Politicians’ class-privilege: armed security

A winding circus tour through the ever-popular gun issue

Logic, polemic, non-sequiturs, popcorn, and burning-ass syndrome

If you can’t have guns, you can have mind control

Who is the ‘we’ in ‘we have to stop killing each other’

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” (William Burroughs, Grand Street no. 37, 1992)

Let me state, for the record, that I’m not in favor of selling guns at 7-Elevens or from street vending machines. There are, however, a few nagging questions about gun ownership I want to scratch, claw, and flagellate, so follow along as I try to take apart a weird, wacky, and wonderful subject.

We’ve all heard this one: if a politician wants to disarm the public, he should give up his own security protection. See how he likes it.

What is it about politicians that gives them a special right to have armed professionals stalk their perimeter and mumble into their collars?

I can think of two reasons. One, pols are important. We need them. We need them more than we need, say, electricians or plumbers or pizza delivery boys or dentists.

I fail to admire the class distinction. And that’s putting it generously. In the overwhelming number of cases, the wounding or killing of a politician would result in another pol, very much like him, moving in to take his place. The new entry would vote along party lines, at the instruction of his superiors. He would commit the same unconscionable actions. He would display the same level of incompetence. Or, if you believe politicians are honorable and even insightful, then surely a pol who is taken out of action could be replaced by another who is endowed with the same admirable qualities.

The second reason: top-tier politicians are very visible. They’re widely known. They’re celebrities. As such, they attract crazies. Therefore, they need security.

Ah, but wait. It starts to get tricky here. What about famous actors and athletes? They, too, have many fans, a small percentage of whom are nuts. These private-sector celebs hire their own guards. They can afford to.

But…many politicians don’t have that kind of money. Therefore, they need government to pay for the hired guns, who are other government employees.

So follow this…if money, no-money is the only distinction here, then rich politicians should certainly pay for their own private guards.

In which case, government regulations should be issued that spell out the level of wealth, the demarcation line. A politician who has at least X assets to his name must hire his own protection. Anything below that and he can avail himself of government help. That makes sense, or am I missing something?

I’d like to see John Heinz Kerry sweep into town with his own private muscle. You know, guys with heavy auto-weapons held across their black undershirts. Maybe a band, too, blasting a Springsteen cover. Just for show. Hillary, on the other hand, could go with an all-girl phalanx of Amazons packing sawed offs. With a few drones overhead. I suspect the President has enough cash stashed away by now to afford his own security. He could go straight Sinaloa, or maybe he’d do a mix of cartel soldiers and Syrian “moderate rebels.”

Of course, there’s always the argument that politicians are under extraordinary threat from foreign enemies, and that’s why they require the kind of government protection plain citizens don’t need. As a counter to that, I would simply offer the gun-violence statistics of America. For some esoteric reason, it turns out that people no one has ever heard of are most likely to become shooting victims.

In any case, no one is supposed to protect himself. That’s for sure. It would be vile, ugly. We expect criminals to shoot people. We’re ready for that. But if a law-biding citizen suddenly fires a weapon, in order, for example, to stay alive, it’s an offense to our sensibilities. It looks bad. He could have been shooting bullets for the wrong reason, and even though he wasn’t, the mere suggestion of it is enough to disturb us. We’ve been “triggered,” psychologically. We are the victims. And we must demand justice.

Sidebar: Maybe celebrity actors should have Secret Service protection. Turn the tables. Just for fun, award the actor with the highest grossing film of the year Secret Service minders. Throw in a few Seals and Deltas for good measure. Army Rangers live in a house next to his house. Marines do double shifts at the local Whole Foods. A bad review of his next movie, and a CIA media specialist places a call to the newspaper’s publisher.

Here’s something that would highlight a point. Choose one of the adamant reporters or columnists who want to disarm all private citizens everywhere, and set him up in a small apartment in a high-crime area. Let him test the response time of the local police. Just a random idea.

Sidebar: How about this? The President and his cabinet, armed to the teeth, guard LeBron James night and day.

I know I’m wandering off-subject a bit, but possibilities are blooming. For example, instead of an actual (phony) Presidency, make the Office into a blockbuster movie, and in the movie the commander-in-chief has a bevy of film tough guys at his beck and call. Jason Statham, Stallone, The Arnold. Now you can have assassination attempts, attacks on the White House, bombs exploding, and car chases. Show some serious action. It’s what the people want.

Or in real life, just go straight for the throat. Declare a national state of emergency, forbid anyone from going outside after 6pm, require all Americans, at the age of 18, to serve seven years in militarized police forces across the land. Do ongoing house to house searches, remove all guns. Close gun shops. Shut down weapons manufacturers. Only the cops and the military have guns. Well, the criminals do, too, but we need them to justify the existence of the expanded national police.

So at the age of ten, all boys and girls take a special exam, and those who qualify are shunted into a government school to train as future thieves and killers. That works.

Keep the borders open. It maintains a roiling pot.

The White House? Transfer it to a one-bedroom apartment on the South Side of Chicago. No security.

I’m feeling my way along here, but I believe I’m starting to sketch in a reasonable picture of the next phase of America.

We have to get rid of our abstract ideals. We need to give more people real experience on the ground.

In fact, reality TV shows are in order. 24/7 video tracking. 18 fully armed libertarians move to Detroit. 18 devoted liberals without weapons move to Ferguson. 18 gang members from South Central move to Chevy Chase. Mix and match. Dream up new combinations. 200 federally backed ISIS members take up residence in Atlanta. Maybe 50 Crips members go to work for the NRA. As we know, it’s the separation of different groups that’s destroying America. Take a thousand college students who are screeching about Privilege and move them from their lovely privileged campuses to buildings on the mean streets of Baltimore. After six months, gather them all in a hall and leave one gun on the podium and see what happens. Might be interesting.

Now we come to the cure for all gun violence: psychiatry. The nation’s chief expert on the subject, Barack Obama, decided in the wake of Sandy Hook he would command the creation of a string of mental-health clinics across the land. Catch the lunatics early and treat them before they open fire on innocent citizens. This is its own reality show, because, you see, the very drugs often prescribed to patients (SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) push some of them into committing violence (suicide, homicide). More drugs equal more shootings—and no one knows where and when the next patient will go off. It’s a Powerball lottery. Or you could call it a Trojan Horse. I see it as a Johnny Appleseed operation. Sprinkle the drugs throughout society and watch madness and violence bloom.

