Category Archives: Clintons

High Alert: the election can still be rigged

High Alert: the election can still be rigged

Votes counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2016

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

I’m reposting this piece because, amazingly, the vote-rigging system it describes has not gotten widespread attention. The system can be used across the entire US.

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

power outside the matrix

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Update: From what I understand, each state government appoints a “consultant” to manage GEMS on election night. That person would be capable of rigging the vote.

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.

Hillary Clinton and Official Science: meet Ms. Matrix

Hillary Clinton and Official Science: meet Ms. Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2016

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

Note: This piece is not about Hillary’s performance at the debate last night, which was, to put it mildly, an empty suit on parade. An endless string of clichés and vague generalities. This is about a cardinal covert threat she poses as a potential leader.

“Government science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population. We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’ I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences and buildings out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Hillary Clinton made a failed attempt, in 1993, to put together a national health insurance plan. It would have codified the diagnosis and treatment of virtually all medical conditions. It would have created a monopoly on medical “truth.”

Clinton, like all champions of centralized power, recognizes that government control of science is essential. This control involves partnerships with mega-corporations like Monsanto. Clinton’s former Rose law firm has indeed represented Monsanto.

To say Clinton is in bed with Big Pharma would be a vast understatement. Wherever official science translates into control and profits, she is there.

You have concerns about the safety of vaccines? Clinton wouldn’t budge an inch to consider your concerns. She looks at you as part of the “bucket of losers” she refers to in describing Bernie Sander’s supporters—whether or not you’re actually in that camp.

In a sense, she is a useful idiot for elites who shape science of all kinds as a weapon against the populace.

As you read the following backgrounder, keep in mind that wherever official science lives, Hillary is a champion—unthinking, remorseless, dismissive of populist concerns, and clueless about actual truth—

Introduction:

Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the 300 so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the agents of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist or not proven to cause human illness (Zika, Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves as a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by official science.

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV [antibodies] and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, naturally produced in the body, this is taken as a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

The most useful politicians—as far as official science is concerned—are those who automatically promote its findings. Such politicians are lifted into prominence. They are champions of the Science Matrix. They never ask questions. They never doubt. They never make waves. They blithely travel their merry way into new positions of power, knowing they have enormous elite support behind them. When they need to lie, they lie. They are taught that those who question or reject official science are a tiny ‘demographic’ who can be ignored during election campaigns. ‘Don’t worry about them. They don’t count.’ These politicians are never in the trenches with the people on issues of health. Petitioning or pleading is futile.

—end of backgrounder—

The Matrix Revealed

Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of the political juggernaut in action, vis-à-vis official science. If she had the intelligence to examine this science below the surface, why would she spend a second doing so? What advantage would it give her? Doubt is not on her radar.

She is Ms. Matrix. Like other politicians of her ilk, she is eager to represent, and front for, official science, because she thirsts for power, and little else matters. She is all forward motion in her quest for a crown.

Her advisors tell her, and major media tell her, and pollsters tell her, and colleagues tell her, and friends tell her that there are only a handful of issues she must address, in order to win the prize.

Why would she possibly think she needs to stop and look into how “science” is being shaped and invented to control populations? After all, that is her goal, too. Control.

In the Matrix, the plan is universal collectivism, in which all citizens are atoms of a giant molecule. Many lies need to be told in order to make that dream/nightmare come true. If some of those lies are about science, so much the better. People believe in science.

A politician like Hillary Clinton considers lies from only one angle: “Is the lie working, and can it help me?”

That is how any agent operates.

I’ll leave you with this quote from an introduction I wrote to my collection, The Matrix Revealed:

“Think about the agendas behind universal vaccination, climate change, universal psychiatric treatment, GMO food, and other ‘science-based’ frauds. They all imply a false collectivist model, in which individuals give up their power in exchange for ‘doing good’ and becoming members of the largest group in the world: ‘disabled’ people with needs that must be addressed and satisfied. Instead of supporting the liberation of the individual, the controllers want to squash it. Why? Because they fear individual power. It is forever the unpredictable wild card. They want a society in which every thought an individual thinks connects him to a greater whole—and if that sounds attractive, understand that this Whole is a fiction, intentionally faked to resemble a genuine oceanic feeling. The elite Whole is ultimately a trance-like fiction that will slow down time to a crawl, and shrink space to a sliver, and focus attention on a single mandate: wait for the next instruction from above, content in the knowledge that it will benefit all of humanity.”

