CIA mind-control program: did it really end?

CIA mind-control program: not gone, not forgotten

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2015

Follow me on a few twists and turns down the rabbit hole.

Start with this untitled June 27, 1994, document, stored at the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

It was written by a CIA advisory committee, and forwarded to the Presidential Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which was preparing public hearings in 1994.

Here is a key quote:

“In the 1950s and 60s, the CIA engaged in an extensive program of human experimentation [MKULTRA], using drugs, psychological, and other means, in search of techniques to control human behavior for counterintelligence and covert action purposes… Most of the MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by the order of then DCI Richard Helms…Helms testified that he agreed to destroy the records because ‘there had been relationships with outsiders in government agencies and other organizations and that these would be sensitive in this kind of a thing but that since the [mind-control] program was over and finished and done with, we thought we would just get rid of files as well, so that anybody who assisted us in the past would not be subject to follow-up questions, embarrassment, if you will.’”

Helms was not only admitting he destroyed the records, he was stating that the MKULTRA program deployed, through contracts, “outsiders” to carry out mind control experiments. He was determined to protect the outsiders, to keep their identity and work secret. He was also dedicated to preventing these people from exposing the nature of their mind-control work.

Subsequently, some of these “outsiders” have been revealed. But no one really knows how deep, far, and wide the CIA penetrated into academic and research communities to enable MKULTRA.

Helms also stated that MKULTRA was ended. There is no reason to believe this. Therefore, his justification for destroying huge numbers of documents was absurd.

For example: Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book that exposed the existence of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

John Marks related the following facts to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent him 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program—which supposedly was shut down—had actually been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

So…can we go back in time and find evidence that the CIA embraced goals that would take their mind-control research right up through the present day?

Yes.

Goal: develop drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.

Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.

The intention is there, in the record.

A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.

The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955.

It begins: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”

What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.

The range of CIA intentions was stunning.

Some of my comments gleaned from studying that drug list—

* The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, herbicides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.

* The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.

* The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)

* The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.

* The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?

* The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.

As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.

Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. These are direct quotes from the document:

* Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.

* Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.

* Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

* Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

* Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.

* Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.

* Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.

* Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.

* Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.

* Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.

* Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.

* Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.

* A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

* Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.

* Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.

* A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.

* A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.

That’s the list.

At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes this remark: “In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work…” That’s further evidence that the CIA mind control program, going forward, would rely on and use a large number of non-CIA researchers—evidence of which, as noted above, was destroyed by CIA director Richard Helms in 1973.

If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda.

* Speed-type chemicals, which addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD.

* Anti-psychotic drugs, to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. Dr. Peter Breggin, author of Toxic Psychiatry, places the number of Americans whose brains have been damaged by these anti-psychotic drugs at 300,000, at minimum.

* The SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.

* Tranquilizers, which debilitate the thinking process for millions of users.

These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.

If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding.

And now, using the pretext of lone-shooter mass violence (Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.), the US government, out in the open, is funding massive research to “map the brain,” in order to…what?

Control the brain. “Return it to a state of normalcy.”

Meaning: create a society in which obedience to authority is the prime human value.

Every day, the neuro-psychiatric establishment is making the CIA’s 1955 dream come true.

MKULTRA mind control dead and buried? Not a chance.

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 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Mind control: the Pentagon mission to program the brain

Jan6

Mind control: the Pentagon mission to program the brain

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Since the dawn of time, the most powerful groups in every society have practiced forms of mind control on populations. They determined it was necessary. Eventually, they decided it was their most important job. Convincing the masses that a fabricated reality is Reality…that task requires formidable mind control.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

“…developing closed-loop therapies that incorporate recording and analysis of brain activity with near-real-time neural stimulation.”

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

Those parameters will certainly exclude: rebellion, independence.

Here is a quote from a journal article, “The Plastic Human Brain Cortex.” (Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 28: 377-401, July 2005)

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the myth to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times (“Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the ‘Chemical Imbalance’”) (paywall) with this staggering and stark admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion [of mental disorders] was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

No, intervention is all about brain control, not brain health.

And “neural plasticity,” contrary to the official propaganda, is no great discovery. Any human can change his own brain readout patterns by the simple act of thinking.

Of course, researchers make no real distinction between random ideation and consciously chosen mental actions. If they did, they would immediately see that human beings can voluntarily make changes to their own brain activity. No laboratory experiments, no chemical or bio inputs, no externally applied electrical “insertions.”

There is a much bigger problem here. A problem that must remain a secret.

If a human being, through conscious and voluntary thought, can change his own brain activity…who is doing the changing?

Who is outside the brain influencing it?

Who is “human being?”

Who is…you?

That is no part of what DARPA is doing. That is no part of what any mind-control organization group is doing. That is strictly off-limits.

“Oh no, no one is doing the thinking. The brain is doing all the thinking. The brain is operating on its own. Thought A, then thought B, then C, D,E,F. On and on. The brain is a bio-machine, spooling out pre-determined and pre-packaged thoughts. And we, the brain-controllers, just want to change the sequence. We’ll insert B,D,E,A,B,F in that order instead. And then we’ll delete C altogether because we find that counter-productive and disruptive. No problem.”

The fact is, the individual non-material being (you) changes brain activity all the time. The brain is eminently built to allow this to happen across a very wide range of possibility.

What DARPA’s program entails is altering that fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you, a non-material being, and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The “plasticity” of the horse was reduced.

The horse was now normal.

Jon Rappoport

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Dec30

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

The supposed answer to that question is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

By inference, the individual states declare their own supremacy when local communities try to nullify or avoid state statutes.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government, and reserves all other powers for the states or the people. But this restraint has been trampled on so many times it’s barely visible under the tonnage of federal law and regulation.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause becomes: “We, the federal government, can do anything we want to, and the states and the people are bound by it.”