Tell me psychiatry as a cure for gun violence is any less bizarre than Crips going to work for the NRA or sending college students to live in a high-crime area.

The most bizarre thing of all is trying to ban law-biding citizens from defending themselves.

When you actually think about it.

“Sir, we realize you aren’t going to go out and shoot someone. Yes. We know you’ll only fire your weapon if someone tries to harm you. Right. But you see, not all people are like you. And those people ruin things for everybody. It’s like the classroom where two or three bad apples talk out of turn and disrupt learning. Sometimes the teacher has to say, ‘The next student who interrupts me, and I’ll make the whole class stay after school.’ Well, that’s what’s happening with guns. Now, if you don’t give us yours, you have symptoms of Oppositional Defiance Disorder and ADHD, you’re mentally ill, and mentally ill people can’t own guns. It’s logical.”

Speaking of logical and bizarre, try this one on for size:

“I’m well aware that this [guns] is a hot political subject. And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in. [Ahem, a role like President, or President, or possibly even President.] But I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people – and it’s, that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” (Hillary Clinton, CNN town hall meeting, June 17, 2014)

Who knew that gun ownership was more than just an ordinary crime? It’s also a “viewpoint crime.” It’s a form of terrorism. People speaking out in favor of private citizens owning guns are their own ISIS. What a revelation.

Hmm. Let me think about this for a minute.

Wow.

I wasn’t going to vote for Hillary…but dammit. Suddenly…

She’s innovative. She’s cutting edge. She can see that exercising 1st Amendment rights impairs a proper understanding of the 2nd Amendment. She’s a dot connector.

Hell, as our next President…

Yes, I can see she should probably have all the protection she needs. Secret Service, NSA, the Armed Forces, the CIA, the FBI, and so on. Of course, she wants, in turn, to protect all women (her sisters). What better way than by disarming them, so when men break into their houses, they don’t confuse their pretty little heads and fire a weapon and hit themselves in the leg.

Politicians are special people, after all. They aren’t like the rest of us.

They need big-time security. I knew if I kept writing long enough, I’d get to the truth.

—Sidebar: we’re dealing with a case of national schizophrenia. There are people out there who are very comfortable with the police and the military having all the guns. These same people criticize the government for spying on everybody, for going to war at the drop of a hat, for launching drone strikes on a regular basis, for torturing untried terror suspects, for arranging elaborate stings that trap low-level criminals and turn them into terrorists, for weaponizing police forces with military equipment beyond any reasonable need, for cooking and corrupting evidence in criminal prosecutions, for enabling mega-corporations who pillage and plunder in foreign lands, for making numerous false arrests, for killing innocent suspects.

But this kind of government should have all the guns. That would be fine. There is no hint of contradiction here. All would be well. As the years and the decades pass, government would certainly not trample (further) on the freedom of its own citizens. To imagine such a thing would be a gross symptom of paranoia.

Don’t worry, be happy. Somebody just won the billion-dollar Powerball.


power outside the matrix

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


As George Carlin wrote about fairy tales, “Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man — living in the sky — who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!”

If you see any parallel between that formulation and government, you’re ill. You’re misguided. You need to enroll in the special schizophrenia curriculum, where you’ll learn how to compartmentalize. “The government performs the following terrible actions. But the government loves you. Therefore, let it take all the guns.”

No unfortunate consequence could possibly come to pass.

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.

Official science: the grand illusion

Official science: the grand illusion

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2016

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

“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 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)

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 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 purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term 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 and/or not proven to cause human illness (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 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.


power outside the matrix


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 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, this is taken 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.

We are now living in a society where an incurable itch to meddle everywhere and at all times is the standard.

A new definition of Reality emerges: “that which needs to be monitored and surveilled.”

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.

If Capitalism is dead, this is why

If Capitalism is dead, this is why

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2016

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

“An era of corruption is built for those who lead corrupt lives. They revel in the era. They belong. They are home. They don’t care what you call the prevailing system, they’ll find their way, because they know the unspoken rules and how things actually work. Naïve idealists and academic hair-splitters? The corrupt eat them for breakfast.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The recent acceleration of attacks on capitalism leaves no ground un-scorched. Whatever capitalism is, it’s all bad. It needs to be banned. A wiser and saner alternative must be found—and naturally that alternative will be handed down from Above, where wondrous altruists in government can point us toward the Promised Land.

For the sake of humanity, they will assume the reins of power. They’ll organize businesses and companies and corporations under the umbrella of government, and all will be well.

Forget the fact that they cooperate and collude and conspire and commit crimes with their erstwhile corporate and banking partners. That’s a minor footnote.

Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

Boiling it down further: you start a company; you own the company; you make a product and you sell it at a price you determine. People buy the product if they choose to.

This arrangement is not evil. You could turn it into a criminal enterprise, if you wanted to. For example, you could make a product that is poison, advertise it as medicine, and pay off those who might expose your ruse. But in that case, you’ve perverted the primary capitalist arrangement.

You would be prosecuted, if discovered. Well, you would be, if law-enforcement personnel were honest. If they weren’t, you could get away with murder.

Now, suppose there are 10,000 companies who do get away with murder. Suppose, to take things further, there are governments who collude with some of these companies and go to war, against other nations, so the companies can obtain access to raw materials they want, in order to manufacture their products.

Is this conspiracy an intrinsic part of capitalism? Is it? Or is it a perversion of the basic capitalist arrangement?

Some would argue that capitalism naturally breeds this perversion, and therefore it is an evil system. But that argument has a flaw. In order to propose it, you need to assume there are a fairly large number of people, in significant positions, who will commit crimes and enable crimes, on an ongoing basis.

And if so, those criminals will pervert any economic system in which they participate. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, State Corporatism, and so on. Therefore, any economic system will turn out to be evil.

Those “idealists” who rail against capitalism are, at best, railing against criminals. They tend to ignore the fact that law-enforcement personnel fail to punish criminals. This is, and always was, the problem.

Capitalism isn’t the problem.

For example, in the early days of the American Republic, state legislatures, fearing the power of corporations, adopted stringent rules: every corporation doing business in a state had to be charted by the legislature; and any corporation doing harm to the public would have its charter yanked. It would be kicked out of the state.

But this state system was eventually swallowed up by corrupt legislators, judges, and corporate criminals.

