Hideous liars lying about guns: what people don’t know, don’t want to know, are too naïve to believe, and are too scared to say

by Jon Rappoport

May 26, 2022

(To join our email list, click here.)

(The latest Episode of Rappoport Podcasts — Episode 9 — “The Monkeypox Outbreak—Is It Real?” — is up. It’s a blockbuster. To listen, click here. To learn more about This Episode of Rappoport Podcasts, 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

We’re looking at a grotesque con here. A hustle. And the predatory politicians lying about guns know they’re lying. They’re disgusting. Repulsive. Sane people can smell the stench rising from them miles away.

First of all, 99% of the people who own guns—I don’t care what kinds of guns—don’t shoot other people. They don’t.

So a legitimate politician who has eyes to see and is honest—there are a few—would say this:

“I’m going to show you where most of the gun crimes in America are committed. I’m talking about murder, I’m talking about wounding, I’m talking about armed robberies, and I’m also talking about places where the residents live under constant daily fear of people shooting guns.”

This would clear the air.

It would also put mass spree shootings in proper perspective, since they account for only a fraction of ongoing chronic gun crimes.

So…on a map, what areas do you think this honest politician would circle? Where are most of the gun crimes being committed—not because the guns are going off by themselves, but because actual people are shooting them.

I assume you know. Inner cities. Saint Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, etc.

Who are the people doing most of the shooting in those cities?

Gangs.

Which people in those cities are putting residents under the most fear on a day to day basis?

Gang members.

So here’s a unique idea. Go after the people shooting the guns.

Don’t jabber about taking the guns away from everybody—that’s what the predatory leaders are doing…and they KNOW that won’t solve the situation. They know. Which means they don’t really want to stop the shooting and the killing and the wounding.

But the gangs are immune. They have privilege, for several reasons.

One of those reasons is: according to media and most of government, law-enforcement may not go after groups of black men. That’s it in a nutshell.

Doesn’t matter that those groups of black men are gangs who are responsible for an extraordinary number of gun crimes.

Here’s a bonus fact. What else do gangs do that is destroying many, many lives every day? They distribute and sell killer street drugs for drug cartels. Crack, meth, fentanyl.

What do the cartels do with the massive amounts of money they make? For one thing, they wash it through banks.

This is called a clue, my friends. A clue as to why gangs are protected. They’re good for business. Big business.

Black Lives Matter, which has been funded with major white money, has functioned as a front for the cartels and the banks, in the sense that BLM has completely diverted the American people from thinking about ongoing gun violence and massive drug trafficking operated by cartel agents—THE GANGS—and instead has pressured millions of people to focus on cops killing black people.

If you care to, you can look up the statistics on how many black people cops kill, versus how many black people black gangs kill.

But of course, Black Lives Matter will tell you these comparative numbers don’t Matter at all. Just mentioning them is an act of systemic racism.

Sure it is. Right. Of course.

In reality, some black lives matter more than others. The innocent black people who are robbed at gunpoint, wounded and killed by bullets, held in fear of violence in their own neighborhoods—they matter less than black gang members who are doing the robbing and wounding and killing and selling the killer drugs and owning the neighborhoods and filling those neighborhoods with fear.

Consider this scenario: A very large corporation has been shoveling funds to Black Lives Matter. That corporation is operating on very slim profit margins. In fact, it’s heading right into the red. It has to take out a huge loan. What kind of money could it reach for, if it quietly wants to obtain the best possible terms?

Drug money.

Connect the dots.

Who protects that drug money? BLM. It does it by protecting the gang traffickers. It does THAT by focusing Americans on violence committed by cops instead of gangs.

Who knows? In the world we’re living in, you might be working for a corporation that is floating on drug money—or even a company that was launched by a cartel laundering its money.

Those companies are all over the place. Criminal organizations start them all the time.

The companies are brought to you by gangs with guns on the ground in major cities, who are wounding and killing and robbing people, and doing the grunt work of distributing and selling the drugs that make the big drug money for the cartels, who use that money to launch “legitimate” companies.

This is also Culture:

“Get Rich Or Die Tryin’.” Rapper 50 Cent.

The kids love it.

Let me boil all this down by presenting an imaginary Congressional hearing, in which a black ex-BLM member spills the beans:

Why did you leave BLM?

Because I saw what it was really doing.

And what is that?

BLM is making it socially and politically impossible for law-enforcement to go after black gangs who are shooting black people in inner cities. And BLM is essentially controlling public perception. Making the public see only the instances where white cops kill black people.

I see. So that means—

That means the gangs are given a free pass. And the gangs are killing far more black people than cops do. It isn’t even close.

Hmm. But—

That’s not all. Aside from shooting and killing black people, the gangs are selling and distributing drugs for the Mexican cartels. Making huge money for the cartels. The cartels wash that money in banks.

Wait a minute. We aren’t here today to talk about banks.

Oh yes we are. BLM is by proxy working for those banks. The banks need the gangs to stay free of major prosecution. Because the gangs make money for the cartels and the cartels wash that money in banks.

Stop right there—

No I won’t. You people say you want to stop gun violence in America. But you won’t lift a finger to bring RICO cases against the biggest source of gun violence in America, the gangs. And I’m telling why you won’t.

I’m calling a recess now. This is getting way off track.

It’s exactly on track.

We’re in recess.