So…what happens when the people of a community decide that a medical drug or pesticide (see also this) or genetically modified organism or fracking chemical or vaccine is poisonous and must be banned?

The state preempts the community, and if the state doesn’t, the federal government will move in and assert its ultimate authority.

Take the case of Roundup, or any of the pesticides that contain the toxic glyphosate. If the EPA or the USDA or the FDA decides glyphosate is harmless, and if their “science” is a sham, and if they are merely caving in to big corporations who want to sell it, the people would have no recourse.

“It’s the law, and you have to submit to liver and kidney damage at the very least.”

That’s the absurdity.

If health and life aren’t the basis of law, if they are ignored, if they are necessary sacrifices on the altar of federal or state control, then all bets are off.

For the past 25 years, I’ve been documenting exactly this: medical and scientific fraud that leads to great harm. This fraud is not only permitted, it’s embodied in federal and state regulations.

I frequently cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

At the time, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her credentials and those of JAMA were impeccably mainstream.

She concluded that, every year, FDA-approved medical drugs killed 106,000 Americans. That adds up to over a million deaths per decade.

In the wake of her published review, and for the next nine years, as she told me in a 2009 interview, no one in the federal government approached her to help remedy this ongoing plague of destruction. Nor was she aware of any systematic remedial federal effort.

But you see, the FDA is a federal agency set up by federal law. It is tasked with approving all medical drugs as safe and effective before they are released for public use.

So if a local community decided, on its own, to ban a deadly medicine, its vote would be struck down from above.

“Suffer. Die. It’s the law.”

There are people who are happy to settle for choice. “As long as I’m free to refuse the medicine, I’m good. Let others take it if they want to.”

But we’re not talking about a choice between pears and oranges. We’re talking about poison.

And despite recalls, lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, and heavy fines, the killing continues.

Therefore, on the basis of self-protection, a community has the right to enact a ban.

Unless self-protection must surrender to the System. Then we are looking at lawless government pretending to be lawful.

These phrases come to mind:

“…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Making these goals come to fruition when communities are under toxic attack is impossible. Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.

Jon Rappoport

Immigration, open US borders: the secret reason

Dec21

Immigration, open US borders: the secret reason

by Jon Rappoport

December 21, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Here is one, rarely spoken, justification for an open border with Mexico: “Well, we’ve done so many bad things to Mexico in the past, the compensation has to be unlimited immigration.”

If that’s the case, then along with opening the border, the US government would naturally stop doing bad things to Mexico now. Right?

A White House that believes in the past guilt of other administrations would, without question, clean up its own act now.

If not, then the whole pose of apology and humanity is a sham and a scam.

So let’s look at a few present facts.

NAFTA. Obama, during his 2008 Presidential campaign, said he would take another look at that treaty. It needed to be reexamined.

Perhaps he did take a subsequent look, down to the left and far away, as he was flying toward Hawaii on one of his vacations.

NAFTA. From The Guardian, 4 Jan. 2014, “NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico,” by Mark Weisbrot:

“The most basic measure of economic progress, especially for a developing country like Mexico, is the growth of income (or GDP) per person. Out of 20 Latin American countries…Mexico ranks 18, with growth of less than 1% annually since 1994 [when NAFTA went into effect].

“Millions of Mexicans were displaced from farming, for example, after being forced into competition with subsidized and high-productivity agribusiness in the United States, thanks to NAFTA’s rules.”

Truthdig.com, Jan. 9, 2014, “After 20 years, NAFTA leaves Mexico’s economy in ruins,” by Sonali Kolhatkar:

“What in fact happened under NAFTA was that heavily subsidized U.S. corn flooded the Mexican market, putting millions of [Mexican] farmers out of work. Multinational corporations opened up factories creating low-wage [Mexican] jobs at the expense of organized labor and the environment. This, in turn, drove waves of migration north.”

Read that last sentence again.

The truthdig piece extensively quotes Manuel Perez-Rocha, “an associate fellow at the institute for Policy Studies”:

“All these new analyses about how Mexico is becoming a more middle-class society [under NAFTA] and able to buy more products from the United States—it’s just baloney.

“Before NAFTA, I still remember how my father would take me to different industries in which Mexico would manufacture its own tractors and buses. We had an industry that was completely dismantled [by NAFTA] to give way to bigger corporations from the United States to use Mexico as an assembly plant for exporting cars back to the United States. And this hasn’t produced the boom of [Mexican] jobs that was promised. So in the end what NAFTA did was destroy the Mexican national industry and destroy a lot of jobs.

“…the devastation of the Mexican countryside and of the livelihoods of farmers to give way to a narco-economy that has inundated Mexico. This has become very evident in the past few years. [Economic devastation; more unemployed workers and farmers, trying to make a living, join the ‘narco-economy.’]

“…there has been an increase in export-oriented agriculture [from Mexico] that relies on fossil fuels, chemicals, genetically modified organisms, and the excessive use of water. There has also been an expansion of environmentally destructive mining activities in Mexico. There’s been more mining in the last 10 years than in the whole colonial period. There have been higher levels of air and water pollution as associated with the growth of the maquiladora factories [relocated US manufacturing operations in a NAFTA ‘free-trade’ Mexican zone]. And there has been a progressive weakening of domestic environmental safeguards and expanded powers to [relocated US] corporations to challenge environmental policies.”

