Category Archives: Government Fraud

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

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

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.

power outside the matrix

It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

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.

3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting

3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2016

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

—Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer—

I know full well how incompetent, stupid, amateurish, and ill-prepared government employees can be. But the dog and pony Hillary show of the last few days is truly staggering.

If the effort was to exonerate Hillary Clinton, it was done so badly the American people are more certain than ever that she is guilty as sin.

Here are the top three actions of the past few days that conspired to free her, while actually revealing how culpable she is, to anyone with a few working brain cells:

One: Just by chance, US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the highest law-enforcement official in the land, runs into Bill Clinton at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. They talk in secret, as the FBI is wrapping up its email-scandal probe and is preparing to present its findings. This Lynch-Clinton meeting assures one and all that the fix is in. “Hillary’s guilty, but we’re going to find her innocent.”

Two: In an unprecedented move, FBI Director Comey holds a global press conference. He runs down a massive list of Hillary’s actions, leaving no doubt she is guilty of gross negligence in her handling of classified materials. But then he does an abrupt turn and recommends no prosecution, because the Bureau found no evidence she intended to do harm.

Comey knows, and ensuing press reports emphasize, that intent is not the legal issue. The Federal Penal Code (Title 18, section 793f) makes that clear. Gross negligence is sufficient for prosecution, conviction, and a sentence of up to ten years in prison.

Furthermore, why is FBI Director making his recommendation in public, before the world? His job is simply to turn over the evidence to his boss, Attorney General Lynch, who will decide whether prosecution is the next step. But since, a day earlier, Lynch inexplicably said she would blindly follow the FBI’s recommendation—thereby abdicating her duty as Attorney General—Comey is suddenly doing her job and occupying her position. He is, for the moment, the US Attorney General.

As any fool can see.

Comey is also an appellate judge, because he is interpreting Title 18 of the Federal Penal Code—and interpreting it falsely.

As any fool can see.

Three: Comey then appears before the Congress for a grilling. Are we to assume he expected to get off easily? Of course not. He knew he would be raked over the coals, and in the process he would reveal more clearly how Hillary had violated the law. Comey would continue to assert there was no need for prosecution, while showing the world that prosecution was exactly the proper path. And that’s what happened, during Comey’s conversation with Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Four main facts emerged out of Comey’s mouth:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

Comey admits all this under questioning. He further concedes that lies of this nature would normally be used to mount a prosecution.

Not only that, these lies would be used to form a circumstantial case for intent, the very issue on which Comey found Hillary “innocent.”

Could Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Obama have figured out a worse way to exonerate Hillary? It’s hard to imagine.

More likely, Obama and Lynch decided to put the egg on Comey’s face. He would have to take one for the team.

Comey, in turn, decided that if he was going to be the fall-guy, he would, in the process, lay out the details showing how guilty Hillary was. After all, his own people, his own FBI investigators, had assembled an air-tight case against Hillary. Comey knew they would boil with rage when he exonerated her. So he threw a bone to his team. In effect, he said to them: “I have to recommend no prosecution, but I’ll expose some of what you discovered.”

The question now is, will one or more of Comey’s FBI investigators leak further devastating facts, revealing Hillary’s guilt, to the press?

power outside the matrix

By chance, this whole travesty of justice was suddenly overshadowed by the events in Dallas, where snipers shot 12 police officers and killed five.

Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer.

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, email free pass, Benghazi

Hillary, email free pass, Benghazi

by Jon Rappoport

July 6, 2016

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

Little-known fact: Hillary Clinton is a Quantum Physics genius with a specialty in Time Manipulation.

We’ll get to that in a minute. But first, FBI Director Comey’s absurd exoneration of Hillary in the email scandal. The law states, of course, that gross negligence in handling and transmitting classified materials is enough to warrant prosecution for a crime, and it can carry up to ten years in prison. (Federal Penal Code, Title 18, section 793[f].) The quality of the intent behind the negligence has nothing to do with the law. Good intent, bad intent, neutral intent. All irrelevant. Comey knows that.

His statement about the diligent and exceptional investigation by his people at the Bureau is fluff and window dressing. It all came down to his recommendation to his boss, the Attorney General. And there Comey revealed his own intent:

Hillary is too big to fail.

She was grossly negligent. The FBI confirmed that.

But Comey said that because Hillary showed no intent to cause harm, she should walk. Baloney. Again, intent is irrelevant, according to the law, which states:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (Title 18, section 793[f], Federal Penal Code)

That section of the law was written to cover gross negligence. It’s the only standard. Period. Got it? That section of the law was written for the express purpose of setting aside the question of intent behind the negligence—so that intent couldn’t be used as an excuse for not prosecuting.

This whole stage play is a backwards farce. First of all, the decision about whether to prosecute is, guess what, at the discretion of the Attorney General, not the FBI. Who cares what the FBI recommends? Especially in public, in front of television cameras.

Does a city DA automatically mirror the cops’ recommendations when he makes up his mind about prosecuting a suspect? No. The cops hand over their evidence, and the DA makes his call. Take the case to court or not.

Attorney General Lynch’s statement, a few days ago, about following the FBI’s recommendation is ridiculous. It’s like saying, “They’re doing my job for me. I’m not here. I’m a non-entity.”

The fix is obviously in. The players in the farce (Lynch and Comey) performed their roles so badly they should have been doing dinner theater in Florida. Maybe the half-awake senior citizens would have bought their act.

“Hi folks, I’m Jim Comey, FBI Director. We found a ton of gross negligence in the Hillary case, but we decided not to prosecute. It’s not our job to decide that one way or the other, but we thought we would decide anyway. We’re as honest as the day is long.”

“Hi folks, I’m Loretta Lynch, Attorney General. I spoke with Bill Clinton the other today at the airport, and the family’s fine. Everybody’s fine. I’m supposed to decide, ha-ha, whether to prosecute criminals, but in this case, I’m letting the FBI decide. You want to know why? Because if Comey laid out his ton of gross negligence and then said it was up to me, everybody would have realized I should prosecute her. So we let Comey act as cop and prosecutor. You know, so we could get the whole thing over with, in a few minutes.”