This program has many agents.

Some of them are famous politicians.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Sexual behavior of Trump, Bill, Hillary takes over Presidential campaign

Sexual behavior of Trump, Bill, Hillary takes over campaign

As of 1:42AM ET, October 8

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2016

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

Trump’s private comments on a 2005 tape have been leaked. You can read the quotes elsewhere. He’s talking about being a star and how easy it is for a star to get women. Quite explicit. These comments obviously reflect his actions at the time, or earlier. Now we also have a recycled Gennifer Flowers comment about her ex, Bill Clinton. Flowers said Bill told her Hillary had more women than he did. And of course there are Bill’s notorious sexual exploits and Hillary’s protection/enabling of him, extending apparently to powerful threats (and worse?) against Bill’s women.

So for the moment, at least, this is the substance of the campaign for the Presidency of the United States.

Bring them all on stage with Jerry Springer as the moderator.

Or admit they’re all a long way from being perfect people and decide who is worse. If you want to go that way, don’t forget to factor in the recent destruction of Libya and ever-strange Clinton body count.

Of note: The newly discovered 2005 Trump tape that now has him in hot water was a conversation with radio and TV host, Billy Bush, who is a member of the Bush family. The Bushes all appear to be voting for Hillary. Did Billy just take one for the team? Tune in tomorrow—the gossip will surely build.

And keep in mind, it doesn’t matter where the country is going, it doesn’t matter who will sit in the White House and make overarching decisions—it only matters who screwed whom and when.

If you want to go down that road, fine. I suggest remembering the word “rape” and deciding how Trump and Bill compare on that score.

Far be it from me to distract the hungry audience from its salacious meal, but here is the Presidential campaign article I finished just before the Trump tape scandal broke. It concerns media, the presentation of real issues, television mind control, and other boring material.

Read it while you wait for the next sex scandal—

The optics of the Presidential debates: split-screen insanity

By Jon Rappoport

There are many problems with the debate format, but by far the biggest optic is split-screen, which enables the viewer to see Trump’s and Hillary’s close-up facial reactions while they’re silent and listening to each other.

When Trump frowns, shakes his head, is irritated, it’s all there—and audiences are trained to think these actions are somehow “negative.” Hillary, for the most part, remains non-authentically cheery and bright. This is considered “standard” political response. “Rational, even-handed, unaffected.”

Trump should bring a cut-out photo of his face grinning widely, and hold it up in front of his own face whenever Hillary is talking.

The idea that facial reactions of the candidates are a key to debate victory or defeat is absurd. It’s a con. It’s part of gotcha journalism.

“Did you see what happened when she said that? He almost went ballistic. Wow. He’s out of control.”

The mask of unaffected neutral fixed response is an artifact of network news. That’s where it comes from. The anchor is above the fray. He’s dedicated to the truth. He resists the temptation to react. He remains objective at all costs. He’s part human and part machine. He’s the blank face and the voice of reason…

And since the debates are actually media events run by the news networks, the audience is led to expect the same sort of “unflappable” behavior from the candidates.

I’ve written several articles about the preposterous set up of the debates—which are not debates at all. If we must have network “moderators,” they should be muzzled and simply display large flash cards.

Card One: Hillary Clinton has 20 minutes to criticize Mr. Trump as a candidate. Then, she does. Trump isn’t on stage.

Card Two: Donald Trump has 20 minutes to criticize Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Then, he does. Clinton isn’t on stage.

Card Three: Hillary Clinton has a half-hour to recommend changes to current economic policy of the US government. Then she does. Trump isn’t on stage.

Card Four: Donald Trump has a half-hour to recommend changes to current economic policy of the US government. Then he does. Clinton isn’t on stage.

You get the idea. At no time do the candidates go face to face and carp at each other or interrupt. There is no split-screen. There is no gotcha. Instead, we actually listen to what they have to say—uninterrupted. The moderator holds no sway. He’s not part of the proceeding. Why should he be? He has no reason to be there.

No reason at all.

Now, if the debate were held between Lindsay Lohan and her fiancé, with whom she recently parted, then yes, a moderator might be appropriate. Jerry Springer, for example. Everybody would get paid, everybody would interrupt and accuse and react on split-screen, and the audience would be thrilled.