Kolhatkar concludes his devastating article with a statement that leaves no doubt about Obama’s current intentions, vis-à-vis changing the US stance toward Mexico:

“Today, the Obama administration, which did not even acknowledge the 20th anniversary of NAFTA, is eyeing a new, grander trade deal in the image of NAFTA called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is a secret deal being negotiated by the Obama administration directly with various nations. Activists have called it ‘NAFTA on Steroids.’ Obama is seeking ‘fast-track authority’ on the deal, whereby elected [US Congressional] representatives would be allowed to vote on only the entire agreement without being party to negotiations over the details. WikiLeaks recently published a leaked draft chapter of the agreement that has confirmed some of the worst suspicions of activists opposing it. One expert called it ‘A Christmas wish list for major corporations.’”

In other words, the idea that open borders are a humane response to, and an apology for, past US transgressions against Mexico is utter and complete fabrication.

Obama, and whoever his successor is, aim to wage economic war against Mexico at a new and higher level.

One of the results, as mentioned above? This will force new waves of immigrants in Mexico to come north, to the US.

Do you see this issue more clearly now? Increased immigration northward was always an expected outcome of NAFTA. And so it will be under the TPP.

This is a succession of Presidents—Clinton, Bush, Obama—pushing for immigration as if were an act of kindness (“give us your huddled masses”), when it was a cold calculated safety-valve solution to enable big US corporations to do business in Mexico and make their profits soar, as they put huge numbers of Mexican workers out in the cold.

The elite strategy? “Don’t leave all those angry unemployed workers at the doors of US corporations in Mexico. Who knows what they might do? Let them come to the US for a better life. We’ll prepare the US population to accept them…”

Of course, as US corporations shuttered their doors in America and moved south to Mexico, US unemployment soared, and so did the US trade deficit.

Cover stories were needed to obscure the naked truth. The 2007-08 economic collapse in the US was used for that purpose.

More directly, the Obama administration simply lied about facts and figures. For example, as Public Citizen has pointed out:

“By counting products made offshore as ‘U.S. exports,’ this scam would hide the devastation of U.S. manufacturing…U.S. firms like Apple that have offshored their production jobs would be reclassified as ‘factoryless goods’ manufacturers. An iPhone made in China and sold in Europe would somehow perversely count as a U.S. manufactured export. This would deceptively deflate the reported U.S. manufacturing trade deficit—and artificially inflate the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Apple’s brand managers and programmers would suddenly be counted as ‘manufacturing’ workers!”

And that’s where we are. That’s a central thread of the story behind immigration and open borders. And that, to a significant degree, is the history of the Obama Presidency; a giant scam perpetrated on the American people, causing much, much suffering.

When Obama first took office in 2008, several of his closest advisors expected that his first shot out of the gate would be: creating jobs amid massive American unemployment.

They were shocked when, against their advice, he went for national health insurance.

What they failed to realize was their President had a mission that superseded jobs and employment. He was tasked with protecting the mega-corporations who were benefiting from the free-trade treaties, like NAFTA.

He willingly, and with full knowledge, accepted that covert role.

Massive unemployment in the US? Grotesque consequences for the people of Mexico? Not a problem.

Obama is another in a line of Globalist Presidents. That’s what he was in 2008, and that’s what he is now.

Perhaps some of the people who couldn’t believe the facts I presented over a year ago, when I called Obama Monsanto’s man in Washington, will now begin to understand what is going on.

Monsanto is one more mega-corporation the President is pledged to protect.

Romney? Jeb Bush? Hillary? Elizabeth Warren? They have saluted, and will continue to salute Globalism and free trade and economic devastation, in whatever jobs they may hold, as of 2016.

Those who keep sucking at the left-right political teat, arguing progressive vs. conservative, and elevating their favorite “heroes,” are missing the bigger picture by miles.

They keep congratulating themselves on their ideology, while those heroes of theirs—front men and women for elite crime bosses—bathe in the stench of the Globalist Syndicate.

Jon Rappoport

Newsflash: George Clooney doesn’t know N. Korea hacked Sony

Dec20

What? George Clooney knows that N. Korea hacked Sony? Really?

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“…it [the Sony hack] wasn’t just probably North Korea; it was North Korea.” — George Clooney, Deadline Hollywood.

This article isn’t about new repressive Internet legislation, or Sony pulling the Interview movie, or theaters refusing to show it, or lawyers’ advice, or TMZ fodder.

It’s about Hollywood stars and how they claim to know what they know.

It’s simple, really. They’re naïve. They’re given that precious breathless thing: inside access. That’s the game.

You want a star to promote your narrative or your cause? Take him inside closed doors and hand him privileged information.

Well, not information. Conclusions based on secret “information.”

Clooney states that N. Korea hacked Sony? Somebody in Washington told him so: “Look, George, we know, okay? It’s for sure. We scoped it out. No question about it. We investigated. You can take it to the bank. We won’t release details, but I can tell you, as a friend, it’s true. Slam-dunk. Pay no attention to the idiots at Wired. They’re all speculating. They don’t know what we know. They can’t.”

Well, that’s it then. The hacker wasn’t the NSA or some other fed agency. It wasn’t an independent group. It wasn’t an insider at Sony. It was N. Korea.

This is the routine, over and over again with stars.

“Listen, GMO farming will save Africa. We have the data. Forget the crazies running around saying Monsanto is Satan. We’ve done the studies. This is Science.”

“We had nothing to do with the mess in the Ukraine. I promise you. That’s Russian propaganda.”

“Don’t believe the people who say we’re funding terrorists. That’s crap.”

The star doesn’t have to get his news from the NY Times. He can get it from the FBI, from the CIA, from the White House. The inside scoop.

Privilege. Access. Special briefings off the record. He’s a friend. Which is to say, he’s vulnerable. He can be used. He normally sees events at the level of one-inch deep, so when he’s handed “special” knowledge, he’s happy. He thinks he’s reached the bottom.

And his pals in government are true-blue, so he has to protect them. He can go off and say corporations are destroying America, but he can’t say they’re doing it with the collusion of the government. No, legislators are victims of corporate $$ and lobbying and can’t do anything about it. They can’t say no. It’s not their fault.