Comey lays out the evidence, which is a slam-dunk for prosecution, then publicly recommends no prosecution, while at the same time he interprets federal law. And he interprets it as falsely as possible. I guess he’s an appellate judge, too. Cop, prosecutor, judge. Triple play.

Why didn’t they just cart out a giant Disney character to announce Hillary was free? Goofy or Pluto.

So now let’s move on to Hillary herself, and her career of getting away with everything under the sun.

—Recall her Benghazi testimony before Congress? She said, at this point, what difference does it make?

It’s not just that she brushed off the whole thing, it’s the time scale. It’s as if, in her mind, she was being grilled a few decades after Benghazi happened. She’s saying, it’s history, why should we revisit it?

She was on to so many other things, she couldn’t be bothered to look back on what was, for her, a dead issue, something a historian might decide to write about. Benghazi was way, way back there. A dim memory that couldn’t possibly have any meaning left in it. Why should we talk about the Trojan War here today, in front of an investigating committee? I have other things to worry about. My upcoming campaign for the Presidency. My husband, because he can always cause trouble for us. My advisors, who could screw up. You never know. But Benghazi? Nothing. If I had anything to do with it, you’ll never prove a connection. Let’s not sit around kidding ourselves. You know and I know nothing is going to come of this. What difference does it make at this point? People don’t understand my psychology. I’m two steps into the future at all times. When something is done, it’s done, and since I’ll never pay for any hypothetical crimes, who cares? It’s just public masturbation on the part of my enemies. They’ve been after me for a long time. They’ll never catch me. We invaded Libya and we won. We destroyed the country.

And now she says: The email scandal? My God, that’s such old news. Are we still on that subject? Can’t you people find something else to talk about? That’s settled. It’s filed under “unintentional mistakes may have been made but there were no adverse consequences.” It’s as distant a memory as Monica and Bill, and Bill and his women. Whether I defended him as a loyal wife and a put-upon victim, or whether I actively punished those women; it’s simply another imponderable, and historians will take it up and hash it over one day when I’m long gone. Who cares? What difference does it make at this point? The same is true of the Clinton Foundation. Whether our donors were granted favors is simply a matter of speculation, and therefore it has no force, no power as an issue. The mere coincidence or correlation of money and favors adds up to an unprovable hypothesis. Isn’t it obvious? There is no smoking gun. There will never be a smoking gun, so let’s put that one to rest, too. As a piece of imponderable history. What else do you have? My support, at one point, for the invasion of Iraq? Another ancient war. It happened. It’s over. Iraq now presents a new set of problems. Let’s deal with those. Wall Street money? Pharmaceutical money? Do you want to dig into that? All I have to say is that I will never allow campaign contributions to influence my judgment. You people just don’t understand the concept of time. Once a thing is done, it’s in the past. It could be five minutes ago or a century, but you can never bring it back. What difference does it make? I’m looking ahead to the Convention. And with my nomination in tow, I’ll launch a very active campaign against my opponent, Mr. Trump. I’m quite confident I’ll win the election, and when I’m the next President, everything I’ve ever done will truly be erased, because the American people will have decided it makes no difference. The people and I will concur on that point.

The Matrix Revealed

What difference does anything make? As President, when I issue a decision, it’s done. We’re on to the next piece of business. I’m the person I am tomorrow. I’m never the person I am today or was yesterday. The way time passes, how quickly it moves, depends on the point of viewer of the observer. Well, my point of view is constantly refreshing itself. I share this trait with people like Bill Gates and George Soros. They invest in the future. The act of putting money to work now is irrelevant. It only matters what happens to that money tomorrow. Space and time are relative, and my process dictates that my actions only have meaning when we see their consequences—by which time I’m already engaged in more important actions, so what difference does it make how the past turned out? The future already exists in an ideal form, and in the future I’m already President. Can’t you people see that? All you have to do is see it and admit it. Then things will take care of themselves. When you do see it, you’ll understand that whatever we’re talking about now makes no difference. Consider Mr. Trump’s slogan, Make America Great Again. Again? He wants to reinstate the past. But the past is gone. From my perspective, the past never was. The issues we argue about with reference to the Constitution are misguided. What Constitution? I go farther than claiming it is a living document. How could it exist now when it was purportedly framed in some purportedly ancient period? We fool ourselves when we search for what it was. We write what we write and say what we say and do what we do and legislate what we legislate in the ever-changing now, which is the future. Therefore, if we say there is a Constitution which is being updated, what we really mean is we’re inventing it out of whole cloth as we move along. Like money or debt, we’re inventing it out of thin air. So what difference does it make? Likewise, what difference does it make what I will do during my Presidency? I will always be out ahead of that. I hope this statement is clear to the Committee and, therefore, we can terminate this proceeding. You’re following along behind me, and I’m leading you. How else could it be?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

What possible difference?

So, Mr. Chairman, I feel better, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest. I feel refreshed. I’ve clarified how things stand, and how the universe of time and space works. I’m in the future, and all of you are in the past. I already know what you couldn’t know. Naturally, therefore, you’ll look to me for guidance. It’s logical, and if there’s one thing I stand for, it’s logic. I believe we’re done here.

Well, you’re done. I’m just getting started.

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.

Brexit, and goals and ops of the Deep State

Brexit, and goals and ops of the Deep State

by Jon Rappoport

June 24, 2016

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

We have to start with Brexit, which scored a victory last night. Britain leaves the EU. Bang. Other European countries are ready to put the same referendum up for vote. And George Soros is making money from having invested in gold earlier in the month. Naturally. The vulture never sleeps.