—And that’s the end of the hearing.

And news outlets report the hearing as a minor story for one day and it never surfaces again.

(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 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.

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Sep5

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

During the reign of Barack Obama, mass shootings prompted a White House declaration that community mental health centers would be created across America, in order to spot and treat persons before they committed violent acts. Now, under Trump, we are seeing a similar reaction, with a twist.

The Daily Caller, Aug 22, 2019: “Trump Admin Is Considering Using Amazon Echo And Apple Watch To Determine If Citizens Should Own A Gun”

“The Trump administration is considering a proposal that would use Google, Amazon and Apple to collect data on users who exhibit characteristics of mental illness that could lead to violent behavior, The Washington Post reported Thursday.”

“The proposal is part of an initiative to create a Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), which would be located inside the Health and Human Services Department, the report notes, citing sources inside the administration. The new agency would have a separate budget and the president would be responsible for appointing its director.”

“HARPA would develop ‘breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,’ according to a copy of the proposal. ‘A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis’.”

“The document lists several technologies that could be employed to help collect information, including Apple Watches, Amazon Echo and Google Home. Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA, told reporters Thursday the plan would require enormous amounts of data and ‘scientific rigor.’”

Translation: Use all available resources to spy on Americans; and by deploying psychiatric definitions of mental disorders, somehow intercede before potentially violent individuals can legally obtain a weapon. Whether or not you favor gun control, creating this new federal agency would be on the order of injecting poisons in people to prevent poisoning.

Why? Because some of the most popular psychiatric drugs, given for “mental disorders,” cause people to go over the edge and commit violent acts, including murder. Once diagnosed, an uninformed person is at the mercy of psychiatrists who refuse to admit what their drugs are creating.

NOTE: Withdrawing from the drugs without expert supervision can result in effects which are even worse than those resulting from taking the drugs.

Here is an excerpt from my 1999 white paper, “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”:

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was titled, “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

I’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.

Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac.

Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.

Mainstream psychiatrists would certainly be in charge of any new Trump program to “predict violent individuals” before they obtain a gun or commit heinous acts. The program wouldn’t just fail. It would increase violence.

Two questions always pop up when I write a critique of psychiatry. The first one is: psychiatric researchers are doing a massive amount of work studying brain function. They do have tests.

Yes, experimental tests. But NONE of those tests are contained in the DSM, the psychiatric bible, as the basis of the definition of ANY mental disorder. If the tests were conclusive, they would be heralded in the DSM. They aren’t.

The second question is: if all these mental disorders are fiction, why are so many people saddled with problems? Why are some people off the rails? Why are they crazy?

The list of potential answers is very long. A real practitioner would focus on one patient at a time and try to discover what has affected him to such a marked degree. For example:

Severe nutritional deficiency. Toxic dyes and colors in processed food. Ingestion of pesticides and herbicides. Profound sensitivities to certain foods. The ingestion of toxic pharmaceuticals. Life-altering damage as a result of vaccines. Exposure to environmental chemicals. Heavy physical and emotional abuse in the home or at school. Battlefield stress and trauma (also present in certain neighborhoods). Prior head injury. Chronic infection. Alcohol and street drugs. Debilitating poverty.

Other items could be added.

Psychiatry is: fake, fraud, pseudoscience from top to bottom. It’s complete fiction dressed up as fact.

But the obsessed devotees of science back away from this. They close their eyes. If a “branch of knowledge” as extensive as psychiatry is nothing more than an organized delusion, what other aspect of science might likewise be parading as truth, when it is actually mere paper blowing in the wind?

And yet, the Trump administration, following the same general game plan as the Obama administration, is seriously considering the creation of a whole new federal agency that will somehow use “psychiatric knowledge” (an oxymoron), as a guide, to carry out new forms of surveillance on the whole population and intercede, when individuals with “mental disorders” try to buy a gun in order to commit a violent crime.

Not only will this strategy utterly fail, it will, through the prescription of violence-inducing drugs, make the tragedies expand and multiply.

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

Jon Rappoport

Was the Vegas shooter a patsy?

Oct5

Was the Vegas shooter a patsy?

How did he get all those weapons into his hotel suite?

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2017

Daily Mail: “…Jill Sneider of the ATF said that no less than 12 of the rifles found in the room had bump-stock modifications.”

“In total, there were 23 firearms in the hotel room, including an AK-47, an AR-15-type gun, and a handgun.”

That’s a lot of weight. That’s a lot of steel. How did Stephen Paddock, the purported Vegas shooter, get all those weapons into his Mandalay Hotel suite?

Are we supposed to believe no red flags went up? No alarms were triggered?

He had no help? No help from the inside?

On top of that, why did he take all those weapons into the suite? He certainly wasn’t going to use all of them.

It’s easy to say, “He did all that because he was crazy, and there is no way to analyze crazy.” If investigations proceeded on that premise, they wouldn’t be investigations.

Confronted with this pile of weaponry in a suite, after a mass shooting, it would be reasonable to ask, “Did the accused shooter actually bring all these guns in himself?” And further: “Was this some kind of set-up, carried out to forward a “take the guns away from everybody” agenda?

Yes, that would open the door to a very murky area—constructing an alternative time line of events leading up to the shooting. Nevertheless, a true investigation would explore this area. Although police and FBI aren’t talking about it, you can bet a few officers are at least looking into the possibility that Paddock had help bringing all that weaponry into his suite.