But a Presidential race is supposed to be different.

Perhaps you remember the first 2000 debate: Gore vs. Bush. Gore kept sighing when Bush spoke. “Sighing” immediately became a campaign issue in the press. Katie Couric asked Gore whether he considered sighing was “presidential behavior.” I’m no fan of Al Gore, but that was ridiculous. Optics before substance.

There are many wags running around with the title of journalist next to their names who believe strongly in optics, as “revealing” of a candidate’s nature and character. Fine. In that case, subject the candidates to press grillings and see what can be stirred up. But debates on major issues? That’s another animal altogether.

Exit From the Matrix

Far more important is a candidate’s complete and specific position on the issues. And to understand that (or the lack of it) we need to hear the candidate speak at length. Alone.

In that setting, are we getting high-flying fluffy generalities? Are we getting pure nonsense? Are we getting real solutions? Would they work? Would they push the nation into a deeper hole?

The press doesn’t go for depth. They don’t use it or sell it. It’s not their game. They’re afraid people will tune out. So the moderator of the moment says, “You have two minutes to reply to your opponent.” Is the moderator a complete idiot? Of course he is. He seems to believe he’s going to elicit something important in 120 seconds.

He’s a highly paid news anchor? He’s a college graduate? And he’s acting like an animal trainer with a little whip in a two-bit circus?

My, my.

What if this happened in criminal trials? “Hello, everybody, I’m your judge and moderator. Remember the rules. Attorneys will be allowed to examine witnesses for 3 minutes each. Opening and closing statements are limited to 90 seconds. The jury is urged to watch the television monitors, which will display continuous close-ups of the attorneys, the defendant, and the witnesses as they react to the proceeding. You will find clues on their faces that impact on the guilt or innocence of the defendant…”

“We, the jury, have reached a verdict. We were strongly affected by the defendant wiggling in his seat during his wife’s testimony. Guilty on all counts!”

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

October is October Surprise Month

October is October Surprise Month

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2016

What dirty tricks do you think the Clintons, their surrogates, and the Globalists will try to pull this month in the run up to the general election on November 8th? Sound off in the comments below.

Game on…

* Historic live coverage: Wikileaks’ Hillary October Surprise: Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2:00AM CT (8:00AM GMT). Click here.

* Hillary killed Libya peace deal over personal vendetta, claims whistleblower. Gaddafi agreed to hold free elections, but Clinton’s refusal led to ISIS takeover, thousands of deaths, international migrant crisis. Click here.

* Bill Clinton’s prostitute love child demands DNA test. Man alleging to be Bill Clinton’s son. Click here and here.

Update: Wikileaks’ Assange trolls the public:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbRsWJaT4Go&w=560&h=315]

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

The secret political issue: Health Freedom

by Jon Rappoport

October 2, 2016

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

Six years ago, on the eve of the midterm elections in Obama’s first term in office — which happened to be seven months after Obama had signed Obamacare into law — and, with another 3-years to go before Obamacare went into effect, I posted this article.

Fast forward to now… on the eve of one of the most historic presidential elections in American history…

I would like to hear from you my loyal readers on the topic of Health Freedom. What does Health Freedom mean to you? What has changed over the last six years? What have been some of the victories? What have been some of the setbacks? Let me know in the comments below.

For Part 2 of this two-part re-posting series, click here.

(OCTOBER 21, 2010) As this year’s election draws close, it’s business as usual, as far as Health Freedom is concerned. This issue isn’t just in the shadows. It’s in the closet behind the shadows, locked in tight.

The avalanche of pharmaceutical ads on TV drones on. The attacks on natural health set off firecrackers here and there: “Patients shouldn’t be allowed to choose alternative remedies, because that will take them away from medicines that really help.”

“We, the medical elites, know what’s best for you, and we’ll shove it down your throats.”

But wait. This is supposed to be the Year of the Conservative. Conservatives want less government intrusion, more individual freedom. Why isn’t Health Freedom front and center?

I have four answers to that question. One, the pharmaceutical lobby and money machine are bankrolling overwhelming numbers of candidates. Two, the millions of people who participated in the Health Freedom movement of the early 1990s have gone back into their cocoons, and the funding of that movement, which came from nutritional companies, has dried up. Three, many leaders of the old Health Freedom campaign actually believe Barack Obama is a forward-thinking guy who would never permit a real crackdown on the nutritional industry. And four, conservative candidates running for office see no reason to put Health Freedom up high on their agendas, because they’ve never had to before—the pressure to do so is minimal. Why rock the boat?