Speaking of money making money, the “hysterical aftershocks” in trading markets, right after the Brexit victory was projected, are all synthetic and artificial manipulations, laid on to prove a point: see what happens when a country defects from the New Order? Meanwhile, the people who had real jobs yesterday still have them today. Life goes on. Britain will still be able to engage in trade with other countries, despite Obama’s warning that they’ll have to stand in the back of the line to make deals with the US. Nonsense. Blather. Obama is failing in his job as front man for Rockefeller Globalists. If he can’t get Senate ratification on the TPP and the TTIP deals now, he’ll be the CFR’s failure of the decade. Hillary, who came out against Brexit, is looking like a clown with egg on her face.

So…what is Britain leaving when it leaves the EU? It’s departing a giant robot, a structure of untold numbers of sub-androids, bureaucrats who have been making life miserable for Europe. Higher debt, unlimited migration, blizzards of regulations, grim political correctness. All in the service of a coming utopia, of course.

The real job of the EU is dehumanizing people, for the sake of humanity. That’s how faceless robot-bureaucrats operate.

The EU is an illusion of authority, in the sense that it pretends to be in exclusive possession of knowledge that will make life better for all of Europe.

The EU built itself as a machine, a structure so maze-like, so complex that “it must be valuable.” It resembles a super-computer. “We have trillions of pieces of vital data. We can plan the future more competently than any smaller entity. Leave the details to us.”

The EU is in all these ways a copy of the Deep Global State, of which it is a part. And now we come to the second section of this article, which I wrote first, as I was becoming aware of the result of the Brexit vote. Consider it background. The Deep State has, of course, not gone away. A much greater degree of dismantling is necessary. Technocracy itself has to be understood and defeated, because it is the leading edge of the new Globalist society…

The State is now involved in making people into robots and robots into people.

Behind all the technological promises and heraldry, this is what’s happening. People are already beginning to feel a fierce unshakable loyalty to machines—and a religious adoration. Up the road, robots will be wise counselors and guides and priests. This is civilization’s version of magic.

Technocracy and theocracy are the same op. They are ruled by fictional figures. And the knowledge supposedly possessed by these figures doesn’t exist.

Whether a person or a machine can dispense three pieces of information or three trillion, and whether the dispensing takes a year or a microsecond, the “authority” surrounding the dispensing is window dressing. It doesn’t have any inherent power. It’s laid on in the same way a movie set is built (or a green screen is deployed) to confer authenticity.

The following two statements are remarkably similar: the Pope is infallible; super-computer XYZ is infallible. The latter statement is a modern substitution for the former. It wouldn’t be a great surprise, at some point, to witness the election of a Pope that is a computer. The College of Cardinals might discuss whether to present him as a robot wearing the official costume of office. They might even decide this robot should ride in the Bubble Mobile with its protections, to avoid damage. Vatican technicians would assure the Pope uttered, from time to time, humanitarian messages in a credibly human voice.

On the other side of the op, as humans are fitted into tighter slots in the New Planetary Order, they would, more and more, resemble machines in thought and action. Losing their individuality, through sacrifice for the greater good, they would naturally seek out signs and signals of what they no longer had—and they would find those human traits in robot-computers, which would be built with great care to deliver an imitation of life.

Sit a very young child down in front of a crude robot called a television set, and show her an animated cartoon of Cinderella dancing in the hall of a great palace, and the child experiences trance-like ecstasy. Why, up the road, wouldn’t a sufficiently “mechanized” adult find the same joy, viewing an animated hologram of a remarkably convincing robot that hands out ideological imperatives on the oneness of all creatures on Earth?

—On the subject of taking individuality from humans and placing it into robots:

“Every one of our androids is different. Our company believes in imbuing each of our ‘messengers’ with a unique set of characteristics. This isn’t a sales technique. We’re dedicated to the mission of diversity. Personality isn’t something to be buried under a surface of sameness and conformity. It should be front and center. After all, our robots are conscious.”

They aren’t, but who pauses to notice? Wave after wave of fictional propaganda is launched to make the case that machines are alive. The major target of the campaign is the educated class.

“It is now an established fact that evolution took place through higher and higher orders of information-processing functions. Indeed, the complexity of processing is the definition of consciousness.” Gibberish.

The Matrix Revealed

In this technological and pragmatic civilization, many humans already consider themselves, first and foremost, problem solvers. However, recognizing their skills are lacking, especially when it comes to personal issues, people are more than willing to surrender the job to machines. Computers will provide undeniable answers and advice. Of course, to make this system work, the problems and the people will have to be reduced down to manageable proportions—flattened, short-circuited, cartoon-ized. People will need to see themselves as biological machines with only a handful of basic needs. And some historian will one day write:

“Humans were operating on flawed self-destructive programs. The best of them realized this. And so, out of need and desperation, they invented machines that could guide them and work around those errors. This was the patch that was laid on, until we could precisely identify both the programs and the flaws, flush them out of the system, and install new software in the brain.”

This is the future.

Unless individuals, with the power they actually do have, reclaim what is theirs, and dump the whole ridiculous apparatus.

The EU—that machine—is one small part of the whole op.

It is a machine, whose purpose is turning humans into robots and robots into humans.

That’s the bottom line of highly centralized authority in the modern age.

Coda: warning: the BBC is reporting that the British Parliament must ratify the referendum result. And the UK withdrawal from the EU will take place “within two years.” It’s a withdrawal negotiated between the British government and the EU. So various conditions and side-deals could be slipped into the equation.

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.

We have an Attorney General with a New Age philosophy

We have an Attorney General with a New Age philosophy

Break out the beads and the rainbows

by Jon Rappoport

June 23, 2016

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

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch performed a boggling sermon on law enforcement. The Washington Times reports (6/21):

“Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Florida’s LGBT community that the ‘most effective’ weapon at America’s disposal against Islamic terrorism is ‘love.’”

“’To the LGBT community — we stand with you,’ President Obama’s attorney general said. ‘The good in this world far outweighs the evil. Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love.”