Do you really want to believe that these states, if they adopted socialism, would have eliminated those criminals?

I’m not even bothering to make the argument that capitalism fosters greater achievement and freedom than socialism. I’m just talking about criminals.

A society in which a large number of people were awake, intelligent, and courageous would directly face the question: what do we do about criminals? How do we ferret them out, how do we prosecute them, how do we keep them from being protected, how do we keep them from gaining too much power?

Abject failure in that regard guarantees the corruption of any political and economic system. Only addled fools would assume that “a more just system” would correct the underlying problem.

When I say “criminal,” in this context, I’m talking about Wall Street thieves; makers of harmful products; bureaucrats who protect harmful products and their producers; legislators who bring pork to their districts; bankers who invent money out of thin air; corporate monopolists who crush their competition; corporate leaders who promote, through their government cronies, wars and invasions; academics and researchers who lie about science in order to elevate corporate profits; egregious polluters; government/corporate partners who destroy jobs at home and set up shop in foreign lands, where slaves work in unconscionable conditions; governments that expand the bloat of their work-forces for no good reason…and so forth and so on.

The levels and extent of corruption are extraordinary, yes. Because, over a very long period of time, criminals have been nurtured, protected, aided, and secretly declared immune from prosecution.

This is not capitalism. This is endemic corruption, and if you need an example from the annals of socialism, examine the old USSR.

It’s all too easy to say there is no solution and the human race is doomed. I’ve known many such critics, and they all exhibit a grim passivity coated with self-serving cynicism. Under cover of “knowing the score,” they’re making excuses for their own misery.

The answer lies in raising children who are honest; who are smart; who are genuinely educated; who are beyond the fatal flaw of buying into the latest flimsy fly-by-night idiot’s-delight idealism; who will stand up for their principles; who believe in individual power and responsibility; who don’t see the benefit of turning into chronic low-level liars; who are liberated from whining and moaning; who refuse to go along with the crowd; who mix and mingle with enough life-as-it-is to avoid becoming androids and robots; who can spot con artists and shuck-and-jive altruists at a thousand yards; who see what criminals at all levels are doing to those around them; who have the imagination to envision a different world…

And that takes a certain kind of parent.

That is not the responsibility of the State. It doesn’t take a village. It doesn’t take a politician with “a better answer.” It doesn’t take paralyzing fear. Or surrender. Or fairy tales and rainbows.

It takes individuals. Each one unique. Each one alive and awake. Each one rejecting the decaying nature of criminals. Criminals in the street, criminals in the halls of government, criminals in the boardrooms.

No excuses. No rationalizations.


the matrix revealed


Claim what I’m suggesting is impossible, if you want to. Say it can’t be done. But time is long, civilizations and societies come and go, and after the last corrupt society falls there is always another chance.

History is full of events that never could have happened, but did. If overarching power were always an irresistible force, we would not be where we are now. We would all be gibbering biological machines, unable to even read or comprehend a single cogent thought.

No moment or period of time is All One Thing. The juvenile mind cannot understand this. It seeks the simplest characterization. It demands supreme heaven or final hell. But freedom hasn’t been defeated.

The freedom-impulse is still here. Not because it drips and slides down from mass consciousness, but because individuals still exist.

Perhaps you are one of those.

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.

Congressional lunatics on the march

How to spend $1 trillion in the dark

Congressional lunatics on the march

Rand Paul: nobody read the $1.1 trillion bill before passing it

The House of Shadows

by Jon Rappoport

December 23, 2015

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

“Congressman, the American people are in an uproar. This is serious. I can’t begin to imagine what penalties you’re going to face. Possibly your ice cream after supper will be cancelled.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Congress just passed a $1.1 trillion budget bill. Here, from The Hill (“Paul: Nobody read the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill”), is what Senator Rand Paul has to say about it:

“It was over a trillion dollars, it [the bill] was all lumped together, 2,242 pages, nobody read it, so frankly my biggest complaint is that I have no idea what kind of things they stuck in the bill…We were given it yesterday or the day before the bill came forward, and so this is not a way to run government. It’s a part of the reason why government is broke.”

Paul went to say that no Democrat or Republican in the House or Senate read the bill before voting on it.

But of course the US federal government is not out of control. Perish the thought. The elected representatives are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: spend money. It doesn’t matter where the money goes or how much of it there it is. These are minor points.

Borrow the money, tax the population in order to get it, invent it out of nothing—whatever it takes.

There is an obvious corollary here, which nobody talks about: if the crazed Congress can just flip a trillion bucks as if it were spare change, what guarantee is there that the money will go to the places where it’s designated?

You might recall that, in 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the Pentagon was unable to account for $2.3 trillion of its budget:

“The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible…”

Consider that possibly $2 trillion has been spent, since 1966, on the war on poverty. Much of this money was earmarked to improve the standard of living in inner cities. How does that appear to have worked out? I find no evidence that the federal government has ever done a comprehensive investigation of where the money actually went or how it was used.

But don’t worry. Things are under control.

Want to contemplate the enormous sums the government has forked out in foreign aid over the past 30 years? Care to look for a detailed report on where all that money actually went and how it was used? Want to factor in all wars the US has fought during that period, and try to track those funds? Good luck.

If you couldn’t quite balance your yearly books and ended up with a hundred dollars you couldn’t account for, nobody would be upset. But if in the course of the past 30 years, you couldn’t show where 10 or 15 trillion dollars went, I assure you people wouldn’t just suspect you of incompetence. No. They’d be smelling grand, grand theft. And RICO crimes. Why wouldn’t they?

How about the recent agreements at the international climate summit in Paris? Richer nations have pledged billions to poorer nations as a kind of reparation “for destroying their way of life.” We’ll leave the merit of that idea for another time and another discussion, but exactly where will all this money go? Into whose bank accounts, over the next 20 years? Who are the signatories on those accounts?

Remember the federal bailout of 2008, in the wake of the financial meltdown? Here is a quote from Forbes (“The Fed’s $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-Reported”, 9/20/11):

“The media’s inscrutable brush-off of the Government Accounting Office’s recently released [superficial] audit of the Federal Reserve has raised many questions about the Fed’s goings-on since the financial crisis began in 2008… The findings verify that over $16 trillion was allocated to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for ‘financial assistance’ during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis… However, the audit’s findings were almost completely overlooked, even with a number as high as $16 trillion staring all of us in the face.”