He especially can’t say the Democrats and the Republicans are both decimating the country, or that, on the really important issues like Globalism, both parties are on the same page.

Nor can he suddenly drift out of the conventional orbit and pick an issue on his own and blindside his government friends. Like the FDA, for example, who approve drugs that kill, at minimum, 100,000 Americans every year, like clockwork. Or the Fed Reserve, that august group of bankers who pretend they’re a federal agency and engineer booms and busts. Or the CDC, for whom lying is a way of life.

No surprises. Stay within the boundaries. Left vs. Right, progressives vs. liberals. Feed the conventional narrative.

The star doesn’t quite realize or admit that what he’s getting from “the inside” is just more conventional narrative dressed up with hush-hush.

And why didn’t the other big movie studios rally around Sony and stand together against a perceived intimidation tactic and a crushing of free speech?

Aside from the usual reasons—competition with Sony in the marketplace, glee at seeing a competitor thrown into chaos—there was no signal from their inside friends at the White House.

The other studio execs and big-time agents didn’t get a call to come together and mount a unified defense.

Absent their own courage, which is minimal in situations like this, they stood down, they remained silent—because that’s part of their bargain with government power players, too.

“Well, I guess the White House is handling this one on an international level, since North Korea did it. Not our business. Nobody important is demanding anything of us. We shouldn’t stick our noses in, as private citizens, and unilaterally make an issue out of the 1st Amendment. Free speech, the Constitution? That’s heavy stuff. Above our pay grade…it’s government turf.”

These Hollywood execs would never consider they’re getting a blast telling them they have no control over free speech…and that the warning could be coming from those same government insider pals of theirs.

If the thought does cross their minds, they won’t be emailing each other about it.

Clooney told Deadline: “I do know something about the news world. I was sitting on the floors of newsrooms since I was seven years old, and I’ve been around them my whole life.”

Maybe that’s the problem. He’s been listening to lies and cover stories and fakery for a long time.

In his estimable movie, Syriana, he left out one factor. Among all the forces at work engineering a massive corporate merger of energy companies, the US government was such a weak sister it couldn’t affect the machinations of those corporate titans.

Again, big gov is a victim. It has no clout.

Really?

During this Sony fiscao, the US Dept. of Justice must remain silent? It can’t weigh in publicly? It can’t take the lead and deal from strength? And the State Dept., likewise, has to keep its mouth shut, too?

Obama can only make a public statement (“Sony made a mistake” in not releasing the film) days after the fact? The President also takes a back seat during the scandal?

Kim Zetter, writing at Wired, throws a monkey wrench into the US government narrative:

“…in their initial public statement, whoever hacked Sony made no mention of North Korea or the film. And in an email sent to Sony by the hackers, found in documents that leaked, there is also no mention of North Korea or the film. The email was sent to Sony executives on Nov. 21, a few days before the hack went public. Addressed to Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, Chairwoman Amy Pascal and other executives, it appears to be an attempt at extortion, not an expression of political outrage or a threat of war.

“’[M]onetary compensation we want,’” the email read. ‘Pay the damage, or Sony Pictures will be bombarded as a whole. You know us very well. We never wait long. You’d better behave wisely.’

“To make matters confusing, however, the email wasn’t signed by GOP or Guardians of Peace, who have taken credit for the hack, but by ‘God’sApstls,’ a reference that also appeared in one of the malicious files used in the Sony hack.

“A person purporting to be a Guardians of Peace spokesperson then emphasized again, in an interview with CSO Online published Dec.1, that they are ‘an international organization … not under direction of any state.’ The GOP’s members include, they wrote, ‘famous figures in the politics and society from several nations such as United States, United Kingdom and France.’

“The person also said the Seth Rogen film was not the motive for the hack, but that the film was problematic nonetheless in that it exemplified Sony’s greed and fed political turmoil in the region:

“’Our aim is not at the film The Interview as Sony Pictures suggests,’ the person told CSO Online. ‘But it is widely reported as if our activity is related to The Interview..’”

Clooney is quite, quite sure the Sony hack was the work of North Korea. In his Deadline interview, he says that with a little digging, anybody should be able to figure that out.

But his version of digging appears to be a tip and an assurance from someone inside the Executive Branch, where lies and cover stories are the daily bread of life.

To put the cherry on the cake, newly discovered emails from the Sony hack reveal that the CIA has been urging movie studio execs to help in the effort against ISIS. That would be the very same ISIS the US government has been supporting in Syria.

But don’t worry. If the White House says North Korea hacked Sony, then North Korea hacked Sony. The US government is a straight shooter.

And I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Jon Rappoport

Staging Ferguson, a covert op, and Al Sharpton

Nov21

Staging Ferguson, a covert op, and Al Sharpton

by Jon Rappoport

November 21, 2014

NoMoreFakeNews.com

This first part of this article was inspired by, and derives directly from, Joe Quixote’s excellent Infowars piece, “Ferguson—Race-baiting for Political Power and Profit.”

Start with this. Michael Brown. Trayvon Martin.

Two deaths. Two killings.

With remarkable speed, as soon as the deaths occurred, they became national issues.

Incidents of police brutality across America are an ongoing fact of life, including brutality against young black men, but these two deaths were selected for special quick attention.

No doubt about it.

Media blew up. The Justice Dept. and the White House moved in right away.

There was no way to walk back those events and diminish their effect on the public.

The waves of emotion grew higher.

Black vs. white.

However, the curious thing was, in both cases the initial reports morphed into…doubt.

You can say the doubts were justified, or you can say they weren’t. Regardless, the media raised them. Police raised them.

Clear-cut cases of murder became self-defense. Maybe. Not sure. Could be.