Are we to assume the Mandalay Hotel security system is a sieve? They just wave everyone through without a flicker of doubt, with millions of dollars on the premises and millions more being bet in real time in the casino? It’s just a party?

Pit bosses on the floor and eyes in the sky can spot a cheater who is counting cards at a blackjack table, but no one is able to notice a well-known high stakes gambler (Paddock) dragging many suitcases through the premises up into his suite? Really?

The aftermath of the concert shooting has turned into an ideal opportunity for gun control and a stepped up Surveillance State. The presence of so many guns in Paddock’s suite makes a perfect photo op for these agendas.

As more background emerges on Stephen Paddock, we discover he isn’t just a burrito-eating retiree living outside Vegas. According to the press, he’s a millionaire real estate investor. He has many options in life. But he makes a plan to end that life. He surely knows that’s what is going to happen. He wants it to happen. He launches an operation over the course of months to bring about his death.

Yes, it’s possible. And the Valium he’s taking could push him over the edge, because it can cause aggression in some people. Nevertheless, we’re supposed to believe, without explanation, that his impulse for destruction and self-destruction was far more than just a moment’s snap decision. It was embedded in a carefully wrought design. Paddock laid out a sequence of events that would culminate in his “suicide by cop.” We’re supposed to take that as an article of faith.

Or…was this operation something else entirely? Was, for example Paddock, as a gun enthusiast, profiled and targeted and used by a team intent on carrying out the concert shooting?

Was he a patsy?

Was he a Lee Oswald, a Sirhan Sirhan, a James Earl Ray?

The use of patsies varies. The set-ups can be complex. There is more than just one possible pattern. For example, in the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, Tim McVeigh, to the degree he may have been involved, was only used to get a Ryder Truck to the curb outside the Murrah Federal Building on the morning of April 19th.

We are assured there was an ANFO bomb in the truck (ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil). Seven or eight barrels were linked up to go off at once. Of course, making that happen would take a considerable degree of expertise—beyond McVeigh’s skill. The explosions in the barrels must be simultaneous; otherwise, you’re left with no force and fertilizer all over the street.

Still further, it turns out that, even with a simultaneous ignition, the force and direction of the blast were insufficient to cause the degree and profile of the damage sustained by the Murrah Building. That bomb was a diversion and a distraction.

One alternative explanation: as the bomb in the Ryder truck went off, pillars of the building—which had previously been wired with explosives—were triggered. Those explosives caused the actual damage.

But McVeigh, the “Ryder truck man,” became the face of the crime. He was the “lone bomber.”

The patsy.

The public is taught to believe sophistication in the use of patsies is impossible.

The public is wrong.

The role of Stephen Paddock in the concert shooting cannot be accepted blindly as the press details it.

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

Jon Rappoport

Open letter to NFL players: you’re being used

Sep26

Try being politically INcorrect if you want some real answers

by Jon Rappoport

September 26, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Dear NFL Players:

In case you’ll only read a few worlds of this story, I’ll get right to the point.

You’re being used.

You’re being duped into focusing on the wrong issue: police brutality against black people.

If you actually want to solve what’s happening to black people in inner cities, police brutality is way down on the list.

By focusing only on brutality, you’re leading people AWAY FROM seeing what’s really going on in inner cities. You’re guaranteeing NO ANSWERS. You’re guaranteeing NO CHANGE.

“Let’s not solve the problem, whatever the problem is. Let’s just ramp up the conflict and the polarization between races.”

Let’s go back to the original protestor, ex-quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who made his original kneeling protest about police brutality directed at black people. I want to examine his premise.

Here are bare-bones statistics from New York City, perhaps the only big city in America that issues a detailed annual report of police “firearms discharges.” You may be shocked.

Population of NYC: 8.3 million.

Police officers: 35,000.

2013 incidents of “intentional [police weapon] discharges during an adversarial conflict”: 40.

In those discharges, number of people injured: 17.

Number of people killed: 8.

Source: NYPD 2013 Annual Firearms Discharge Report.

In that same year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, there were 7,462 “violent crimes by firearm” in New York City.

Who was the busier class of people in 2013? Cops or criminals? Which group caused, by far, the greater amount of human destruction of black people?

Philly.com has reported on several other American cities.

“Philadelphia’s rate of police shootings [2012], when compared against the number of violent crimes, was 2.90 per 1,000 incidents [of violent crime].”

“The rate of [police] shootings in Houston for 2012 was 1.25 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2012, the rate of police shootings in Dallas was 2.39 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2011, the rate of police shootings in Las Vegas stood at 1.66.”

“Baltimore’s rate [2011] was 1.58.”

Again, I ask: in those cities, who was the busier class of people? The cops or the criminals?

If facts don’t scare you, do a little research and discover who, by and large, is committing most of those violent crimes in US cities. By race.

Media outlets don’t ask and answer this simple question. They parse and evade and blow smoke. They trumpet small increases in the rate of police shootings and, therefore, obscure chronic inner-city conditions [e.g., violent crimes].

And as long as they keeping doing that, the public will continue to be distracted, and nothing will change.

As long as Colin Kaepernick and his supporters keep focusing only on police brutality, the problem of violent crime and poverty and other chronic devastations in inner cities won’t change at all.

Is that what you protestors want? No change at all?