In case you’ve forgotten, Health Freedom means: every person has the right to choose how to take care of their own body and health. The government has no business interfering. The right extends to refusal to accept conventional medical treatments. It’s a simple thing, really.

And perhaps reading this, you imagine there is no urgent need to press home this issue at this time.

Well, Health Freedom is always a major issue. The federal government, in the person of the FDA, an agency that is actually a bought and paid for subsidiary of the drug companies, is always seeking new ways to apply a chokehold on nutritional companies and natural health practitioners.

In a radio interview I did with Jonathan Emord, the most successful American lawyer in cases launched against the FDA, Emord told me he has sufficient reason to believe the FDA never intends to abide by the court decisions rendered against them. That’s right. In other words, the FDA is a rogue agency.

In another interview, this one with Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Starfield confirmed that, in the wake of her 2000 finding that FDA-approved drugs have been killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 people a year, no federal agency has approached her to consult on ways of reducing this horrendous outcome. Not in the past ten years. Her virtually unchallenged report, published in the July 26, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, has stirred no government response.

How much willful political ignorance and avoidance does it take to walk away from A MILLION DEAD AMERICANS over the last ten years?

In reading a number of conservative political blogs, I’ve seen no mention of the Health Freedom issue or the effects of Big Pharma on Americans. Why is that? Is it because drug companies are blithely assumed to be bastions of free enterprise and, therefore, sacrosanct? That’s my suspicion, because I do encounter statements that ObamaCare is trashing the greatest medical system in the world. Obamacare is a disaster in all ways, but “greatest medical system” is a massive lie.

The Matrix Revealed

Face it. The overwhelming number of Americans are still, after all these years, hooked on drugs. Medical drugs. They live to swallow pills. They live to receive diagnoses from doctors. Therefore, the notion that we all have the right to choose whether to take a medical drug or an herb is beyond their ability to think and reason. They’re in the hole deep, and they don’t even know they’re addicted.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, take notice. You’re missing the boat here. You’re way out in left field. You’re a victim of doctor-induced hypnosis, and it’s time you woke up and put this issue on the table. You’ll be surprised at the response, once you open the gates. Millions of people will come out and respond. And that’s called RATINGS.

Bottom line: even if you worship at the altar of modern medicine, in all cases, all the time, the right to choose any form of healing therapy is basic to the intent of the Constitution, and that right is always in jeopardy as the Parental State decides what’s best for you, decides what “science” is good science, decides how stupid you are and how much help you need to see the light.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Lester Holt: android, wisdom figure, computer brain

Lester Holt: android, wisdom figure, computer brain

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2016

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

Others have pointed out how many times debate moderator Lester Holt slanted criticism toward Trump, rather than Hillary. Others have suggested Hillary and Holt were a tag-team, with Hillary throwing hand signals to Holt indicating she was ready to hit Trump with a zinger.

On a different level…

Watching the debate-host, Holt, working his way through Trump vs. Hillary, sitting in his chair, bathed in a spotlight glow against a sea of total darkness, eerie metallic glimmers reflecting from his glasses, I was reminded of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the barely human chairman of the corporation that designed androids in the film Blade Runner.

—Holt, the man who had the script and the questions and the facts at his immediate disposal. The brain. The wisdom figure. The synthetic guide with a touch of humanity built in.

Quite an archetype.

As I pointed out recently, the ridiculous notion of a debate with a moderator is modern. When Lincoln and Douglas famously debated slavery for hours at a time, over the course of several weeks, there was no intermediary voice. One man spoke for an hour, and then the other man spoke for an hour.

The moderator is a prop, a pretense of introducing objectivity into the proceeding.

The moderator is the “voice of rationality,” as it were. From that perch, he can, of course, slant the event—and Holt certainly did.

His dry speech patterns, in fact, resembled those of Barack Obama, when the President is reciting script.

Watching Holt operate, I was also reminded of the technocratic wet dream of a human brain hooked up to a computer, from which emanates undeniable wisdom.

Holt adopted the persona of a machine, and he pulled it off.