Doubt.

Which produced even greater turmoil, accusation, and black-white conflict.

And set the stage for an “upcoming evidentiary finding.” A vital element of the covert op.

That put everyone on edge.

What would be the outcome?

Who would lie and who would tell the truth?

How much violence would break out once the result was announced?

If the Martin and Brown cases had been “natural events,” there was every chance the facts in the cases would be clear from the outset. Yes, it was unjustified murder. Or no, it was justified self-defense. And then the whole situation and its attendant emotions would have diminished.

But that’s not what occurred.

Media and the executive arm of government “just happened” to fasten on two cases where the facts were murky. Or could be presented as murky.

Exacerbating the tension.

“The race hustlers choose fact patterns like this because they know each side feels justified in its interpretation of events. Each side wonders how the other could be so blind. It must be because they don’t care, or they’re evil. Michael Brown’s death presents a perfect fact pattern to sow distrust and hatred. Never let a good crisis go to waste.” (Joe Quixote, Infowars, “Ferguson—Race-baiting for Political Power and Profit.”)

In recent years, who is the White House/Justice Dept. private citizen on the scene in these cases? Who is the prime number-one stirrer of the pot?

Al Sharpton.

Many things can be said about the man, but one thing is: he has worked for the FBI. You know, the agency that has run many operations against black leaders—and thereby fomented black-white conflict. Example: Martin Luther King.

Read what the FBI secretly had to say about a particularly “dangerous” Black Panther, Larry Pinkney and why they ACTUALLY targeted him:

“[Black Panther Larry] Pinkney is potentially dangerous due to his demonstrated ability to unify black and white. [Get it?] His associates are Negro, White and Chinese. Special attention is being given to neutralizing him. The areas of sex and drugs appear to be the most effective ones to utilize. His habits in these areas are unknown, but are being monitored with this objective.” (Infowars, Nov. 21, 2014. “Special Report: FBI Attacks Black Panther For NOT Being Racist!” This information, from the FBI’s file on Pinkney, was obtained through William Mandel’s FOIA request.)

Al Sharpton went to work undercover for the FBI, after walking into a videotaped cocaine sting, where boxing promoter Don King was present. HBO played the tape years ago on its program Real Sports.

The usual account, moving forward, was: Sharpton was assigned a confidential informant number, CI-7, and spied on members of the Genovese crime family for his FBI handlers.

However, there is another aspect of the story. It illustrates that Sharpton has had a penchant for playing ball with all sorts of backers—even when their motives are anti-black.

And why might that be important? Because the current standoff in Ferguson isn’t being staged to benefit black people.

Let’s travel back to 2004. Reporter Doug Ireland, who has written for The Nation, TomPaine.com, In These Times, and LA Weekly, went deeper in evaluating Sharpton’s motives and allies.

February 21, 2004, “Rev. Al Sharpton: FBI Informant-Roger Stone’s Bitch,” originally published in LA Weekly and at webstonne.com, and then Conspiracy Planet:

“Sharpton…has now been exposed as a cat’s-paw for the National Republican Party.

“Rev. Al has a long and sordid history of posing as the champion of the have-nots, while renting himself out to the greedy have-everythings, which predates his ’04 GOP-funded [!] presidential campaign. In 1986, he endorsed N.Y. Senator Al D’Amato for re-election — although D’Amato, a conservative Republican pit bull, was anathema to more issues-attuned black leaders.

“In 1994, he helped dampen down the black vote for [Democrat] Governor Mario Cuomo by making a media-hyped appearance with successful conservative Republican candidate George Pataki just days before the election. In the 2001 New York mayoral campaign, he connived with GOP billionaire Michael Bloomberg in the defeat of the Democratic candidate, Mark Green.

“But Sharpton has not limited himself simply to supporting candidates considered by most to be inimical to the interests of the impoverished black community.

“A 1988 investigation by the Long Island daily Newsday revealed that Sharpton, who denounces African-American leaders who disagree with him as ‘yellow n*****s,’ had been a longtime FBI informant in a scheme to entrap black leaders and personalities on drug-related matters, even going so far as to wear a wire to record their conversations for the feds.

“How did the FBI turn Sharpton into their bitch?

“Why, they caught Rev. Al up to his hairdo in a drug-money Laundromat in which Don King, the much-indicted boxing promoter and a longtime pal of Sharpton’s, was a central figure. What’s more, the drug deal was an FBI sting — and the feds had it all on videotape, too.

“Just two years ago, Bryant Gumbel — the second most popular black on television next to Oprah — aired on his HBO Real Sports show an FBI videotape of Sharpton discussing laundering money from a South American drug dealer via King with Michael ‘Sonny’ Franzese, a former Colombo family captain.

“Sharpton was going to arrange a meeting with King and the coke peddler to set up the deal. But the ‘South American’ was an FBI agent, Franzese had already been turned by the feds into an informant and Sharpton fell right into their trap.

“Sharpton became a sting artist for the feds when he was himself stung. After the tape aired, Sharpton announced he was going to sue HBO for a billion bucks. Nothing has been heard of the lawsuit since then.

“Now, in his current presidential campaign [2004], Sharpton has been revealed as a wholly owned Republican subsidiary. Sharpton has been used by Republican operatives to discredit real contenders for the Democratic nomination. And the more prominent a place on the Democratic stage Sharpton can command, all the way to Boston, the more the Republicans can use the wisecracking but polarizing preacher-without-a-church as a bogeyman to frighten moderate voters away from the Democratic ticket.

“That’s the story behind the blockbuster report in the February 5 Village Voice, the L.A. Weekly’s sister paper in which veteran Voice investigative reporter Wayne Barrett and his team unveiled the malevolent forces keeping Sharpton’s campaign alive: ‘Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Rev. Al Sharpton.’