What are the real devastations in inner cities populated by black people?

* Violent crime.

* Drugs.

* Gangs, some of whom are low-level dealers for Mexican cartels.

* Grinding poverty.

* Jobs stolen by Globalists and sent to foreign lands.

* Toxic chemicals (lead in water, landfills where corporate pollutants are dumped).

* Absence of fathers in homes.

* Unsafe neighborhoods—making education highly difficult.

* Grossly sub-standard nutrition. Empty junk food.

These are the most real problems—police brutality is far down on the list.

In other articles, I’ve written about solutions to some of these problems. Here, I’ll simply say that if you NFL protestors want to make a difference, you need to stand up and do something harder than you’re doing now. Right now, you’re unwitting agents of NO CHANGE and racial divide-and-conquer.

YOU’RE FOCUSING ON POLICE BRUTALITY, AS IF THAT’S THE DEEPEST PROBLEM IN BLACK INNER CITIES. It isn’t. So you’re leading people away from recognizing and admitting what the real problems are.

What you’re doing now, men, isn’t going to work. You’re only going to sow more conflict.

And by the way, all those thinly disguised Leftist sports writers and columnists and broadcasters who are “resolutely coming to your defense?” They’re useless. They aren’t doing you any favors. They’re mainly interested in appearing virtuous. Some of them are scared not to appear virtuous.

But look, if you don’t want to solve the biggest problems in inner cities, if that doesn’t interest you, if that’s politically incorrect and you don’t want to touch that with a ten-foot pole, it’s understandable.

Just go out on the field and play football then.

Admit your protests are nothing more than polarizing distractions from the real issues.

Admit you’re galvanizing black people in the wrong direction, away from meaningful solutions. You’re adding to the problem.

By the way, if you think government is the ultimate answer to the conditions in inner cities, consider this: since 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson declared the mighty War on Poverty, it’s estimated that two trillion dollars have been poured into black neighborhoods, to “lift them up.”

How has that worked out? Where has all the money actually gone? Who stole how much of that money? How do those black neighborhoods look today? Where are the Congressmen who want that situation investigated?

Do you get the feeling that someone somewhere wants black inner cities to fail and keep on failing? And failure is part and parcel of a vicious agenda?

In which case, you’re actually on the side of promoting failure. Your protests are Pied Piper tunes leading the people of inner cities into deeper despair. And away from the truth, away from the most pressing problems.

You’re being used. You’re agents.

When you signed your NFL contracts, did you have any idea things would work out this way?

Well, they have.

You’re looking a simple formula here. Understand it. It’s been used all over the world for centuries. If there are 10 things people could really do to solve a horrendous chronic situation, highlight some other problem that won’t lead TO ANY SOLUTION. Focus on that. Enlist high-profile people to keep focusing on that.

Get it?

You’re those high-profile people. YOU.

And the black inner cities? They’re showcases for Globalists, who want to convince one and all that permanent economic and political dependence on higher authority is the only policy that counts.

People raising themselves up is out. Forget it.

End result?

Slavery.

The very thing you say you’re fighting against.

But through a clever twist, a long-term covert op, you’re fighting for it.

Wise up. Wake up.

Or keep fronting for elites and keep losing, no matter what the scoreboard says on Sunday.

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

Jon Rappoport

How often do US police officers discharge their weapons?

Nov6

by Jon Rappoport

November 6, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

In recent years, the police have been blamed for a variety of very serious problems in American inner cities.

This is an intentional campaign, designed to distract the public from the chronic conditions that have actually been dooming residents of inner cities for decades:

Crime rate. Gangs. Drugs. The export of jobs overseas, exacerbating poverty. A hostile refusal, from many quarters, to support local leaders who exemplify self-sufficiency of the individual and the community.

No one at the federal level actually aims to eradicate life-sapping chronic conditions in inner cities. Rather, the plan is to expand the number of people who are dependent on government for the length of their lives.

The cover story and the massive distraction? Blame the police for everything.

Here are bare-bones statistics from New York City, perhaps the only big city in America that issues a detailed annual report of police “firearms discharges.” You may be shocked.

Population of NYC: 8.3 million.

Police officers: 35,000.

2013 incidents of “intentional [police weapon] discharges during an adversarial conflict”: 40.

In those discharges, number of people injured: 17.

Number of people killed: 8.

Source: NYPD 2013 Annual Firearms Discharge Report.

In that same year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, there were 7,462 “violent crimes by firearm” in New York City.

Who was the busier class of people in 2013? Cops or criminals? Which group caused, by far, the greater amount of human destruction?

Philly.com has reported on several other American cities.

“Philadelphia’s rate of police shootings [2012], when compared against the number of violent crimes, was 2.90 per 1,000 incidents.”

“The rate of [police] shootings in Houston for 2012 was 1.25 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2012, the rate of police shootings in Dallas was 2.39 [per 1000 violent crimes].”

“In 2011, the rate of police shootings in Las Vegas stood at 1.66.”

“Baltimore’s rate [2011] was 1.58.”

Again, I ask: in those cities, who was the busier class of people? The cops or the criminals?

And as long as they keeping doing that, the public will continue to be distracted, and nothing will change.