Which means? This is where the world is heading, if the technocrats have anything to say about it. You “need the best data—and one day soon you’ll get the data from a computer your brain is connected to. All will be well.”

Holt is also NBC’s national news anchor, which means he tells the stories of our time, every night, to millions of tranced viewers who are seeking a voice not their own.

Anchor and debate moderator—a powerful combination.

Hypnotically commanding.

Replay the debate moment when, out of nowhere, Holt’s words suddenly crackled like dry autumn leaves: “[Stop and frisk] was ruled unconstitutional.”

The narrator thus spake.

A brain not their own…a voice not their own…a narrator of reality…a fount of instant wisdom…the answer from on high…there are many, many people who want those things, and they want them embodied in a machine-like structure that assures them of dispassionate “honesty.”

Holt provided.

It’s no surprise that giant television networks have made these debates their own property. After all, the companies consider the events media-moments. Hosting them and appointing the moderators is no different from designing and presenting the nightly news broadcasts.

Of course, when you stop and think about this arrangement for debates, it’s absurd. Why would Lester Holt be more qualified to guide the proceeding than a car mechanic from Peoria?

Why have a guide at all?

Why allow media companies or government entities or even non-profit organizations a place in the debates? The two ruling political parties are the correct sponsors. We’re watching their candidates.

Holt was a well-groomed device. A hint of the near-future. A figure of “just-enough-authority” sitting in the darkness, dispensing voice-of-god to the masses, backed up by a production crew with split-screen, miced-up, podium-on-stage technology to provide a fatuous imitation of a real debate.

Instead, let there be a stage in a glen. Two or three television cameras. Let there be a topic. Foreign policy. Hillary ascends the stage and speaks for an hour. Then she leaves. Trump appears. He talks for 90 minutes. Then Hillary comes back for 30 minutes. The candidates never speak to each other. There is no moment-to-moment exchange of daggers or jokes or gotchas. This isn’t entertainment. It isn’t grins or hair or dress or tie or teeth.

If there is a moderator, he stands down off-stage and to the side, grumpy and frowning, holding an umbrella in case it rains. He reads a book while the candidates speak, he eats a hot dog. He combs and re-combs his hair. He waits. He thinks about his 20-dollar-an-hour salary. He must remain absolutely silent.

He’s an actual prop put there to remind people of a time when things were different, when the so-called news was delivered by media stars, who competed to see which ones were the most clever at inventing reality that seemed factual, but wasn’t.

In a world with a shred of sanity, that’s what Lester Holt would be doing.

Exit From the Matrix

What is modern television news (including debate moderation)?

From their perch, anchors 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 anchor is the narrative voice of his time, for all people everywhere. 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 must become comfortable with having very little personality of his own. 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?”

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.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.

The public expects to hear that vibrating string. It’s been conditioned by many hard nights at the tube, watching the news.

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.

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

The other night, Lester Holt was the machine-like agent of the Cosmic Charity of All Souls dedicated to higher wisdom from an unimpeachable source. That was his role and he played it.

“I take no sides. I have no opinions. I am objectivity personified. I am…The Fact Checker.”

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.

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

Winner of last night’s debate was Lester Holt

by Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2016

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

As I wrote before the debate yesterday, it’s all about the staging.

I won’t go over everything NBC moderator Lester Holt did to tilt the debate to Hillary. Others are covering his performance. I’ll point out one vital thing. It happened right at the beginning.

Holt framed the debate by stating that the US economy, particularly employment, has recovered well since the 2007-8 meltdown. Of course, he lied. When you factor in how many people now have low-paying jobs who formerly had good jobs; and when you also consider that people who give up trying to find jobs are eventually no longer listed as unemployed, you get the true picture: the US economy hasn’t recovered. Not by a long shot.

Understandably, Trump was focused, at the moment when Holt lied, on Hillary and the audience in the hall. He was blindsided. From the get-go, he should have pinned Holt and denied Holt’s “facts.” He should have exposed Holt as an errant “fact-checker” and put him back on his heels. That could have changed the whole tone of the evening. Holt’s stone-faced “objective” calm would have been broken. He would have been under the gun.

The tight debate format does not suit Trump. The whole set-up goes against his style. Brief statements, the back-and-forth between candidates, the moderator questions and interruptions—it plays against his energy and rhythms.

Within that structure, Trump tended to talk to Hillary and Holt—instead of directly to the American people.