Sixteen trillion dollars. No problem. Just another exercise in spending, and that’s what the government does.

Show me the full and final and very specific accounting of what those bailed-out banks and corporations did with the $16 trillion. Just joking.

When people talk about massive black-budget operations taking place out of public view, others “refute” the possibility by asserting that government funds are closely monitored. Sure they are. And ants are piloting space ships to the edge of the space-time continuum.

Money is actually funny money, at the level of government and the Federal Reserve. Numbers concocted out of the void. In Location A, twelve seconds ago, there was nothing. Now there are 100 billion dollars. Easy as pie. Stage magic.

The sheer fakery of US Senators and Representatives voting for a bill that spurts a trillion dollars out of a spigot is matched and exceeded by the fakery of inventing the 1 trillion.

For this reason, and in the service of honesty, I recommend that some Senator or Representative stand up on the floor of his august chamber and say the following:

“Look, we don’t even know what the federal debt is. Face it. It could be anymore between 13 trillion and 210 trillion. Let’s admit we don’t care. Nor do we care how big a budget we vote for every year. And I think you’ll all agree, because the evidence is clear, we don’t care where we allocate the money. Goodness knows, nobody reads the budget bills. Are you catching my drift? Why do we spend time and energy arguing over the budget? Because we want to impart the impression that there’s a significant difference between our two political parties. However, there are easy and effortless ways to achieve this. For one week, every year, we could designate a time and place for budget debate. Three or four brain-addled representatives from each party would read opposing scripted arguments. And then we’re done. We all convene and vote in favor of the budget bill, as we always do. And we go home early for vacation. No fuss, no muss. Do you think anyone would object or take notice? I don’t…”

Oh wait. This is pretty much what’s happening now.

Given the predominance of funny money, in the not-too-distant future you’re going to be hearing serious people making serious arguments for basic government “citizen-control.”

The story-line will go something like this:

“If people want to keep receiving federal money, they have to conform to certain standards of behavior, speech, and thought. It’s a simple give and take.”

New sets of rules and regulations will apply to the population, in return for what is granted to them.

“Citizen Jones, I have your behavioral dossier in front of me. I want to discuss it with you. You’ve made a number of statements and committed a number of actions which could result in expulsion from the federal universal welfare plan. Do you realize what we’re giving you every month? Do you really think it’s wise to bite the hand that feeds you?”

“What are you talking about? That time I rode my Department of Commerce bike without a helmet?”

“No. I’m talking about the time you uttered a forbidden slur while you were watching a rerun of Friends.”

There is a principle that applies to funny money. It flows like water and it eventually finds its way into all the cracks. It’s used to promote compliance and obedience.

And then it stops being funny.

If you think this is an exaggeration, read up on the recent Australian law that makes childhood vaccinations mandatory. Families who refuse to have their children jabbed will be cut off from certain federal welfare programs. No jab, no funny money.

“Mr. Daddy and Mrs. Mommy, we invented a pile of money to help you survive. Did you think we’d never ask for a piece of your body, mind, and soul in return? That day has come. We’re here to collect. We own you. That was always the idea. Get it?”

How about banks who suddenly foreclose on homeowners who didn’t have a magnifying glass big enough to read the fine print in their mortgage contracts?

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we invented money so we could give you a home. Now we’re back to shut you down. Nothing’s forever. Get used to it.”

Consider thousands of colleges that exist on federal funds. Some professor at one of these “higher institutions” suddenly gets it in his head to make a corrosive and devastating critique of the government. Do you suppose the higher-ups at the college start quaking in their boots, as they envision possible consequences?

“Find a way to close out that crazy professor. Right away. What kind of racket does he think we’re running here? One of those ‘free-speech’ campuses? Show him we mean business. His salary is being paid with government funny money. Educate him. Make him see the light. Or toss him out on the street.”

Possibly you’ve heard of something called the military industrial complex. Government does some serious money-out-of-thin-air inventing to keep those defense corporations going. How can this Niagara of cash be justified without wars to fight?

“Of course we’re going to attack…what’s the name of that country again? Doesn’t matter. Get planes in the air. Put boots on the ground. How would it look if we kept doling out trillions of dollars for peace? Are you kidding?”

This is the sort of thing that’s happening whenever our august federal legislators get together and rubber-stamp a budget bill. They’re as dumb as wood, as corrupt as bankers, as venal as the mafia, as crazy as naked drunks running down the street in the rain.


The Matrix Revealed


The 1976 film, All the President’s Men, invoked the phrase, “Follow the money.” Thereafter, it became a popular guideline for investigative reporters. On one level it works, yes. But when you can’t follow the money, when nobody can, when you’re looking at governments who are inventing money all the time making deals with each other based on loans, debts, interest, default, and refinance, then you know you’re in The Deep. This is cosmic money. It begins as a blip in darkness, rises to a blinding glare, explodes, dies out, and then appears again in another quadrant of space. It makes quantum leaps and it entangles untold trillions and septillions and vigintillions.

It’s whatever-money. Whatever you need, however you need it, however you want to hide it.

Historically, bankers figured out the game. They didn’t have to be very smart. They just had to keep abstracting the idea of money, until it became a shadow.

Then they took up residence in the shadows.

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.

Hello, world: is your government driving you crazy?

Politics, the god Hermes, and the big joke

Suppose, against all odds, enlightenment is funny and funny works like magic because it is magic

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: If, as you read this article, you think I’m saying ‘don’t worry, be happy’ or ‘just laugh it off’ or ‘forget all the suffering in the world,’ you’re viewing it from the wrong angle. The 1968 riot at the Democratic National Convention was very serious, and it did nothing to shorten the war in Vietnam. It might have prolonged it. In this article, I’m talking about a basic psychological and spiritual inhibition that keeps people from a kind of mass reaction they believe is unthinkable—but a reaction that would change reality in a revolutionary fashion, if it came from their deepest core…

I could write a few thousand pages as a mere introduction—but I want to focus on one factor: what people project into their leaders.

Yes, I know, that sounds a bit odd. But stay with me. I’ll make it pay off.

For example, in the US, Republican voters and supporters project a huge amount of faith and energy into their Republican leaders. If you could see this, you would be watching a stunning “light show.” I’m talking about streamers and arrows and rays of energy.