Police brutality? The increasing militarization of police forces? The program to federalize all local police forces? These are clear and present dangers. But they don’t explain the decades-long plummet of quality of life in inner cities. Once again, these conditions explain it:

Crime rate. Vicious gangs. Drugs. The export of jobs overseas, exacerbating grinding poverty. The hostile indifference to local leaders who exemplify the self-sufficiency of the individual and the community.

Look over the vacuous promises of Presidents, who have launched “programs” to turn around inner cities. The results have been nil. The intention was never real. From Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama, deception has been the only success.

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

Let me now make a sharp turn and move away from problems to solutions. Rearrange your head for a moment.

Here is an illustration of what I mean by “self-sufficiency” in inner cities—surely a worthwhile goal. In Chicago, and this is a very partial list, we have the Chicago Lights Urban Farm, the 62nd and Dorchester Community Garden, the Chicago Patchwork Farms, the City Farms, the Growing Power Chicago Farms. These projects involve local citizens growing and eating their own fresh and nutritious food.

This is a real and profound revolution, make no mistake about it.

Instead of the estimated $2 trillion that has been spent by government in the failed War on Poverty since 1966, for 20 or 30 million dollars there could be 5000 urban farms in inner cities across America. And those farms would, in turn, give birth to more such food-growing operations. And local life would radically change.

Any American President with a few working brain cells could understand that. And could launch such a plan.

If he wanted to.

If he really wanted to begin to solve the chronic conditions in inner cities.

That’s a big if.

There is no evidence that, since 1966, the “if” has materialized.

It’s much easier (and more deceptive) to blame everything on police shootings. People can read about them and hear about them and nod and say, “Yes, this is why inner cities are destitute. This is THE core reason.”

Some people are happier in their delusions.

Jon Rappoport

Message to Colin Kaepernick: the real disaster of inner cities

Sep4

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Mr. Kaepernick:

As you keep sitting down or kneeling during the National Anthem, you keep focusing on police brutality.

Many people now see incidents of this brutality as THE face of what is ruining life in the inner cities of America.

They’re wrong.

When people buy the wrong problem, they’ll never find the right solution.

Police brutality is not what is ruining life in the inner cities of America.

I offer you a different perspective, in an article I wrote recently:

“The gift that keeps on giving: inner cities, violence, poverty, gangs, drugs, BLM, shaming, guilt, Globalism”

Suppose…

The President of the United States, seized with some unexplainable attack of conscience, stood up in front of television cameras and spoke to the nation and the world about…

The real web that entangles and holds inner cities hostage.

Suppose the President suddenly said:

“My fellow Americans, the first thing you have to know is that, since 1966, when the federal government declared a War on Poverty, it has spent some two trillion dollars, much of it earmarked for the inner cities of America. And now, today, those areas are worse off than ever.

“For various reasons, including the massive diversion of funds, this War is a total failure.

“Second, the elite march toward Globalism—the control of the planet exercised by a few powerful groups—has purposely sent manufacturing jobs out of America, and out of inner cities, to Third World countries—and one effect has been the massive loss of jobs here.

“Poverty, already a fact of life in inner cities, has spread like wildfire.

“On top of all this, we have seen the expansion of criminal gangs in poverty-stricken urban communities. Violence and fear there is a way of life. And there has never been a comprehensive federal strategy for ridding our cities of this abominable scourge.

“Do you want to know why? Well, here is one reason. Gangs cooperate with Mexican cartels to distribute street drugs across America. Gangs have been vital cogs in that machine. And certain players attached to government, above and behind government—bankers, for example—profit greatly from this industry.

“Wiping out the American gang scourge would put a crimp in the permitted drug business.

“We, the government, pretend these gangs are little more than ‘disadvantaged youth’ who need an opportunity to fulfill themselves. We do everything in our power to frame the problem in terms of sociological causes—and we purposely avoid the stark fact that these boys and men commit terrible crimes and hold inner cities hostage by creating and sustaining a climate of fear and danger and drug addiction.

“In truth, police brutality accounts for a very small fraction of lives lost in inner city communities.

“Meanwhile, the relatively few citizens of inner cities who do manage, against heavy odds, to launch successful local businesses, are never deployed to spearhead and teach their neighbors how to achieve that kind of remarkable success. We may pin on a badge, or present a plaque, or stage a photo op, but we never deploy federal money to make these authentic business leaders into long-term instructors in the art they have mastered. That is tragic.

“Do you want to talk about cooperation? In several American inner cities, local heroes have created urban farms. Residents of all ages learn to grow their own food. Their own fresh, clean food. What a magnificent achievement. With an infinitesimal fraction of the federal money we have wastefully dumped into the War on Poverty, we could have these pioneers start up a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand expansive urban farms across America. —Food grown by the people who will eat it. This project alone would revolutionize life in those places. Why aren’t we doing it? Why can’t government find these private citizens who are already tremendous problem solvers and empower them to solve more problem, instead of backing tired old race-baiting blowhards?

“I’ll tell you why. The government is a jealous master. It wants to define, control, and solve problems. It doesn’t really matter whether the problems are overcome, as long as government is in charge. That is a hideous fact of life, and we have to change it. Our wasteful, incompetent, and in some cases, criminal federal programs have to be sidetracked and stopped. They are runaway trains, and they must be led to terminals and parked.

“The protests against the police we are seeing now, even if they were successful in some respects, wouldn’t change any of the basic facts that ruin life in our inner cities. That may be hard to swallow, but it’s true.

