a multi-blade fan engine.

Chaos has several aims; among them: raising the level of frustration; dividing the populace; engendering heating conflicts; demoralizing citizens; producing a sense of helplessness; and rendering large numbers of people into a state of surrender and passivity.

It is a prelude to a New Order. A more heartless and repressive Order.

Obamacare is just one example among hundreds.

Operation Chaos has been targeting the United States for well over a hundred years.

Of the dozen or so possible first steps of a Presidency, Obama chose the one that would produce the most discord.

Because US presidents rarely mention Globalism and its tentacles and plans and organizations, it is assumed the issue isn’t of high importance.

But since the closing days of World War 2, (and, actually, much earlier), when members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tapped to write the blueprint for the United Nations, when the outline of the Marshall Plan was drafted, when the first serious meetings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were set in stone, every American President has looked the other way, when Globalism has reared its head.

That’s FDR all the way through to Obama.

And during that 70-year period, ops small, medium, and large have been launched to weaken the United States and entangle it in the Globalist framework.

For the two terms of Obama’s Presidency, national health insurance was chosen as a bare electric wire, to shock, stimulate, and magnify dormant hostilities throughout the country.

To the Globalists, the respective merits and flaws in a national healthcare system are of absolutely no concern. It is simply one more opportunity to “crash the system” and produce a hole in the fabric of national life.

For these men, the issue of Obamacare “has legs.” They will squeeze more out of it, for their own purposes, in the months and years ahead.

Mired in the quite serious and real pros and cons of a national health plan, people will miss the bigger picture and pass by it without a glance of recognition.

The manipulators don’t pick trivial issues. Distraction requires presenting people with forceful conflicts.

It requires the belief that events are what they seem and the motives behind them are clear and on the surface.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.