Lynch was born in 1959, so I guess she was too young to travel to Woodstock in the summer of 1969, but obviously, at some point, she caught the spirit of the New Age.

“We’re the Department of Justice, and we’re here to combat terrorism on our soil with love bombs. Pay attention, America. It works. Terrorists melt. They feel our collective vibe and they drop their weapons and take their fingers off the explosive detonators. They fall to their knees and weep.”

Apparently, New Age goo-goo prevents any untoward consequences from unlimited immigration as well. Standing firm with that Obama policy, Lynch has the vision to comprehend how, for example, border checkpoints loaded with the afore-mentioned love vibe will transform bad intentions into all-around good cheer and appreciation for a new start—even if drugs, guns, and terror attacks are on the minds of some “undocumented visitors” to the Homeland. It’s a new kind of shock and awe, related, perhaps, to the Law of Attraction. Positive thoughts draw in positive results.

Lynch is emerging as a star on the horizon.

Who knew?

Last we heard, she was declining to prosecute the notorious HSBC bank for international money laundering, thereby offering her protection to drug cartels. She opted for extracting a fine from HSBC—and their promise to behave in the future. Maybe, in retrospect, that was the launch of her kinder, gentler philosophy. “Give them a second chance, and they’ll see the light.”

Like her prophet-boss, The One, The Obama, Lynch attended Harvard Law School. I think it’s time we examined what they’re teaching up there in Cambridge. Clearly, they’ve got something going, they’re in a sensational groove, they can feel the underlying pulse of the Constitution, as it magically morphs into a modern litany on spreading joy and coming together and loving one another right now.

The Matrix Revealed

This was once a Republic, but now it’s a temple. Painted many colors, adorned with flowers and hand-written messages, its spires and towers rise to the sky, and all are welcomed.

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Lynch has got it. She’s tuned in. She can wave a scepter and transform a man with hate in his heart and Semtex in his vest into a lamb.

We’ve got to go with her. She’s tapped into something greater than mere law enforcement.

This is what we’ve all been waiting for.

If only she’d been there on the night of December 8, 1980, outside the Dakota, when John Lennon was walking under the archway, a few feet away from Mark David Chapman.

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.

Orlando shooter: deeper hidden ties to the FBI?

Orlando shooter: deeper hidden ties to the FBI?

by Jon Rappoport

June 13, 2016

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

“…Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, told the Times, ‘They’re [the FBI] manufacturing terrorism cases.’” (The New Yorker, June 10, 2016, “Do FBI Stings help fight against ISIS?” by Evan Osnos)

The website Cryptogon has pieced together some interesting facts, and a quite odd “coincidence.” I’m bolstering their work.

First of all, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, changed his name in 2006. As NBC News notes: “Records also show that he had filed a petition for a name change in 2006 from Omar Mir Seddique to Omar Mir Seddique Mateen.”

Why is that important? Why is his original last name, Seddique, also spelled Siddiqui, significant? Because of a previous terrorism case in Florida, in which the FBI informant’s name was Siddiqui. And because that previous case may have been one of those FBI prop-jobs, where the informant was used to falsely accuse a suspect of a terrorist act. The New Yorker (cited above) has details:

“This is not the first time that the F.B.I. has attracted criticism from national-security experts and civil-liberties groups for generating terrorism cases through sting operations and confidential informants. In ‘The Imam’s Curse,’ published in September, I reported on a Florida family that was accused of providing ‘material support’ to terrorists. In that case, a father, Hafiz Khan, and two of his sons were arrested. The charges against the sons were eventually dropped, but Hafiz Khan was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At Khan’s trial, his lawyer, Khurrum Wahid, questioned the reliability of the key [FBI] informant in the case, David Mahmood Siddiqui. Wahid accused Siddiqui, who’d had periods of unemployment, of lying to authorities because his work as a confidential informant was lucrative. For his role in the case, Siddiqui had received a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, plus expenses. But in a subsequent interview with the Associated Press, Siddiqui stood by his testimony and motives: ‘I did it for the love of my country, not for money.’”

The website Cryptogon, which pieced this whole story together, comments: “What are the odds that an FBI informant in a [previous] Florida terrorist case shares the same last name as the perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history—also in Florida—[Omar Mateen] a lone wolf cop poser with multiple acknowledged contacts with the FBI, who was formerly listed on the terrorist watch list and associated with a suicide bomber… while holding a valid security guard license?”

Indeed.

And in case you think Siddiqui is a common last name, here is a statement from Mooseroots:

“Siddiqui is an uncommon surname in the United States. When the United States Census was taken in 2000, there were about 4,994 individuals with the last name “Siddiqui,” ranking it number 6,281 for all surnames. Historically, the name has been most prevalent in the Southwest, though the name is actually most common in Hawaii. Siddiqui is least common in the southeastern states.”

If for some reason the name Siddiqui throws you off, suppose the last name was, let me make something up, Graposco? A few years ago, an FBI informant in Florida, Graposco, appeared to have falsely accused a man of terrorist acts—and in 2016, another Graposco, who changed that last name to something else, killed 50 people in a Florida nightclub shooting—after having been investigated twice by the FBI? Might that coincidence grab your attention?

Again—the 2016 Orlando shooter had extensive contact with the FBI in 2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him twice and dropped the investigations. The FBI used an informant in a previous Florida case, and that informant had the same last name as the Orlando shooter. It’s quite possible the previous informant was told to give a false statement which incriminated a man for terrorist acts.

You can say this is a coincidence. Maybe it is. But it seems more than odd. Are the two Siddiqui men connected?

Was the Orlando shooter involved in some kind of FBI plan to mount a terror op that was supposed to be stopped before it went ahead, but wasn’t? Was the Orlando shooter “helped” over the edge from having “radical ideas” to committing mass murder?

I could cite a number of precedents. Here is one I reported on in 2014:

There seems to be a rule: if a terror attack takes place and the FBI investigates it, things are never what they seem.