“Shall I also detail for you how shameful and vicious loan practices have destroyed lives, how home mortgages have been rigged to make home buyers fail and lose their very place of shelter? Shall I detail how street-drug economies have taken over? Shall I describe how fervently most citizens in poverty-blighted cities actually want the police to wipe out gangs? Shall I bring up the devastating effect on many children who are raised without fathers?

“Black lives matter? All lives matter? Are we really going to spend time arguing about what to say and how to say it? I’m telling you, when it comes to life in inner cities, I’m describing the raw barriers that prevent it from flourishing—and if anyone cares to win this struggle, attention must be paid.

“Oh yes, and finally…I hate to say this, but the creation and maintenance of a permanent government-dependent underclass, in our cities, is an intentional act. It isn’t an accident, and it isn’t just a strategy for winning votes in election seasons. It’s a way of pulling the whole country down, sucking it into an ever-widening vortex of poverty, conflict, division, and useless guilt. There is no strong federal-government intention to help this underclass help itself. If there were, it might lead to a genuine renewal.

“Can we right the ship…?”

—Mr. Kaepernick, I suggest you think about these things. I suggest that people who are on your side, including reporters, also think about them.

Focusing on police brutality as the number-one overriding issue will never solve the real problems of inner cities.

Certain people want you to think it will. They want all of us to think it will. Why? Isn’t it obvious? They don’t want a solution.

And that is what racism looks like.

That’s exactly what it looks like.

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.

Politicians’ class-privilege: armed security

Jan18

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.)

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.

(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

NC mall shooter killed: wasn’t already in jail?

Dec26

NC mall shooter killed: wasn’t already in jail?

by Jon Rappoport

December 26, 2015

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

“There is virtually no self-serving story governments can sell, unless there are designated victims. Without them, governments would collapse. Therefore, the idea of raising up victims so they become self-sufficient is preposterous. No government would ever undertake that mission. Instead, they have their front-men claim the whole notion of self-sufficiency is cruel and heartless, a devious myth propagated by greedy evil men. As the years go by, larger sections of the population say, “There is a job for me? Work? A paycheck? How dare you! You’re secretly trying to deny my victim status. I know what you’re doing. I’m not falling for it.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

AP (“Police: Fight sparks North Carolina mall shooting; 1 killed”):

“[The mall shooter] was [previously] charged in July 2014 with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, injury to personal property and discharging a weapon on occupied property stemming. The disposition of those charges was not immediately known.”

Facts change and new reports are filed and lies are told, but let’s assume for the moment that we have certain true facts about the December 24 mall shooting in North Carolina.

I’ll give you several news reports and then make comments.

The Daily Mail (“Christmas mall gunman identified as rapper called ‘Donkey Cartel'”):

“The armed gunman who was killed inside a crowded North Carolina mall on Christmas Eve has been identified as Daquan Antonio Westbrook, a rapper who also goes by the name Donkey Cartel.”

The Washington Times (“Rapper Donkey Cartel killed in Charlotte, N.C., mall shooting”):

“Mr. Westbrook 18, was a rapper who performed as ‘Donkey Cartel’ and released a mixtape titled ‘Convicted Felon With a Weapon,’ the cover of which shows him in a prison cell wearing an orange jumpsuit and making hand signs.”

The Charlotte Observer (“Police kill teen gunman inside Northlake Mall”):

“Christmas Eve descended into chaos Thursday when shots were fired between two groups at a north Charlotte mall and a responding off-duty police officer [reportedly working security at the mall] shot and killed one of the alleged gunmen.

“Northlake Mall was jammed with last-minute holiday shoppers when an argument broke out between two groups involved in an ongoing dispute. At least two of the people involved pulled guns and opened fire, on the mall’s lower level near Dick’s Sporting Goods, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police said.

“Witnesses say hundreds of panicked bystanders screamed and shoved to get away from the area. Others dove under tables at the nearby food court.

“Police working at the mall responded. CMPD Chief Kerr Putney said witnesses told police that when off-duty officer Thomas Ferguson reached the scene, one of the gunmen turned and pointed his weapon at Ferguson.

“The officer fired his service weapon, Putney said. Daquan Antonio Westbrook, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene. At an evening news conference, Putney said police did not know if the teenager fired any shots at the officer.

“…Records indicate Westbrook had a lengthy criminal record involving guns, drugs and violence.

“…Westbrook’s short life featured a long list of criminal charges – from larceny and drugs to assaults and firearms. In 2014, he was charged with shooting a 12-year-old in northeast Charlotte. His most recent arrests took place in October, and were related to drugs, larceny and resisting arrest.”

The Washington Times (“Rapper Donkey Cartel killed in Charlotte, N.C., mall shooting”):

“Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said at a Thursday evening news conference that while he could not specifically say the shooting was gang-related, the altercation involved two groups with a history of feuding.

“This is not a random act of violence. This is something that happened between two parties that were beefing back and forth,” he said.

“The subjects involved all have a history of gun violence, he said.”

WSOCTV provides back story on the earlier 2013 shooting, for which Westbrook was charged (“Teen charged with shooting 12-year-old boy”):

“Charlotte Mecklenburg police charged Daquan Antonio Westbrook, 17, Friday in the 2013 shooting of a 12-year-old boy, according to a news release from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department.