“Who is Roger Stone? A slash-and-burn Republican black-bag election tamperer and consultant…Stone first made news in the Nixon Watergate scandal, when it was revealed that the 19-year-old apprentice McCarthyite had infiltrated George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign as part of CREEP’s sabotage plan.

“A few other highlights of Stone’s career as the boastful black prince of Republican sleaze: Stone helped Ollie North raise money for the Nicaraguan contras, and was a close associate of the notorious Lee Atwater (the GOP hit man who created the race-baiting Willie Horton TV spots for Bush 1988 presidential campaign).

“The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin in his excellent book, Too Close To Call, about the 2000 Florida election — details how Stone was summoned by Bush recount chief James Baker to disrupt the vote counting (Stone and his Cuban wife, Nydia, organized a screaming mob of Miami Cubans outside the headquarters of the canvassing board — Stone directed the mob by walkie-talkie from across the street — and intimidated the board into ending the count).

“On the stump, Rev. Al has frequently denounced the theft of the presidential election in Florida — which depended in large measure on invalidating black votes.

“For example, he told a Democratic National Committee meeting last October that ‘We are witnessing a nonmilitary civil war; it started with the recount in Florida.’ So, hopping into bed with Stone might strike many African-Americans as ‘ungodly’ hypocrisy. But the tale gets worse.

“When Sharpton launched a vicious attack on [Democrat] Howard Dean for his supposed ‘anti-black agenda,’ the man behind the curtain was Stone, who crowed to The New York Times that he ‘helped set the tone and direction’ of the blast at Dean, while the research for it was provided by the man Stone had installed as Sharpton’s campaign manager, Charles Halloran, one of a half-dozen top aides to Sharpton who worked for Stone in previous campaigns.

“A member of Stone’s stable who stays at Stone’s Central Park South apartment in New York while working for Sharpton, Halloran — just before taking over the Sharpton campaign — had been managing the parliamentary campaign for one of Stone’s numerous foreign clients: the United Bermuda Party, a white-led party trying to oust the resort island’s first black government.

“Since Rev. Al’s presidential campaign [2004] is really all about trying to succeed Jesse Jackson as America’s premier black political leader, the installation of Halloran is thus an odd choice indeed, one that can be explained only by Sharpton’s dependence on the money funneled into his campaign by Stone. (Halloran’s wife works for the infamous Carlyle Group, the military-industrial-complex giant of which Bush was a longtime officer.)

“Stone has acknowledged that he ‘helped Sharpton’ meet the 20-state, $5,000-contribution threshold required for federal matching funds….

“…Sharpton’s almost penniless campaign has been sustained only by money given or raised by [Republican] Stone or by Stone-arranged credit with consultants — without which the campaign would collapse. The [Village] Voice alleges that Stone loaned some $270,000 to Sharpton laundered through Rev. Al’s National Action Network (NAN), and that Stone rang up $18,000 on his credit card for Sharpton’s campaign-travel and other expenses.

“In the wake of these revelations, the Federal Election Commission is about to consider [2004] whether the Sharpton campaign expenses picked up by NAN with the money provided by Stone, and other unpaid-for campaign services provided by Stone and his chums, constitute illegal campaign contributions, according to The New York Times.

“The Stone revelations show that Rev. Al’s presidential campaign is nothing more than another scam he’s running on black Americans, one designed to undermine the movement to defeat George Bush. Fortunately, black voters aren’t as gullible as the cynical Sharpton thinks they are — they know an unprincipled huckster when they see one.

“Which is why Sharpton — despite the help from his GOP bedmates on which his campaign depends — has been rejected by significant majorities of African-Americans this year at the polls.”

(Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator whose articles appear regularly in The Nation, Tom Paine.com, and In These Times among many others. This article first appeared in the LA Weekly.)

Unfortunately, Sharpton, with lots of help from Barack Obama, has rehabbed his image and inserted himself, with significant effect, into the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown ops. From which no good thing is going to transpire, for black or white or brown or yellow or red people.

What is going on in Ferguson, and what went on in the Trayvon Martin case, are a lot deeper than they seem.

Ops within ops. Setting faction against faction. Race against race.

How far back do we need to go? The Clinton years and the Bush years and the Obama years are replete with major crimes that needed to be covered up.

What better way to achieve this end than to set race against race, distracting and frightening the population in the process, while further reducing the power of the people to take effective action against their political and economic bosses.

And to put the cherry on the cake, by the terms of these psyops every black person is supposed to side with “all black people,” and every white person is supposed to side with “all white people.”

That is a formula for doom.

It tries to makes the free and independent individual extinct.

Jon Rappoport

Martial law shakes hands with the US vaccine program

Oct8

by Jon Rappoport

October 8, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote this one in 2012. The relevance to the “current Ebola crisis” should be obvious, especially since it seems that every pharmaceutical company now working overtime on Ebola drugs and vaccines is receiving funding from the Pentagon.

Who knew the Pentagon had muscled into the US vaccine program?

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has been doing research on vaccine production. They’ve found a way to produce flu vaccines a lot faster than Big Pharma.

DARPA Effort Speeds Biothreat Response (Nov. 2, 2010, by Cheryl Pellerin, American Forces Press Service)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61520

DARPA’s Blue Angel – Pentagon prepares millions of vaccines against future global flu (28 July, 2012, RT.com)

http://rt.com/usa/news/future-vaccine-darpa-research-255/

Utilizing vaccines grown on tobacco cells, instead of the traditional chicken eggs, DARPA has turned out a staggering 10 million doses of flu vaccine in just one month.