That created problems for him throughout the evening.

Trump’s whole campaign has been based on him going out there, from city to city, talking to large crowds.

In the debates, he has to maintain that position. He’s still speaking directly to the American people, even though he’s in a small hall, with network coverage, with Hillary standing near him, with a media moderator running the show. He has to make that clear—he’s speaking to The People.

The debate set-up is 2 against 1. Holt (or any network moderator) is the anchor. Hillary, with her polished delivery (she’s spoken these lines hundreds of times), functions, in a sense, as another anchor. That leaves Trump as the “disgruntled guest” on the show, trying to make his points and go against the grain.

Exit From the Matrix

An old word describes what Trump should be doing: “oratory.” It’s what elevates a speaker beyond his immediate circumstances and environment, imparting the sense that he’s talking to “everybody.” Forget Hillary. Forget Holt. Forget the people in the hall. Many of them are political pros. Talk to America.

Trump is supposed to be a populist. He’s supposed to be speaking to, and on behalf of, the citizens who feel they have no voice. If that’s true, he can’t leave them out during the debates.

For her part, Hillary was sheer empty perfection. She used all the buzzwords and generalities, while maintaining a cheery and bright attitude. She delivered exactly what she’s been delivering for years and years, straight from memory.

It doesn’t matter what the debate after-polls show. As this campaign moves to its final moments, her anchor-like gloss is going to make serious inroads on Trump, if he continues to be the disgruntled guest on the show.

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.

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Tonight’s debate: watch the staging

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2016

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

Watch how tonight’s Trump-Hillary debate is set up.

Are the two podiums the same size? No? Who has the bigger podium?

Is the lighting even, or are there shadows? Where do the shadows fall?

Is there blue color in the background, which exudes a “calming effect?”

How is the moderator, Lester Holt, lit? Is he spotlighted, haloed, to impart the sense that he’s the ultimate authority in the room?

What about camera angles on the two candidates? Are they receiving the same coverage, or is one more prominent? Are there close-ups?

Will cameras impart a sense of distance, in order to reduce dramatic effect and give the impression that the whole event is somewhat monotonous?

Will the audience be allowed to applaud and boo, or will Lester Holt control that?

To what degree will the candidates be allowed to wander off-topic? Will the reins be tight or loose?

How much time will each candidate be given to make statements? Will either or both of them be pinched, so they can’t say anything of substance?

Ah yes, substance. Context. Network news is famous for thin context:

The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time…

Let’s consider some general background on the news:

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. The overall effect: hypnotic, yet stimulating.

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.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on 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 (thin) context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. 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 hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

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 recent school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns.”

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. The brain.”

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 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 (false) 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 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?

power outside the matrix

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 thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

The average viewer, having been entrained through years of watching the news, is going to come to tonight’s Presidential debate ready for thin context and no depth.

That’s the subconscious expectation.

Can this expectation be reversed in 90 minutes, regardless of what either candidate says?

And if either candidate suddenly punches a hole in that expectation, will the average viewer welcome it, or will he feel shocked and disturbed by the intrusion? Will he resent it?

Or to put it another way, which candidate more closely resembles a network news anchor—the familiar words, the familiar generalities, the thin context.

The networks that will broadcast the debate consider it a media/news event.

They will try to keep it within that space.

They think they own that space, which includes the viewer’s mind.

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.

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

How the liberal press will game the Trump-Hillary debate

—assuming Hillary shows up—

by Jon Rappoport

September 25, 2016

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

I didn’t invent the liberal press. If the MSM were overwhelmingly conservative, I’d be writing about how they’re going to game Monday night’s debate.

Here’s the problem the MSM faces. Most Presidential debates are snoozefests during which the two candidates float high-flying, empty, vapid, brainless generalities. The press can then easily pick their favorite person, in the aftermath, because neither one said anything. But here we have something different:

Trump is famous for potent wise cracks; dismissive comments aimed at his opponents and the media; and sharp-tongued critiques of policies (e.g., Globalism) which are never aired during election campaigns. He’s a fast-talking cowboy who starts shooting as he’s walks through the door of the saloon.

So the MSM will have to scramble, to slant perception away from Trump and for Hillary.