Federal attorney Andrew C McCarthy prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing case. A review of his book, Willful Blindness, states:

“For the first time, McCarthy intimately reveals the real story behind the FBI’s inability to stop the first World Trade Center bombing even though the bureau had an undercover informant in the operation—the jihadists’ supposed bombmaker.

“In the first sentence of his hard-hitting account, the author sums up the lawyerly—but staggeringly incomprehensive—reason why the FBI pulled its informant out of the terrorist group even as plans were coming to a head on a major attack:

“’Think of the liability!’

“The first rule for government attorneys in counterintelligence in the 1990s was, McCarthy tells us, ‘Avoid accountable failure.’ Thus, when the situation demanded action, the feds copped a CYA posture, the first refuge of the bureaucrat.”

That’s a titanic accusation, coming from a former federal prosecutor.

Yes, the FBI had an informant inside the group that was planning the 1993 WTC bombing that eventually, on February 26, killed 6 people and injured 1042.

His name is Emad Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer. Present whereabouts unknown. Yanking Salem out of the group planning the Bombing was a devastating criminal act on the part of the FBI.

But there is more to the story.

On October 28, 1993, Ralph Blumenthal wrote a piece about Emad Salem for the New York Times: “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast.” It began:

“Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer [Emad Salem] said after the blast.”

Continuing: “The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer [Emad] said.”

The FBI called the “plan” off, but left the planners to their own devices. No “harmless powder.” Instead, real explosives.

The Times article goes on: “The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers.”

This is a shockingly strong opening for an article in the NY Times. It focuses on the testimony of the informant; it seems to take his side.

Several years after reporter Blumenthal wrote the above piece, I spoke with him and expressed my amazement at the revelations about the FBI—and wondered whether the Times had continued to investigate the scandal.

Blumenthal wasn’t pleased, to say the least. He said I misunderstood the article.

I mentioned the fact that Emad Salem wasn’t called as a prosecution witness in the 1993 WTC Bombing trial.

Of course, why would the Dept. of Justice bring Salem to the stand? Would they want him to blame the FBI for abetting the Bombing?

Again, Blumenthal told me I “didn’t understand.” He became angry and that was the end of the conversation.

I remember thinking: letting the bomb plot go forward…what else do you need for a criminal prosecution of the FBI?

Here is an excerpt from one of those tapes Emad Salem made when he was secretly bugging his own FBI handlers. On this phone call, he talks to his Bureau friend John. Others have claimed this is an agent named John Anticev. The conversation is taking place at some point after the 1993 WTC Bombing. The main topic is Salem’s fees for services rendered as an informant. He apparently wants more money. He also wants to make sure the Bureau will pay him what they’ve agreed to. During the conversation, Salem suddenly talks about the bomb. His English is broken, but his meaning is clear enough. When he finishes, his Bureau handler John just moves on without directly responding.

Salem: “…we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!”

According to Salem, there was a bomb, it was built under FBI and “DA” supervision, Salem himself built it, and it exploded.

Questions remain. Did Salem literally mean he built the bomb? Or was he claiming he successfully convinced others to build it? As a provocative agent for the FBI, did Salem foment the whole idea of the WTC attack and entrap those who were eventually convicted of the Bombing? Without his presence, would they have planned and carried out the assault? Was the truck bomb set off under the North Tower the only weapon? Were there other bombs? If so, who planted them?

But the role of the FBI seems to be clear enough. They aided and abetted, and at the very least, permitted the 1993 attack on the Trade Towers.

power outside the matrix

What about Omar Mateen in 2016, in Orlando?

As the LA Times, reports, the FBI investigated him on two occasions (LA Times, June 13, “Orlando terror attack live updates…”):

“While working as a courthouse guard in 2013, Mateen made ‘inflammatory and contradictory’ statements to co-workers about having relatives in Al Qaeda, the radical Sunni terrorist group, [FBI Director] Comey said. Mateen also claimed to be a member of Hezbollah, Lebanon’s Shiite militia, and his remarks drew an 11-month FBI investigation, Comey said. Both groups oppose Islamic State.

“Comey said the FBI also briefly investigated Mateen in 2014 for allegedly watching videos by Al Qaeda propagandist Anwar Awlaki and attending the same mosque as an American who would later become a suicide bomber for Al Nusra Front in Syria — another Al Qaeda affiliate opposed to Islamic State.

“Both investigations were closed without charges.”

Did the FBI just investigate the Orlando shooter? Or did they in some way enlist him in an operation?

Is it merely a terrible mistake that enabled the shooter to work nine years for G4S, the world’s “biggest guarding company” and one of the biggest contractors to the DHS, as Bloomberg News states? Is it merely a terrible mistake that G4S was aware the FBI was investigating the shooter in 2013 and did nothing about it?

Or did some federal group intervene and tell all parties to leave the shooter alone and in place—because he was part of an operation?

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.

Is the CIA getting ready to dump the Clintons?

Is the CIA getting ready to dump the Clintons?

How many times are the dynamic duo allowed to wander off the reservation?

by Jon Rappoport

June 3, 2016

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

Mainstream press outlets are mounting a new brand of coverage on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They’re questioning her ability to win the nomination and/or the general election. All of a sudden, the done deal is not done.

What’s behind this switch?

Aside from fear of The Donald, there is the boiling Hillary email scandal. There is also the specter of further revelations about the syndicate known as the Clinton Foundation. That’s a big one. A very big one.

As I’ve previously reported, the sale of 20% of the uranium in the US to Putin—that’s right—involved donors to the Foundation—unreported donors—as well as the participation of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. Detailed by the NY Times, the scandal has lain there for several months like a poisoned meal, with the press afraid to touch it further.