This “Blue Angel” project, as it’s called, suddenly puts the Pentagon in the forefront of the vaccine business. The big question is: why is the Army involved in vaccines at all? And the answer is no surprise. According to DARPA, it’s all about readiness in containing bio-threats. Translated, that means terrorist attacks that could use flu viruses.

This is a sinister development. It creates a potential scenario in which the military can invent the “bio-threat” and then step in and provide the solution. It doesn’t really matter whether the bio-threat is real or imaginary.

The threat would offer the chance to initiate a martial-law scenario, after which the military vaccine would be made mandatory, destroying the right of each state in the union to permit, as is now the case, people to opt out of vaccination on religious, medical, or ethical grounds.

The Pentagon is famous for developing weapons and then lobbying for battlefield opportunities to use them. This is part and parcel of their “war is forever” mentality. Well, in this case, the vaccine becomes the defensive weapon, and you can be sure the Pentagon will strive to deploy it in a situation that “demands it”—a chilling prospect.

Several medical issues arise as well. First, what safety tests have been done to ensure that tobacco viruses don’t enter these DARPA vaccines through lab contamination, thereby finding their way into the human bloodstream, via injection, and causing uncharted health problems? No word about that, just as there was no word, historically, about various Pentagon weapons systems that later proved to be dangerous to the soldiers using them (e.g, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).

Hidden in the story about the new means of vaccine production: the employment of a synthetic construction that is supposed to mimic the human immune system. To test the ability of the tobacco-vaccines to induce a “robust immune response,” this new chemical lab-version of an immune system becomes the guinea pig. But there is no proof that such an artifact works or is translatable to actual processes of the human body.

Finally, DARPA states that the vaccine it just produced contains aluminum. Toxicity for humans is thus guaranteed.

In the hands of the Pentagon, what could possibly go wrong with this Blue Angel program? Everything.

In case we need to review the most recent “epidemic” advertised by the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO), it killed, by the most generous estimates, 20,000 people worldwide. Despite being labeled a catastrophic level-6 pandemic, the H1N1 Swine Flu turned out to be a comparative dud. WHO states that, every year, seasonal non-pandemic flu kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people.

The CDC and WHO relentlessly promoted Swine Flu as a monster menace that could invade and decimate the planet. Therefore, everyone needed to step up and take the vaccine. These civilian agencies are mere pikers compared to the Pentagon. Can you imagine what the Dept. of Defense would promote and launch to guarantee their vaccine finds a place in your bloodstream? The DOD regularly makes conflict of interest into an art form.

Martial law? No problem.

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 29^th 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.

CIA records: they wanted to kill, using chemical, biological substances

Aug13

CIA records: wanted to kill using chemical, biological substances

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

By analyzing CIA documents from earlier days, we can understand the programs of the Agency and its government cousins.

Given the fact that the CIA’s umbrella research program, MKULTRA, went completely dark in 1962, and given the technological advances that have been made in the intervening years, we can draw inferences about present-day covert ops.

Document: May 20, 1975; sent by CIA Inspector General, Donald F. Chamberlain, to the Director of Central Intelligence, William Colby.

Subject: CIA activities at Fort Detrick, Maryland [in the 1952 period].

Fort Detrick was the center of US government chem/bio warfare research.

Here is the opening quote from the document:

“In early 1952, CIA effected an agreement with the Army Chemical Corp for the performance of certain research and development work by the Army Chemical Corp at the laboratory facilities of Special Operations Division, Army Biological Laboratories, Frederick, Maryland.”

And here is a key quote about a research project:

“Adaptation and testing of a non-discernible microbioinoculator (device for clandestine inoculation with BW/CW [biowarfare/chemicalwarfare] agents) to determine compatibility with various materials to assure that the microbioinoculator cannot be identified structurally or easily detected upon a detailed autopsy…”

Translation: The CIA would test a tiny device for injecting chemical and biological agents into people, killing them—and the fact of an injection would be difficult to prove during subsequent autopsy of the victims.

Death would appear to be from other causes or vectors.

Aside from the obvious use of this method for assassinations, there is the further possibility of “epidemic fabrication.”

The application would be fairly simple. Covertly inject a few people with a germ—and later identify those people as “patient zeroes” or “carriers.”

From there, through the use of propaganda, initiate the idea that the disease is rapidly spreading.

By falsifying diagnostic tests on others—a simple matter since routine tests register many false positives—and claiming a list of common symptoms are indicators of the epidemic-disease (cough, fever, muscle ache, weakness, fatigue), the appearance of a pandemic can be created. (re: “many false positives”,… see, for example, The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests)

From that follow the usual steps: the government is rushing a vaccine into production; everyone should be vaccinated; people should avoid large gatherings; suspected carriers can be quarantined.

Staged reality.

The mass-vaccination campaign “against the rising epidemic” inflicts harm. Chemicals (e.g., aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury) and germs ordinarily found in vaccines are toxic and destructive.

So without even covertly placing “unusual” materials in vaccines, people are going to suffer consequences.

You might ask, what about using the CIA method to cause a real epidemic? It’s possible, but the amount of injected (or aerosolized) virus would have to be quite large, for each person, in order to create illness. (For “virus concentration”, see the discussion on “titer” in this article). (For another way they could stage a “real epidemic”, see this article).

Secret ops like this one are funded, go underground, morph, are sometimes shifted to other departments, and develop, over the years.

The public does not hear of them, and does not suspect that its government is devising ways to inflict damage abroad and at home.

Jon Rappoport

FBI terrorists among us: the 1993 WTC Bombing

Jul29

FBI terrorists among us: 1993 WTC Bombing

The mind-boggling role of the Bureau

by Jon Rappoport

July 29, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

“’Think of the liability!’

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

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

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

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

But there is more to the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remember thinking: Is there anything under the sun the FBI can be held accountable for…because letting the bomb plot go forward…what else do you need for a criminal prosecution of the Bureau?