And in this particular light show, there are messages: defund Planned Parenthood; cut off money for massive migration programs; stop Obamacare funding; don’t give money to the climate change payout program; stop bankrolling sanctuary cities.

That’s what these Republicans want from their leaders. That’s what they’re projecting with great insistence.

And this isn’t some kind of misplaced crazy light show, because guess what? Republicans control the US House of Representatives by a wide margin. Republicans: 246. Democrats: 188.

So when a massive federal spending bill ($1.1 trillion) comes up for a vote, as it just has, Republican Congress members can call the shots. They can respond to all those light rays being projected at them by their supporters all over the land. They can do it in a second. No problem. They can make their people happy. They can carry out their people’s wishes.

But…they didn’t. In fact, they just voted to fund all those programs I just mentioned. They pulled a vast switch. That’s right. That would be like all those Stars Wars characters, with their light sabers, suddenly projecting them through the movie screen right back at their adoring audience in the theater and burning them. What a message that would be.

Has your government ever done something like this in your country? I bet they have.

When it happens, the people, the voters, the supporters, who were sure their leaders would respond to them…well, to say they’re shocked would be a vast understatement.

However, scanning the newspapers and news broadcasts in America today, so far I find no reports of massive Republican demonstrations in the streets. Millions marching on Washington DC? Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? Four? Two?

One guy in a Star Wars costume with a light saber trying to stop traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue?

Try to imagine the amount of energy and faith Republicans in America have been expending and projecting at their leaders—with this Big Switch as the result.

And then consider this: the Republicans in the US House of Representatives—many of them—never intended to go to war over this massive budget bill. It was never in the cards. They wear special shields, and the shields ward off all the projected rays coming at them from their faithful flock.

It’s not just the Republicans, in case you think I’m taking sides. What about the huge Democratic support for the invasion of Iraq under George W Bush? Did you see a few million Democrats in the streets right after the nearly unanimous Congressional vote to launch the planes and send the troops?

Wherever you live in the world, I’m sure you’ve seen this sort of thing. “Vote for Joe. He’ll do this and that.” Joe wins, and then doesn’t do either this or that. He was never going to. He was always wearing one of those shields that protected him from what his supporters were projecting at him.

This is called a joke.

That’s right. It may be a painful, repellent, nasty, killer joke with horrendous consequences, but it’s a joke.

The structure that is supposed to yield up “what the people want” is actually another structure whose features are unreported.

And the joke is, the people fall for it. Not just once, but over and over, on and on, year after year, decade after decade. It doesn’t matter what the evidence says. They fall for it.

And then, as another punchline, when some of those people stop falling for it and defect from the structure, they’re called strange and odd and weird and possibly dangerous.

“Don’t you get it, you strange person? You’re in a stage play. And your role involves going along with the charade. The real machinations are occurring behind the stage, and they’re not part of the play at all, but we don’t think about that. We keep projecting our energy and desires and faith into our purported leaders. Haven’t you read the script? The play falls apart if we don’t do that. It makes no sense if we don’t do that. A leader isn’t a leader if he doesn’t have adoring supporters who project their hopes and fears and desires and energy into him. That’s the way it works. So get with it.”

Now, possibly you think, when I talk about “projecting energy,” this is just a metaphor. I have news. It isn’t. This is as real as waves breaking on a beach. It’s happening all the time. People are doing it. They don’t want to stop doing it. It’s a habit that, for them, is harder to break than a heroin addiction.

One way or another, everybody is projecting energy. Of course, if they know that, they can decide where and how. They can, as individuals, create those projections in connection with achieving their deepest desires and dreams. In which case, there is a very good chance this would be a better world.

On the other hand, if they remain in the stage play and accept their assigned roles, they get jokes. And they’re the target of those massive jokes. And they don’t laugh. Generally, they go into a state of psychic paralysis, because they can’t figure out what just happened.

They might consult the news to find answers. That’s another joke. In the case of the $1.1 trillion budget bill that just passed the House in the US, they would encounter this: well, you see, the Republicans were trying to show support for their new Speaker, Paul Ryan, who is in favor of the bill, and if they didn’t vote for the bill the federal government would have to shut down because it would have no money for operational expenses, and the bill does allow the US to export crude oil, which is very important.

These are the added punchlines, which ought to send any sane person rolling on the floor with laughter.

You can laugh or cry, it’s your choice. But keep in mind that this joke really belongs to the people who launch it, and they don’t care which way you respond. To them, it’s still hilarious. And when they think about the millions of people who still vote for them, they put in a call for medical staff, because they’re going to laugh so hard they might need oxygen.

Sure, they leave Washington for a while, to “spend time with their families over the holidays,” just in case there is some nasty pushback from loyal voters, but they’re having a very merry Xmas, in part because they’re still chuckling and chortling about what they just put over.

George Burns once said: “In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

In politics, the launching and projecting of the joke is handled by the politicians and the media. They work hand in hand to conceal the fact that it is a joke—which is what makes it so funny to all of them.

I can take this out much farther. Consensus reality, which is the lowest possible common denominator to which the planet can be reduced, in order to suck in the faith and projections of the largest number of people, is its own kind of joke. You can find such an awareness at least as far back as ancient Greece, in the person of Hermes, the trickster god.

Hermes, among his other duties, was the protector of wit. He was the upsetter of apple carts, the vast joker who, in his own way, if you read between the lines, was trying to show people they were living inside a continuum of the big con, the big hustle. He was, you could say, the grand defector. He moved among various realities. He knew the world was a badly written stage play that, on the heels of honest reviews, would have closed down after opening night.

Hermes’ powers were formidable. He had the juice to become king of Mt. Olympus, but he never wanted that job. Instead, he flew hither and yon, tearing holes in consensus reality, for his own amusement, but also to wake people up.

He was not always popular with leaders of the day.

If he were alive in our time, what might he do? I can imagine him trying to engineer, at a State of the Union Address, or during a Presidential debate, a massive amount of laughter from the live audience. Yes, he might attempt to promote a trick like that. All of sudden, out of nowhere, in a trickle, a little stream, then a river, people are laughing. It builds to an oceanic roar. It spills over to the television audience. No one is sure why, but they’re laughing at the President and candidates, and they’re having the time of their lives. On some level of happiness and joy, they’re finally responding to the joke. At last.

They get it.

Hence the old phrase, “He was laughed off the stage.”