Now, enter a financial analyst named Charles Ortel. Ortel made a name for himself by publishing his analysis of serious problems in General Electric’s financial reports (2008). On his website, he has begun taking apart the entire Clinton Foundation, brick by brick. Here is an explosive excerpt from his overview:

“In financial terms, the size of criminal activities directly involving the Clinton Foundation exceeds $2 billion—counting affiliated and indirect criminal activities, the size exceeds $50 billion. The geographic scope of these unprosecuted criminal activities touches all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and more than 100 foreign countries where Clinton Foundation entities operate or solicit donations.”

“Beginning late in 2008, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others expanded efforts to cover up illegal operating and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation since inception. Working ultimately with individuals inside the I.R.S. and elsewhere, these persons led efforts to ‘restructure’ the Clinton Foundation to make it appear that it had been legally constituted and validly operated in compliance with applicable laws, when this was certainly not the case.”

“Trustees and other persons have been engaged in an unprosecuted criminal conspiracy to operate the Clinton Foundation in the guise of a public charity, when it is, instead, an illegal money-laundering and influence peddling scheme.”

“In fact, the Clinton Foundation has engaged in widespread unauthorized activities, including illegal operations internationally and in the U.S., and illegal fundraising across state and national boundaries, using telephones, mail, and the internet.”

“Moreover, the Clinton Foundation has never validly been authorized by the I.R.S. to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than serving as an archival records repository and research facility in Little Rock, Arkansas.”

“Instead of concentrating upon its specifically-authorized tax-exempt purposes, trustees performed lax oversight and installed ineffective controls, creating conditions where Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others deliberately and illegally diverted substantial sums from the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.”

In light of Ortel’s analysis, to say the Clintons have wandered off the reservation would be a vast understatement.

So…how have they remained free of this tsunami of a scandal? Who has been protecting them?

Let us return to the period when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas—and a 1995 book titled Compromised, by Terry Reed (former CIA asset) and John Cummings (former Newsday reporter).

Buckle up.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up secret CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill he was still “their man” for the upcoming 1992 run for the Presidency.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. According to the authors, so was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together…I’m not here to threaten you [Bill]. But there have been mistakes. Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek [the US Presidency]. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset…Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this [CIA weapons-manufacturing] and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first Presidential campaign.

The Matrix Revealed

He was their boy, and they protected him, despite the fact that he had wandered off the reservation.

But now, it’s happening again. It appears Bill and his wife have taken their massive Foundation to new heights of careless, reckless, devil-may-care criminality.

Well, the Clintons are that way, aren’t they? They don’t just push the boundaries of what is legal and moral, they drive a huge tank through the boundaries and shout WHO CARES as they hurtle off to commit new and slimier deeds.

The question is, will the CIA still give this duo cover? Or will Agency insiders throw in the towel and leave them out in the cold?

Has that decision to abandon them already been made? Is that why the CIA Mockingbird press is starting to turn on Hillary?

Have she and Bill gone too far?

Is John Kerry lurching into his polished loafers and getting ready to step into the breach as the Democratic nominee for President?

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 rise of the meta-criminal

Is the NSA manipulating the stock market?

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Trevor Timm of the Electronic Freedom Frontier dug up a very interesting nugget. It was embedded in the heralded December 2013 White House task force report on spying and snooping.

Under Recommendations, #31, section 2, he found this:

“Governments should not use their offensive cyber capabilities to change the amounts held in financial accounts or otherwise manipulate financial systems.”

Timm quite rightly wondered: why were these warnings in the report?

Were the authors just anticipating a possible crime? Or were they reflecting the fact that the NSA had already been engaging in the crime?

If this was just a bit of anticipation, why leave it naked in the report? Why not say there was no current evidence the NSA had been manipulating financial systems?

Those systems would, of course, include the stock market, and all trading markets around the world.

Well, there is definite evidence of other NSA financial snooping. From Spiegel Online, “‘Follow the Money’: NSA Spies on International Payments,” 9/15/13:

“The National Security Agency (NSA) widely monitors international payments, banking and credit card transactions, according to documents seen by SPIEGEL.”

“The NSA’s Tracfin data bank also contained data from the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a network used by thousands of banks to send transaction information securely…the NSA spied on the organization on several levels, involving, among others, the [NSA] agency’s ‘tailored access operations’ division…”

The NSA’s “tailored access operations” division uses roughly 1000 hackers and analysts in its spying efforts.

The next step in all this spying would naturally involve penetrating trading markets and, using the deep data obtained, manipulate the markets to the advantage of the NSA and preferred clients.

The amount of money siphoned off in such an ongoing operation would be enormous.

“Looking over the shoulder” of Wall St. insiders would be child’s play for NSA.

Ditto for predicting political events that would temporarily drive markets down and provide golden opportunities for highly profitable short selling.

Like drug traffickers and other mobsters, the NSA could invest their ill-gotten gains in legitimate enterprises and reap additional rewards.

And if the Pentagon, under which the NSA is organized, requires heavy amounts of money for off-the-books black budget ops, what better place to go than their own NSA?

All in all, when you operate the biggest spying and data-gathering operation in the world, the opportunities abound. Yes, knowledge is power, when the distinctions between legal and illegal are brushed off like a few gnats on a summer day.

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.

Brad Thor’s novel, Black List, posits the existence of a monster corporation, ATS, which stands alongside the NSA in collecting information on every move we make. ATS’ intelligence-gathering capability is unmatched anywhere in the world.

On pages 117-118 of Black List, Thor makes a stunning inference that, on reflection, is as obvious as the fingers on your hand:

“For years ATS had been using its technological superiority to conduct massive insider trading. Since the early 1980s, the company had spied on anyone and everyone in the financial world. They listened in on phone calls, intercepted faxes, and evolved right along with the technology, hacking internal computer networks and e-mail accounts. They created mountains of ‘black dollars’ for themselves, which they washed through various programs they were running under secret contract, far from the prying eyes of financial regulators.

“Those black dollars were invested into hard assets around the world, as well as in the stock market, through sham, offshore corporations. They also funneled the money into reams of promising R&D projects, which eventually would be turned around and sold to the Pentagon or the CIA.