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

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

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

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

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

The 1993, 1995 (Oklahoma), and 2001 bombings in the US were used to expand and justify the coercive power of the State over the population.

Needless to say, we are living with that legacy.

As well, we are living with a government which claims that people who question official scenarios are themselves potential terrorists.

As further evidence that terror attacks which the FBI investigates are not what they seem, the only accused bomber who got away in 1993 was Abdul Rahman Yasin.

A May 31, 2002, CBS News article comments on the fact that one of its “60 Minutes” stars, Lesley Stahl, had just interviewed Yasin in an Iraqi “facility.”

The article states, “Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the [1993 WTC] bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him…Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.”

Yasin flew to Iraq, lived for a year without interference, but then was placed in one of Saddam Hussein’s prisons.

The FBI released Yasin outright in the wake of the devastating WTC attack because he was so helpful?

If so, quite possibly, like Emad Salem, he was already on their payroll.

Finally, to complete the surreal picture, consider that Ralph Blumenthal’s shocking 1993 article in the NY Times about Salem, harmless powder, real explosives, the FBI pulling Salem out of the bomb plot and thus allowing it go forward…none of this prompted any major news outlet in America to launch its own investigation of these matters.

They simply parroted Blumenthal’s findings for a brief day, stepped back, and forgot about the whole business.

They moved on to other stories, other headlines, other distractions.

They let the FBI off the hook.

And the Department of Justice? They prosecuted no one at the FBI.

Pressing forward with an investigation, the NY Times could have made Watergate, by comparison, seem like a Sunday Boy Scout picnic. Over a period of months, they could have pried dozens of rats out of hiding places and gotten them to talk.

They could have expanded the scandal to tsunami proportions, and in the process, sold hundreds of millions newspapers.

But success, in those terms, isn’t part of the Times’ equation, or the equation of any major press outlet. They would rather shrink and drown in a sea of red ink.

They’re on the government and corporate team. They’re playing that game. Ultimately, they’re the “us” and everyone else is the “them”.

In this case, they had to stop the exposure, after letting Blumenthal off his leash for a day or two. They had to pull back and pretend nothing had happened.

The FBI wasn’t really guilty. Of course not, because if they were, the whole federal colossus might start to unravel, disintegrate, and fall into the Potomac.

Jon Rappoport

Outrageous coverup of 1995 OKC Bombing continues

Jul27

Outrageous coverup of 1995 OKC bombing continues

by Jon Rappoport

July 27, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue claims his brother, Kenneth, was killed during interrogation, in federal custody 19 years ago, because Kenneth resembled the “other suspect” in the OKC Bombing case, John Doe #2.

The FBI claims Kenneth, with “41 wounds and bruises (according to AP),” committed suicide.

Attorney Trentadue states there was another man with Tim McVeigh at the scene of the Bombing on April 19, 1995—and it wasn’t his brother.

The FBI claims McVeigh was alone.

To settle this issue, in 2009, as AP reported, the FBI finally gave Trentadue some security tapes from buildings near the Murrah Federal Building. Magically, the tapes were all blank just before and after the Murrah Building was blown up at 9:02AM on 4/15/95.

Now, Trentadue has filed a FOIA suit against the FBI. He wants more tapes. A trial begins Monday.

The FBI claims it can’t find more tapes.

Everybody connected to the OKC bombing case knows there is another reason the FBI is tap dancing and lying:

Actual video footage of the Murrah Building falling would show the fabled truck bomb didn’t cause the damage to the Building and didn’t kill 168 people inside.

Video footage would show a straight-down demolition-type collapse. Meaning: charges placed on the columns did the true damage.

In 1995, while investigating the Bombing, I interviewed 4 explosives experts, and they concurred that the force of an ANFO truck bomb would have dissipated rapidly in the open air and failed to create so much destruction.

More importantly and specifically, the profile of the damage (which columns remained, and which fell) excluded the possibility that a bomb in a truck was the weapon.

Some columns closer to the famed Ryder truck stayed up; other columns farther away went down.

Shortly after the Bombing in 1995, I spoke to a reporter at the Daily Oklahoman. She said she’d interviewed a man who’d seen the Murrah Building collapse. He told her it went straight down, demolition-style.

I managed to reach this witness. He said he didn’t really see the Building go down.

I got back to the reporter. She was furious. She told me she had his statement in her notes. “I’m not making this up,” she said.

I also interviewed Hoppy Heidelberg, a grand juror in the OKC Bombing case. He told me he’d tried to persuade the prosecutor to call bomb experts as witnesses, but he was flatly turned down.

In 1995, anti-federal-government sentiment was rapidly spreading across America. Then, in the wake of the Bombing, President Bill Clinton gave a landmark speech. He basically told Americans they should come home to the government, the destruction of a federal building and the killing of 168 people was a heinous act that proved the real attitude of these “anti-government” groups. But security would be restored.

The speech was heralded as a “return to order and confidence.” Major media coverage of popular opposition to federal power receded.

From 1995 on, Americans who asserted federal power had expanded far beyond Constitutional boundaries have been labeled as potential terrorists.

9/11 took that accusation to a whole new level:

“The central government is always right. Those who say it’s fundamentally wrong are dangerous and/or mentally ill.”

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Government Fraud

CIA mind-control program: did it really end?

Mind control: the Pentagon mission to program the brain

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Immigration, open US borders: the secret reason

Newsflash: George Clooney doesn’t know N. Korea hacked Sony

Staging Ferguson, a covert op, and Al Sharpton

Martial law shakes hands with the US vaccine program

CIA records: they wanted to kill, using chemical, biological substances

FBI terrorists among us: the 1993 WTC Bombing

Outrageous coverup of 1995 OKC Bombing continues