It’s quite possible that, during the debate itself, a little army of liberal fact-checkers will analyze a Trump statement, decide it’s false, and relay the information to Lester Holt, the moderator, who will frame an accusatory question for Trump on the spot, hoping to catch him up and expose him.

Holt may also try to pop Trump for interrupting Hillary; portraying him as a rude, over-weaning, coarse jackass.

And if Hillary criticizes Trump on a foreign policy issue, and he comes back with one of his patented bombs—“You should talk, Hillary, you destroyed Libya and turned it into a hellhole”—Holt could insist Trump is going off the reservation and not replying directly to Hillary.

“Mr. Trump, I keep trying to bring you back to the subject at hand, and you keep wandering away from it…” (The MSM would replay that clip hundreds of times.)

Holt could do a lot of things to try to upset Trump’s rhythm and tempo and cast him in a negative light. You can bet Hillary’s people have been sending messages through to Holt, urging him to keep Trump on-topic, “so the debate doesn’t turn into an unseemly circus.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will certainly refrain from mentioning that many of Hillary’s remarks were substanceless generalities (her stock-in-trade). They’ll actually fill in the blanks for her. They always have.

If Hillary shows up and endures the full 90 minutes, without collapsing or leaving the stage in a coughing fit, the liberal press will automatically claim “she looked strong and fit” and her health is not a problem. “Apparently, those questions have been answered.”

If Hillary energetically pushes back against Trump just once, during the whole evening, even if she’s telling an egregious lie in the process, the MSM will seize on it, play it over and over, and crow about her “toughness.”

If Trump decides to tone it down and look and sound “Presidential,” the MSM will say he was “subdued” and off his game. If he attacks, they’ll say he was “un-Presidential,” as well as “sexist.”

If Hillary physically survives the debate, the MSM will say she’s “on track” to becoming the next President, “as the polls have indicated, despite Trump’s recent surge.” In other words, they’ll try to make it look as if she’s been running a seamless and successful campaign all along, based on her “vast experience”—instead of ducking reporters, hiding out, canceling events, and trying to find enough energy to carry on.

If Trump stumbles at any point, the MSM will punch that up, highlight it, run the clip over and over, and claim it shows he’s really unprepared for “the major leagues.” “He was exposed.” “He’s really an amateur, as many critics have warned all along.”

As usual, based on zero evidence, the MSM will claim Hillary played well to certain voting blocs: the young, unions, minorities, the elderly.

Any sort of vaguely competent performance by Hillary will be hailed as a major victory, as if a coma patient in an ER suddenly sat up and spoke a few complete sentences.

The MSM are well aware of her fragile health (“fragile” is an understatement), but they’re trying to sit on the information, despite huge pressure from independent reporters all over the Web. At this point, the MSM is like a starving dog that will seize on any bone in its vicinity and make it into a full-course banquet: “She walked, she talked, she was coherent. Therefore, she’s a genius.”

“Despite her recent bout with pneumonia, she appeared strong and in charge.”

If Hillary can’t finish the debate, if she has to leave the stage or collapses, the MSM will try to blame it on Trump.

Who will be in the house Monday night? Will we see a stacked deck? Will people shower Trump with boos? If things get very rough for Hillary, will a protest break out against Trump to give her cover?

Anything is possible, including lights in the hall going out; spotty audio; cutting the televised feed, due to “technical problems” or even “a mysterious hacker.” The MSM are quite aware that Trump has no respect for them. They’re terrified that, if Trump is scoring heavily at the debate, their status as dispensers of truth for the masses will take another major torpedo. They know the public’s regard for them is already plummeting.

power outside the matrix

I have reason to believe media honchos have been in touch with the Trump campaign, on the issue of “credibility.” They’re telling Trump people the debates must be conducted in a dignified manner, in order to preserve the reputation of the office of the Presidency.

Obviously, this effort is aimed at toning Trump down, convincing him to behave. In other words, the media are trying to get him to abandon his most popular approach and turn him into another android candidate.

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

You can be sure, as well, that people inside Trump’s own campaign (infiltrators and typically standard fools) are urging him to back off, act Presidential, and consolidate his gains. They’re telling him his best hope is to build better trust with voters by “acting normal.”

“Too many people are still scared of you, Donald.”

If he falls for that one, he’s done.

They may as well be telling him, “Act more like Hillary.” Hillary has a patent on that act. He can’t match it.