Exit From the Matrix

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


And that’s exactly what happens. The leaders are laughed and ridiculed into oblivion. And so is the old consensus itself.

“You know, people have been telling that joke ever since I don’t when, and I never understood it, but now all of a sudden I do. And what makes it keep paying off, those leaders who are stage-center are so serious…wow, they’re killing me.”

Yes, that’s right. Well, they were killing you. It’s not quite the same anymore.

It turns out that, while we thought we were watching (and acting in) one kind of stage play, on a subconscious level we were all sitting in an audience, for the past ten thousand years, watching a tireless comedian doing variations on a cosmic joke, on and on, and there were zero laughs, zero, and nevertheless he kept going—and voila, the place finally exploded.

We had every reason not to laugh. All the suffering and the pain—but when we did connect with the joke, it proved to be enormously effective, beyond anything we could predicted.

Our core NATURAL response, beyond all “common sense,” from the depths of our NATURAL being, repressed for centuries, was titanic laughter, and it sent our esteemed leaders straight to the Outer Darkness.

Who knew? Go figure.

Bam. Pow.

The world starts over.

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.

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

Official science: the grand illusion for all robots

by Jon Rappoport

November 2, 2015

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

“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 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)

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 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 purveyors of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no long-term 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 and/or not proven to cause human illness (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 populationsbecause 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.


The Matrix Revealed


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 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.

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.

Canada and the great flu hoax

Canada and the great flu hoax

by Jon Rappoport

October 21, 2015

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

Under the radar: a November 25, 2012, CBC News article by Kelly Crowe, “Flu deaths reality check.”

Crowe highlights the often-parroted, official Canadian estimate of between 2000 and 8000 yearly deaths from flu.

Then she gets down to business.

At the time of the CBC News article (11/25/2012), the FluWatch/Public Health Agency of Canada figures for 2012 flu deaths in Canada? How many deaths?

One.

One death.

I just checked FluWatch for flu deaths so far in 2015. None. Zero.

Crowe, in her stunning article, goes on to detail how various computer models can be used (massaged) to “count” wildly different numbers of flu deaths.

Of course, Canadian health officials keep on telling people how important the flu shot is.

Next, we come to the matter of how many flu cases occur every year. The answer? Unknown. Doctors slap on a flu diagnosis at the drop of a hat, without running lab tests.

Crowe mentions other germs that are linked to flu symptoms: the RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), the coronavirus, the adenovirus, Streptococcus pneumonia, etc. But guess what? Public health officials and doctors rarely mention this fact—instead, they keep saying, “Take the flu vaccine.”

Even if you believe the flu vaccine is safe and effective, the shot would do nothing to prevent illness from all these other germs.

Bottom line: the whole flu business in Canada is a hoax.

In past articles, I’ve demonstrated how the same hoax is being played out in the US. You can bet the farm that this is the case all over the world, wherever “modern medicine” is practiced.

Here are a few quotes from Crowe’s article:

“How reliable are the computer model estimates [of the flu]? ‘I don’t think they’re reliable at all,’ Dr. Tom Jefferson told me. He is a Rome-based researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, and he spends his days reviewing all the research on acute respiratory infections and vaccines. He said hard data on flu deaths ‘are difficult to get hold of for obvious reasons. So enter modelling, which is nothing more than guesswork, highly sensitive to the assumptions you feed into the model. “Give me a model and I will make it say whatever you want” a colleague of mine always repeats.'”

“Another model assumes that every extra death that happens in the winter is a flu death. At the risk of oversimplifying, this is the basic formula of that model: winter deaths (minus) summer deaths = death by flu virus.

“That includes winter deaths from slippery sidewalks, snowy roads, freezing temperatures, plus all the winter heart failure, lung failure and deaths from cancer. In the language of the computer model, all excess mortality in winter is considered ‘death by flu.’”

Getting the picture?


the matrix revealed


The major challenge facing Canadian doctors, public health officials, and vaccine manufacturers is: how do they make astonishing lies sound like science?

They’re up to the challenge. They’ve had a lot of practice. The question is, are you ready, willing, and able to reject them?

A hoax keeps selling as long as people keep buying.

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.

If a mainstream reporter told the truth

If a mainstream reporter told the truth

the pillars of reality would crumble

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2015

“Imagine this. The public is told a new disease is sweeping the world, threatening the global population with suffering and death. Millions and millions of words are spewed, detailing and reinforcing the threat. Every day, official reports are issued, blaring the new numbers of cases. Researchers are rushing to develop an effective vaccine. And then, suddenly, someone discovers there is no epidemic. It doesn’t exist. What would happen?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Telling the truth, of course, must lead to publishing the truth.

And then follow-up investigations would be done to flesh out the story further; to prompt people with inside knowledge to emerge from their closets and confess their complicity.

I’m talking about a certain kind of truth, whereby a sacred cow is destroyed; the kind of cow everyone immediately believes is self-evident, universal, and vital, representing the best motives and impulses of people in power.

That kind of sacred cow.

A cow holding up the world, so to speak.

Destroyed.

There are many important lies that don’t quite rate that status. If they were exposed to the light of day, people would say, “Yes, it’s shocking, but we always had doubts.”

And life would go on.

A monumental sacred cow has the quality of being believed in the same way people believe the sun will come up in the morning.

Therefore, when it falls, the shock is volcanic.

However, I need to add this disclaimer. Most minds and eyeballs simply don’t notice the sacred cow falling and shattering like porcelain. It happens, but it doesn’t draw attention because people will do anything they can to maintain their grip on illusion.

It would take something on the order of Kansas disappearing off the map overnight to arouse the population—and even then, large numbers of people would claim it didn’t happen, because it couldn’t happen.

So now I’ll describe an example.

In the summer of 2009, the world was agog as a sweeping pandemic called Swine Flu invaded their lives. The virus said to be responsible for this catastrophe was H1N1.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), whose job was to report numbers of cases, claimed there were roughly ten thousand Swine Flu victims in America.

Understand: getting the numbers right was the CDC’s prime task. In the absence of doing that, they had no reason to exist as an agency tracking an epidemic.

In the fall of 2009, a CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, discovered something quite strange. She hit the motherlode of a scandal:

Back in July, the CDC had stopped counting Swine Flu cases.

The agency didn’t make this public. It didn’t put out the story to reporters. But Attkisson found out the truth.

She went further. She uncovered the reason the CDC stopped counting.