“On July 07, 2013, officers responded to a shooting on North Pine Street where they found a 12-year-old boy who was shot in the leg. He was then taken to the hospital.

“Westbrook was charged with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, two counts of discharging a firearm into occupied property and damage to property.

“Westbrook remains in custody.”

My comments:

Apparently, Westbrook didn’t remain in custody. Was he sentenced for any of the many prior crimes for which he’d been charged? Were there trials? Verdicts? Plea bargains? Even though he was a minor, he still could have been given stiff sentences. Does anyone see this as a problem?

Could Daquan Antonio Donkey Cartel Westbrook have been curtailed by the justice system, on legitimate grounds, before this mall shooting? On the surface, it seems so. What exactly happened?

Notice how, in commenting on the Christmas Eve mall shooting, the Charlotte police chief avoids “gang.” These were “groups.” With a “history of feuding.” And a “history of gun violence.” At the mall, were they arguing about stock options, interest rates, movie rights to a book? After years of investigating these boys/men, were the police still in doubt about what they were? Apparently there is now a political downside to definitively saying “gang.” Does a state lose a a hundred million dollars of federal money every time one of its officials utters the g-word?

Well, gangs are a problem, because they have guns and they fire them. Whenever the President discusses gun control, he seems to avoid mentioning gangs, despite the fact that they keep shooting people. I’ll take a wild guess: they shoot people more often than, say, gun-owning ranchers out west. Another guess: the body count gangs compile is larger than that of the lone mass shooters who grab all the headlines.

Highlighting the gang problem in America has uncomfortable consequences. It drags into view, by implication, all the years of federal programs to improve the quality of life in inner cities. We could be talking about $2 trillion in the vaunted War on Poverty. How would that look alongside daily media reports of gang shootings (in which “gang” is emphasized) from coast to coast? People would raise very uncomfortable questions about the federal government.

And that’s not all. In general, gangs are needed to move drugs through the country. They are contract players for the cartels. Millions of words have been written, over the years, about the collaboration of federal agencies (DEA, CIA) with the cartels. Is the government interested in having those stories resurface and gain new life?

Then there is the sociological angle. The vastly preferred narrative attributes “inner city crime” to “conditions.” No one is really individually responsible for his actions—all the way up to, and including, murder. The acceptable government-media-academic story line is set in stone. The reason? The government has to sell eternal victimhood in order to sell eternal dependency on government, and dependency is one of those agendas that must never be disturbed.

Which brings us to the racial dimension. No matter what any President says or claims, black Americans are being used as a pawn in the victim scenario. As a symbol. As a poster. To reverse course and highlight black Americans as individuals with responsibilities (in both a positive and negative sense) would crash the whole victim stage play. There are, under the surface, with no media access, many, many black Americans who DO want to offload the victim plot-line. But that’s just too bad. They must be sacrificed for the greater good of propping up government as the Omnipresent Parent who will give great gifts to the helpless populace and ensure A Brighter Day Tomorrow.

Government to the People: “We have to demean you and belittle you and eat you in order to assist you. We have to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Of course they do.

Gangs keep communities in fearful chaos. Chaos is, therefore, good. It helps sustain the manufacture of victims, so the symbolic story government wants to tell can continue to be told.

Black lives matter? From the government’s point of view, yes, but only when black lives are perceived as utterly helpless—and that must never change.

As usual, government leaders are engaged in a massive piece of con artistry. And when the propaganda and the bullets fly, who do you think is mainly scheduled to be caught in the crossfire?

We’re looking at a bait and switch, plain and simple.

To repeat: “We’ll help you as long as you need to be helped. And, by the way, we’ll make sure that need lasts. Forever.”

Extending this strategy out, compare and contrast: “We, the government, speaking now to every American, urge you to bring your humanitarian impulses front and center, at a time when many Syrian refugees, dispossessed and victimized by the terrible war, are arriving on our shores. Of course, we ramped up that war to new heights by funding and backing and arming and helping to create ISIS, but don’t think about that. We’re in the business of creating victims. It’s what we do. Ultimately, this helps you. We’ll do our best to turn you into a victim, too. And then you can depend on us to give you what you need. Do you see the ironclad logic of our plan? Do you see how this works out?”

Of course you do.

“Yes, my Lord. You dispense, I receive. May I now sit down in my living room and watch my shows?”

“You may, but also think about the Holy Doctrine, which speaks of the unbreakable chain of events, utterly beyond your control, which brought you to a dismal brink. And then think about how We Arrived, and are interceding so powerfully, and rescuing you.”

“I will earnestly contemplate that, my Lord.”

Amen.

Amen to the eternal hustle.

Jon Rappoport

What would a real campaign against gun violence look like?

Dec6

What would a real campaign against gun violence look like?

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2015

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

Now that we know cold weather, snow, blizzards, expanding sea ice, war in Syria, the resurgence of the Taliban, the reappearance of Brian Williams, the escalation of anti-Islam rhetoric, the popularity of TMZ, and the attacks on Hillary Clinton are all the result of global warming, how long can it be before gun violence in America is linked to tree-ring data from the Middle Ages?

To forestall this last conclusion, I offer, as a public service, a sketch of what a real campaign against gun violence might look like. I’m not just talking about homicides, but criminal wounding and maiming as well.

Such a campaign does not depend on whether you believe there should be more guns, fewer guns, or no guns.