“In short, ATS had created its own license to print money and had assured itself a place beyond examination or reproach.”

In real life, with the NSA heading up the show, the outcome would be the same.

It would be as Thor describes it.

We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

It gives new meaning to “the rich get richer.”

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.

We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.

We are talking about the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

The information matrix can be tapped into and plumbed, and it can also be used to dispense choice clusters of data that end up constituting the media reality of painted pictures which, every day, show billions of people “what’s news.”

It’s likely that the probe Ron Paul was once pushing—audit the Federal Reserve—has already been done by those who control unlimited global surveillance. They already know far more than any Congressional investigation will uncover. If they know the deepest truths, they can use them to blackmail, manipulate, and control the Fed itself.

In this global-surveillance world, we need to ask new questions and think along different lines now.

For example, how long before the mortgage-derivative crisis hit did the Masters of Surveillance know, from spying on bank records, that insupportable debt was accumulating at a lethal pace? What did they do with that information?

When did they know that at least a trillion dollars was missing from Pentagon accounting books, as Donald Rumsfeld eventually admitted on September 10, 2001, and what did they do with that information?

When did they know the details of the Libor rate-fixing scandal? Press reports indicate that Barclays was trying to rig interest rates as early as January 2005.

Have they tracked, in detail, the men responsible for recruiting hired mercenaries and terrorists, who eventually wound up in Syria pretending to be an authentic rebel force?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford.

power outside the matrix

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.

No, we’re not in Kansas anymore. But wherever we’ve gone to, the NSA is already there, and they’ve been tapping in, taking out, and using untold bits of data to stage and profit from events of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Time, in that sense, has ballooned, expanded, turned inside out, exploded, and laid itself flat on a table, for close inspection by the eyes of Surveillance Central.

Understanding this, we need to analyze what is happening in the world with a new dimension of criminal reality-maker in mind.

The meta-criminal.

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.

Facebook, CIA, Hillary: off the books and into the Oval

Facebook, CIA, Hillary: off the books and into the Oval

by Jon Rappoport

May 12, 2016

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

Facebook is censoring pro-Trump posts.

Facebook, since its inception, has had CIA money-connections.

Once before, the CIA illegally supported a Clinton for President. Bill Clinton, in 1992. He was their man.

Now, another Clinton is running. She is the same kind of deep Globalist her husband is.

Are we seeing a repeat of history?

As with any probe where the players and their actions are purposely hidden, we’re dealing with degrees of probability—and in this case, the degree of probability is significant.

Let’s start at the top: Facebook is censoring pro-Trump posts.

Paul Watson, writing at Infowars:

“After it was revealed that Facebook is deliberately blocking conservative news sites from appearing in the social media giant’s ‘trending’ section, it now appears as though the company is also censoring pro-Donald Trump posts.”

“..one [Facebook] post was removed simply because it expressed support for Trump’s policy of a temporary halt on Muslim immigration due to concerns over ISIS attacks… Another user asserted that he had been slapped with a 30 day Facebook ban simply for posting the hashtag ‘#Trump2016’.”

“Last month it was also revealed that Facebook employees appear to believe that they should not remain impartial, but should instead take action to prevent Trump from becoming president.”

Let’s move on to the Facebook/CIA connection.

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who could fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

Now, with Facebook/CIA presenting an anti-Trump stance, which means a pro-Hillary stance, let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill he was still “their man” for the upcoming 1992 run for the Presidency.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

the matrix revealed

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning.

Does the same CIA plan apply now to Hillary Clinton?

Is one among many threads of the project the use of Facebook?

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.

Netflix House of Cards: politics without redemption

Netflix House of Cards: politics without redemption

Hail to the destroyers

Dark night of the soul

Politics=the pretense of Rescue From Above

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2016

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

“The gift of a good liar is making people believe you lack a talent for lying.” President Frank Underwood, House of Cards

This is a series worth watching. Season 4 has just been released.

The language of politics is the language of lying, and it’s hard to recall any other piece of modern fiction about politics that reveals this fact so forcefully and nakedly.

President Frank Underwood; his wife Claire; Will Conway, his opponent in the upcoming election; numerous other characters moving in and out of that orbit—they lie, and they lie all the time, and they especially lie when they profess humanitarian motives, when they express sympathy and caring, when they proclaim hope for a better future. The Good, in fact, is their front-and-center cover story. Whenever The Good is the subject (and when isn’t it?), they pretend to care, but they only and always pretend—because accumulating power is their only desire—and you see the double-faced charade on the screen again and again, until you accept the lying language as business as usual. As the way things are done.

The House of Cards writers are relentless about exposing how political language is used. They don’t back off. They don’t leave any loopholes.

President Frank Underwood is the chief faker.

At the end of season 4, he and his wife, Claire, have made up their minds that their potential exposure (past crimes) is too great to finesse: they must go on an all-out attack. As a grand diversion.

They will “make terror.” They will evoke terrorist high-panic in the American public, and then wage war against the terrorists. They’ll play both sides against the middle.

At last, they know what they must do, and they’re at peace with it. It’s the final answer. Up until now, they’ve only gone part of the way. That didn’t give them protection. So they’ll finish the job.

Their logic is predictable, given what politics is really all about. The only issue is: how far will they go? They have come to the conclusion: there is no limit.

The public, of course, cannot accept such an idea. The public is always fooled on that score. The public always wants to believe The Good is emanating from their own leaders. That is the public’s version of logic, and it too is predictable within a naive bubble of ultimate faith and hope.

House of Cards doesn’t bother exposing how the press aids and abets this faith. It focuses on the main players within the political establishment. In doing so, it teaches a lesson: those players can enlist sympathy, even as they commit one crime after another. Those key players have charm. They have intelligence. They have magnetic force. They are projections of “how to play the game.” They are determined not to lose. They refuse to accept the nets closing in around them. They don’t back down. They never give in to the urge to surrender. They never believe their own lies—they are, thus, much smarter than the public.