Here is what Attkisson wrote, on October 21, 2009, in an article posted on the CBS News website, titled, “Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?”:

“If you’ve been diagnosed ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’ 2009 H1N1 or ‘swine flu’ in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 [Swine] flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all.”

“That’s according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.”

“In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 [Swine] flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?”

“…we [CBS News] asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 [Swine Flu cases] prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.”

And the staggering capper on this tale? Roughly three weeks after Attkisson’s Swine Flu revelations appeared in print, the CDC, obviously in great distress over the exposure, decided to double down. The best lie to tell would be a huge lie.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon)

I interviewed Sharyl Attkisson. She told me the following:

“…we discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was ‘the most original story’ he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others [at CBS] pushed to stop it and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It [Attkisson’s investigation] was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.”

In other words, the whole Swine Flu episode was a dud. A hoax.

It was exposed on the CBS News website. Beyond that, it never became a big story at CBS or any other major mainstream outlet in the world. It was squashed.

To receive the full force of this hoax, you need to understand that so-called epidemics are very big business. Vaccine business. Pharma business. Government business.

When those governments announce an epidemic, the public believes. The belief is on the order of religious faith. It is also scientific faith. Once announced, there is no going back. These “epidemics” are, like major banks, too big to fail.

But Swine Flu did fail. Right out in the open. On the CBS News website. It was exposed as a grand hoax.

Realizing what they had just let happen, CBS dropped the curtain. There would be no follow-up. The story wouldn’t make it on to the national evening television broadcast.

And most of the people who read the story on the CBS website would blink and move on. Their minds wouldn’t register the implications. Kansas had just disappeared, but for them it was still there.

That’s how consensus reality operates. It’s there even when it isn’t. It’s there even after it’s been axed, sawed, dissolved.

It’s the proverbial bad penny that keeps coming back. It keeps showing up.


the matrix revealed


The public is married to the whole idea of viruses. Viruses are embraced as basic seeds of medical reality. From those seeds bloom all sorts of unshakable facts about illness. Virus does this, virus causes that, prevent virus from taking hold with a shot—news about viruses is as commonplace and familiar as pots and pans are in kitchens. “Everybody knows about viruses.”

Of course, everybody doesn’t know about viruses, but they think they do.

And here is a case, Swine Flu, where what everybody knew as a fundamental fact of reality was wrong.

The virus wasn’t there.

As a researcher once wrote me, “Pepsi, Coke, McDonald’s, ice cream, viruses. They’re the pillars, the foundation stones. But you’d be surprised how often we’re guessing about viruses. We say they’re there, causing a disease. We give a name to the disease, and the public salutes. We’re taking a stab in the dark. If we admitted it, our whole operation would crash…”

You can doubt what the President is saying. You can doubt the Congress, the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS. You can doubt all the mega-corporations. You can doubt Mickey Mouse and the Pope. But when you doubt viruses, you’re committing heresy, because medical science is a super-religion. Its basic tenets are “self-evident.” They must be. They have to be.

Especially when they aren’t.

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 government owns people: Australia

How government owns people: Australia

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2015

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

“I once worked for a corporation. I quit. I wondered whether I could do the same thing to the government. It was like trying to balance a greased watermelon on one finger.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

There are various ways to calculate how government owns people. The simplest is: through money.

Aside from taxes, this would translate into government jobs and welfare.

People who receive some or all of their income through their rulers tend to be on the side of government. They’re certainly dependent on government.

Look at Australia, a nation with a population of 23.1 million people.

As The Guardian reports (8/13), out of a total of 11.5 Australian million jobs, 1.9 million (16.4%, 1 out of 6) are for government. And this does not include the Defence Department (58,000 jobs).

As reported by Peter Whiteford, in “FactCheck: Is half to two-thirds of the Australian population receiving a government benefit?”, at theconversation.com, about 50% of all Australian households receive some form of government $$ assistance.

I haven’t found figures for how many Australian companies are government contractors, but you can be sure the number and the money are large. All those employees are receiving government money.

Then there are numerous “state-owned enterprises,” which are companies wholly owned by government. Their employees are ultimately getting their paychecks via government $$.

Seeing the picture?

You can analyze other industrialized nations and find similar conditions.

But of course, no one who favors “the collective good” sees all this as a problem. The problem for them, as always, is not enough “government support.”

Because for them, government is the answer and the ultimate benefactor and the primary force inventing the future. All hail.

Half a century ago, intellectuals who had a clue about what was going on called government The State. They viewed it as a monolithic force bent on expanding its power and subjugating the individual. Now, many of those same people, or their descendants, view government as the escape hatch from injustice.

This delusion is bolstered by the multiplication of victim groups seeking special treatment from their political leaders.

We would be wise to consider Albert Camus’ statement in his 1951 essay, The Rebel:

“The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown. He must dominate in his turn.”

Starting in the 1960s, several generations of people began applying New Age “rainbow thoughts” to politics. By the 1990s, this practice spread to the point where its advocates actually believed The State could and would deliver a far better world.

In a detailed November 2013 article (indepebdentaustralia.net), “The surveillance state: How Australia spies on its own,” Murray Hunter writes, “The revelations released by Edward Snowden… are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Australian security surveillance operations…Through rapid technology advances, the Australian security apparatus has grown to an Orwellian scale.”

Author Hunter then describes the system: “The Australian Government database is a highly sophisticated group of electronic document and records management system(s) (EDRMS) for collating, storing, and matching data between various agencies and levels of government on citizens. Consequently data collected by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), social security (Centrelink), Medicare, immigration, customs, and police enforcement agencies are integrated with relational databases and query systems. This is supplemented by individual agency databases with extremely detailed information on citizens. They carry an almost complete personal history of residential details going back decades, income, occupation, spouses, children, social security benefits, medical, and travel information, etc. These systems can be accessed by almost anybody within the public service. Every agency within the government has become part of the intelligence collection network.”

This gargantuan apparatus is the work of a government that “really cares” about the population?

“You people work for us. You take home a paycheck from us (derived from your taxes). You depend on us. But that’s not enough. We need to spy on you all day every day.”


the matrix revealed


Australian political leaders and their massive bureaucracies are aware of an important fact: although at one level citizens’ dependence on The State makes them supporters of The State, on a deeper level the individual always resents his dependence and wants to be free. That makes him dangerous.