On Monday night, the MSM will be looking for any possible Trump sliver they can use to claim, “The man revealed himself as dangerous.”

That’s their hole card. That’s what they want to sell: “People all over America are feeling fear and disgust. They’re reluctant to believe what Trump is saying—and they doubt his ability to perform competently as President.”

Post-debate, the liberal press will try to take that position, based on something Trump said or did.

Trump can view all these obstructions as a mine-field he must navigate carefully.

But if he does, he’s done.

This is a national debate. For many, many viewers, this will be their first lengthy exposure to the candidates. Hillary will keep (vaguely) emphasizing her experience and credibility as a political leader, versus Trump’s complete lack of real knowledge. She’ll try to act like a frontrunner, a fount of confidence. Trump has to crash that celebration and ruin it.

And the liberal media have to characterize his attacks as something on the order of childish tantrums.

“Trump offered little in the way of substance. He was mostly bluster, and people could see it. Hillary, on the other hand, displayed restraint befitting a veteran who, certainly, based on the record, knows foreign policy like the back of her hand…”

Hillary, on stage, will have a few zingers ready to go, if things start to turn against her, if Trump’s energy is overwhelming her. Something like, “Donald, I know you. I’ve known you for years. How you can even think about running for President? The whole world is watching. Millions of people know you and your campaign are a sham, a fake. Why don’t you make everybody happy, pick up your marbles, and go home. Go back to your Tower and forget about it!”

Applause will break out in the hall, and the liberal press will hope and pray it spells the end of the Trump fantasy.

They’ve been trying to put this guy away ever since he announced his candidacy, and everything they’ve done has not only failed, it’s backfired.

Hillary should be their ultimate backup. She should be the one to seal his fate. After all, she’s supposed to be the next President, isn’t she?

Does she have what it takes to be a closer? Or is she so burned out and ill she can barely make it to the show?

According to reports, Gennifer Flowers, one of Bill’s former girlfriends, has accepted Trump’s invitation to sit in the front row at the debate. If so, it appears Trump is doubling down, and remains in full attack mode.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

Hillary-Trump debates: resurrection of IQ

by Jon Rappoport

September 21, 2016

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

We are approaching the 2016 Presidential debates. Hillary and Trump.

So I want to remind you of another time, another debate format, another capacity of the public mind. Way back when.

Consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.

But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format—get this: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.

The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.

Those were debates. No moderator. The men talked. And talked.

They weren’t asked questions.

They didn’t interrupt each other with insults and wise cracks.

They didn’t shift from issue to issue.

And when they were done in each town, denizens of the media weren’t around to weigh in on how “Presidential” they sounded and looked.

Current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:

“During my remarks in the next ninety minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”

There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.

And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.

After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.

How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debated, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas had, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”

If either candidate had been unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely have become obvious.

How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.

People wonder whether Hillary can get from her van to the podium without a golf cart and three assistants. Forget about it. This would be seven debates in three weeks, during which she would speak for a total of 630 minutes.

That would be real.

She and Trump would have to lay out their positions in full.

The public would have to pay attention. And if they couldn’t or wouldn’t, so be it. Maybe next time they would.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence is a grotesque side-show that has taken center stage.

The point is to aim high and force things.

Bring back meaningful debate.

Get used to the long form again.

Push this nation up, not down.

The Matrix Revealed

I would certainly like to see Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Bill O’Reilly compelled to analyze each of seven full debates. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

Even more thrilling, let Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, do the full seven debates against, well, anyone. The Libertarians are supposed to be true intellectuals. Well, let’s see IQ on parade, as their leading nitwit engages on an issue of vital interest. Then cut up his presentation and make a sit-com out of it.

Let’s have a few dozen intrepid college professors tell their classes: “We’re going to take apart all seven, long-form, Lincoln-Douglas-type debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Piece by piece, step by step. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about ‘being triggered’ or ‘needing safe spaces’. If you can’t handle it, you get an F for the course. If you know nothing about traditional logical fallacies, you’d better bone up quickly, because I have a feeling we’re going to be exploring those fallacies. And don’t bother feeding me vapid generalities and slogans when you write your papers. You’re on the hook. I expect you to be alert and smart. If that’s beyond your capacity, you shouldn’t be here. Go back to high school or middle school or wherever it was you checked out of your education. Play time is over. Whining is over. This is college…”

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.