At the same time, the viewer sees how transparent these players are. They fall far short of being geniuses. In a half-sane world, they would have been banished to a desert island long ago. But this is not a half-sane world. The People want Hope. They’ll do anything to believe it’s available, from an external source.

Well, this is the external source: Frank and Claire Underwood. A rolled-up duo of implacable hatred. As Claire finally says: “I’m done appealing to the hearts of people; that doesn’t work; now I have to bring out the fear; build it; stoke it.” She isn’t whistling Dixie. In her position as the First Lady and Frank’s vice-presidential running mate, she can do something about it, and she intends to. The two of them will do it together.

House of Cards has nothing to do with gender politics in the usual sense. Claire’s star is rising. She is taking over the reins from her husband. Her coldness has come to equal, and even surpass, his. He, in decline, needs her to stay alive, to function. She is equal to the task.

The silent invisible character in House of Cards is the public, the population, with its unquenchable desire to believe, to hope, to wish—and to fall for the con.

In recent years, we’ve seen several Presidential candidates who haven’t followed the usual script. They haven’t played up the “rescue from above” tune. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Trump. Regardless of what you think of them, they’ve broken the mold.

They’ve begun to make the House of Cards paradigm of politics a bit shaky.

But back to RESCUE FROM ABOVE…

Chicago: are jobs and money better than poverty and protests?

As protestors shut down the Trump rally in Chicago, the divide and conquer op in America reaches a new level.

And where in all this is Obama’s promise of Hope and Change? Nowhere.

Jobs have been fleeing America for a long time now. It’s the Globalist “free trade” plan, and it’s made more poverty and more discontent, right on schedule.

It’s come to the point where many people don’t even want a fix, don’t even want a reversal. They only want to protest. They only want a change from despair to anger.

They want to be a permanent underclass dependent on the government (rescue from above), and at best they seek a new President who will make that dependence more comfortable—as if that were possible.

They no longer see jobs tied to money as a solution. It’s not acceptable to them.

If that is an organizing principle, if that brings people together, then you have…what? You have violence. You have destruction. You have a growing revolution with no aim to change things for the better. In that atmosphere, the only government capable of surviving is a government which promises more Something for Nothing.

And Something for Nothing always has conditions. They add up to greater top-down control, “on behalf of the people.”

“We will give you more. In return, do what we tell you to do. We care. We know what’s best. We work for you. We feel your pain.”

That’s the current sales pitch, of course, but it will rise to new heights.

The one candidate who exemplifies it is Bernie Sanders, who, in his lifetime in Congress, has accomplished virtually nothing.

The subliminal message coming out of Bernie is: “All business is bad. All capitalism is bad. All free enterprise is bad and unfair. Adults are unfair to children. The problem can be solved by government.” Rescue from above.

How that works is a mystery, because it doesn’t work. It never has.

The stark reality is: government doesn’t create jobs over the long-term. Unless you want the USSR. Then everyone has a job. A bad one. Bad job, bad pay, mediocre mindset. No one may rise higher than his neighbor. To do so would be offensive.

In a country like America, you could sell that program as a worker’s utopia for about six months. Until the naïve realized it was very much like living in a slave camp with a cell phone and Facebook.

If I were Bernie Sanders, this is what I would say: “Here is my plan. Here is my rescue from above. Every person in American over the age of 17 who doesn’t make $35,000 a year will get a government check to make sure they do make $35,000 a year. Anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year is a thief and a crook and a capitalist. So whatever they make in excess of 50K will be taken away from them. In addition, every child in America can attend college, regardless of grades or background, for six years. No charge. Every child will get a college diploma, even if they don’t attend classes. For every protest you attend while at college, you’ll receive half an ounce of prime weed. If you hold a Kill Capitalism or I Don’t Need no Stinkin’ Job sign at eight rallies, you’ll receive a virtual reality headset.”

On the basis of that statement, I would expect Bernie rallies to draw upwards of 100,000 people.

Forget socialism. We’re past that. Nobody works. Bring on full-bore automation in every company in America.

Schools have one and only one goal: remove personal ambition from every mind.

“Yeah, I remember it like yesterday, even though it was so long ago, my child. That night in Chicago was the beginning of the real revolution. We started to realize what we really wanted. Nothing. Everything. Know what I mean? We were crazy then. We had to be. That night is why you have this great 150-foot square apartment in an affluent section of town, and the virtual reality and the free drugs and the sleep machine and the protest schools and the no-classes and no teachers…”

“That night is why you have the 250 vaccines in you and the hospital complex that takes up half the Southwest, where you go every year to get your updated psychiatric diagnosis and the gold badge you proudly wear that tells everybody what condition you have, so you all have something to talk about…”

All is well.

Rescue from above is the grand pretense and the grand op.

It can be packaged and sold in so many ways.

exit from the matrix

After 30 years of working as a reporter and digging into scandals which were falsely sold on the “rescue” basis, I gave a talk at a conference in California, and I presented my alternative. I said:

“I’m selling you to you.”

That’s my pitch.

I’m selling what you are, underneath it all, and what you can be, and these are things only you know. I can point to them.

But I can’t and won’t try to pile up what you should think and what you should decide and what you should do.

You have two great capacities: the ability to reason and analyze; and the infinite ability to imagine.

Imagination takes you into your own future and opens it up without limit. Then you can decide how you want to invent it.

Imagination is everything that doesn’t already exist.

Imagination demolishes all versions of waiting around for rescue from above. Imagination is the fire. The great adventure.

Imagination is you inventing what was previously unknown.

Imagination is independence.

Every person has imagination and, therefore, the potential for independence.

If “politics” has anywhere to go, that’s where.

That’s where the lying and the manipulation and the crimes can stop.

With the individual.

When the illusion of rescue is replaced by imagination and creative fire, then all things are possible…

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.