Shackling a human is a risky proposition. When he tries to break out, he is unpredictable.

The shift in talking about “The State” to talking about “government” reflects the degree to which the individual has been trivialized. The State was once seen as the pre-eminent threat to the free and independent individual. But since almost no one in the mainstream cares about “free and independent,” the word “government” suffices.

Government is the “benevolent helper” and adjudicator of populations, masses.

Maybe in the next half-century, the Australian government will employ everybody in the country.

Why not? It makes for a very efficient bookkeeping (surveillance) system. Everybody is on board. Everybody is tracked. Everybody is in the collective, at the bottom—except for those who rule from the top.

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.

Outrage in inner cities: the source; $$ in the matrix

by Jon Rappoport

“The leader says to his people: ‘In order for me to help you, you have to remain in need of help. You can never rise above your need for me. Catch my drift? That’s our bargain.’” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“Inner city gangs assist political leaders. First, gangs keep the local population under the gun, in a state of fear, so that nothing good can take root and grow in those communities. Second, gangs distribute drugs. Government is in the drug business.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Inner cities are about money, and any American president since Lyndon Johnson could have seen it in an hour, if he had bothered to look, if he cared, if he really intended to help solve the problem of inner cities.

But solving problems was never the objective, and that’s important to know because, now, with explosions of violence rippling in inner cities of America, the original crisis has become much worse—and therein lies a clue:

The goal was always destruction, decimation, and loss of hope in inner cities, leading to violence and more violence—which becomes part of the excuse for the spreading onrush of the militarized police state.

So let’s get to the money.

A 1993 Cato Institute Essay, “The Myth of America: Underfunded Cities,” by Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, makes this stunning point:

“Since 1965 the federal government has spent an estimated $2.5 trillion on the War on Poverty and urban aid. (That figure includes all spending on welfare, Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and infrastructure and direct aid to cities.) Economist Walter Williams has calculated that that is enough money to purchase all the assets of the Fortune 500 companies plus all of the farmland in the United States. But it has not spurred urban revival.”

How is that possible?

How do you spend $2.5 trillion and achieve no revival?

Sheer administrative incompetence doesn’t explain it. Not even close. First of all—and any well-intentioned government would investigate this down to the core—you find out where exactly all the money went.

This has never been done.

It’s safe to assume there are people who’ve gotten very rich off this feast. Huge sums never ended up where they were supposed to go. Instead, they were diverted and stolen. On top of that, a relatively minor chunk of the $2.5 trillion was hijacked after it reached local administrators in the inner cities.

But what about the massive federal dollars that did arrive at proper destinations? What happened there? For that, we have to look at how government traditionally operates.

It gives money as a form of welfare. It creates some government jobs. It funds programs that are aimed at “improving conditions.” But it almost never does something that will invigorate or create a local economy.

I’m talking about the creation of small businesses, real ones. Because that’s how you initiate an actual local economy. That’s the only way.

You fund 20 small businesses in an area, and now you have people with jobs, with income, and you have the production of goods and services that people in the neighborhood will buy. With 200 small businesses, and then 2000, you’ll get people who can afford to buy what is produced locally. The money circulates. That’s how it works. That’s called a recovery.

On top of that, you use a bit of that federal money to create community projects that really count. For example, urban gardens and farms. People grow their own food. They share and trade food. They eat. The food is healthy.

By now, there could be and should be thousands of these flourishing urban gardens in inner cities across America. Many thousands. But there aren’t.

When a community, with help, lifts itself up beyond a certain point, economically, and sees the light at the end of the tunnel, their resistance to crime and drugs and shootings and the recruitment of their children into gangs intensifies. They change the culture.

I’m not saying this is walk in the park. It isn’t. There are other factors. Yes, large corporations have fled from inner cities, and so has the middle class, and banks have intentionally cheated homeowners on their mortgages, and there are certain police forces who are corrupt and brutal.

But if the federal government had ever wanted to help lift life up in inner cities, it would have gone after these banks long, long ago. It would have routed out corrupt cops long, long ago. It would have gone after emerging gangs long, long ago.

These days, government does little more than use the residents of inner cities as propaganda props to enforce tactics of political correctness, stir up racial conflict, foster permanent dependency, and label whole classes of people as permanent victims.

You see, if these inner cities ever came back, ever moved up the economic ladder, ever triumphed, the government would take a serious hit. A very serious hit. Its whole program would go down the drain, in just the same way the cancer treatment industry would take a major torpedo if truly workable cures were deployed.

The State is a vampire, and it must have victims on which to feed. Yesterday, today, tomorrow.

We have reached a place in this psyop where the victims are being fed encouragement to establish themselves as forever-crippled with forever-rights and demands that must be met and will never be entirely met.

“Don’t achieve economic success. Never do that. That’ll ruin everything.”

This kind of propaganda is gasoline poured on a fire. Which is the precise objective.

When you peel away the veneer of “deep concern” the government has for “the less fortunate,” what you see is a stark demeaning attitude: “We know you’re hopeless, you can’t do anything for yourselves, you’ll never win, but we can fulfill our agenda on your backs, as long as you stay dependent.”

Let me reiterate the crucial point: the recovery of inner cities is all about creating local economies that work. There is no recovery without that. Everything else is destructive in the long run. Financially and psychologically destructive.

An allied fact: most people who are unemployed want to work. They prefer work to welfare. In the absence of jobs and local businesses, people will accept welfare rather than starve. That’s obvious. But when most of the incoming money is devoted to welfare, and work doesn’t show up, the negative vortex takes over.

What I’m explaining, in this article, stands in stark contrast to the millions of words that have been written and spoken by “the professionals” in academia and government. They build mountains of nonsense to account for “inner-city poverty.” They divert attention from the truth. They weave complex impenetrable webs.

Some of these professionals are lunatics who believe that a new form of society, without actual businesses, will come into being and save the poor. This society will of course be run by government employees, who will reveal their tolerance, their care, their love, their superior intelligence.

In the present climate, I expect that soon one of these crazies will make it on to a Sunday talk show and say: “Well, George, you know, a new study has concluded that if the underclass in this country kills every fifth person in America, and I mean randomly kills them, then statistically speaking, we will have made significant progress toward equality. That is the amount of blame we can attach to the unjust society in which we live today. Every fifth person.”

And the interview will be soberly reported on by the New York Times.


The Matrix Revealed

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


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.