You would start by examining where a lot of gun violence takes place. I know: this is a breathtaking assumption. It makes the mind reel. In the history of our species, no one has ever suggested a solution for a problem based on where the problem is located. But there’s a first time for everything.

Wait for it: a map could be constructed. What??!! Yes, a map, based on known statistics. I apologize if the idea is just too boggling, but there it is. You make a map that shows major areas where gun violence has been occurring.

Because, well, that’s the problem you’re trying to solve.

Before you jump ahead too far, let me assure you blame is no part of this analysis. You’re just doing a little geo-research.

And after you make the map, you then actually think about those areas where much gun violence has been happening. You think about what has already been done to alleviate and remedy the situation in those places. You assess the success of those efforts.

Again, I know this approach is absolutely foreign, but give it a chance. You never know what may come of it.

Now, for example: suppose you discovered some of those high gun-violence areas were also high poverty areas. That might mean something. It’s just a crude correlation, but don’t immediately discard it. And then, just suppose that many of the jobs which were once available in those areas had been taken away and exported to foreign nations where slave labor is plentiful.

A possibility, that’s all. Look into it.

And just suppose, in those high-crime, high-poverty areas, there are, take a deep breath, many gangs. You know, people who are organized, people who have guns, people who argue with each other over turf, people who shoot the guns on a more or less regular basis. Wounding and killing each other and also innocent bystanders. And suppose, when you figure it out, when you add it up, the raw number of gun woundings and killings surpass, by a considerable quantity, the number you would find if you looked at other areas where people have guns, like ranches out West. This is just a hypothesis, nothing more. But don’t eliminate it.

And, in addition, try this: add up all the people who have been purportedly wounded or killed in lone-guman mass shootings, the ones that are covered extensively in the press, like Aurora and Sandy Hook—and compare the number of victims to the numbers of day-in day out gun-violence victims in those high-crime high-poverty areas I previously mentioned. Go ahead, take a chance, nothing to lose. Who knows, even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.

A true picture might start coming together.

Now, I’m going to take a sharp turn here, call it a sidebar, but I think it’s important: your analysis should also take into account what our leaders are presently doing to alleviate gun violence in those places where a lot of it occurs. For example, our current President would qualify as a leader if I’m not mistaken. So…how many times, since he took office, has he mentioned the word “gangs”? How many times? More importantly, how many times has he explained, with great emphasis, how significant a role gangs play in gun violence? How many times has he said, explicitly and in detail, what he is going to do about that? Just asking. As my readers know, I normally write about cake recipes and floral arrangements and nail polish and children’s books, so I don’t follow the President’s speeches. But if it turns out that your gun-violence map occasionally highlights geo-areas where gangs prevail and make life miserable for the local populations (and by “miserable” I mean, for instance, much blood flows and parents lose children and no one wants to walk the streets at night), you would expect a leader who really wants to solve the gun-violence problem to focus a great deal of attention on gangs. Yes?

Now, I will offer a statistic. Again, since I write about lawn parties and picnics and the most durable balloons to buy for children, I can’t verify this statistic, but I throw it out there for your perusal. A non-profit group called gunviolencearchive.org lists (on their home page) the number of US gun-violence incidents in 2015. That number is 48,671 (and counting in real-time). I’m just guessing here, but I feel this number exceeds the total of persons shot at, wounded, or killed in the highly publicized lone-gunman mass shootings, like San Bernardino and Fort Hood. Maybe. It seems like it. Perhaps.

How many of those 48,671 gun-violence incidents are created by gangs? This is apparently a difficult figure to come by. People slant, skew, rearrange, and chop up the statistics that are presented. They really do. I guess they have agendas.

The Huffington Post (“Do We Have a Gang Problem or a Gun Problem?”, 04/03/2014) cited the National Gang Center in stating the number of gang-related killings (2011) was 1824. On the one hand, these killings were not limited to guns. On the other hand, there was no number for gang gun-woundings. Suppose you shrank the number of gang gun killings from 1824 to 1000, and then multiplied that by 4 to get the number of incidents of gang killing plus wounding. 4000 such incidents, the result, could be compared to 48,530 incidents of gun violence in the US in 2015. Roughly 8% of gun violence in the US would turn out to be gang-related, if my arithmetic is correct. 8% seems like a significant figure to me, across the span of the whole nation.

The NationalGangCenter (.gov) offers some other interesting (chilling?) numbers about gangs:

“The most recent estimate of more than 30,000 gangs [in the US] represents a 15 percent increase from 2006 and is the highest annual estimate since 1996…Larger cities and suburban counties remain the primary locations of gangs, accounting for roughly two-thirds nationwide….The most recent estimate of approximately 850,000 gang members [2012] represents an 8.6 percent increase over the previous year.”

Hmm. 30 thousand gangs in the US. 850,000 members. People dedicated to crime, quite dedicated. They have guns. Perhaps, just perhaps they can procure many of these guns from illegal sources, which would allow them to bypass the tightest registration laws. And, don’t forget, they shoot those guns. At people.

Before you jump in with data about where gang members get their guns, I should warn you that you can cherry-pick your answers. If you have an agenda, you can find the answer you desire. Oh, they get their guns from gun shows. They get them legally from gun shops. They get them from their friends, from other gang members. They get them from smugglers. They get them from aliens who live in the Orion Belt. I haven’t found an overall reliable analysis that answers this question—but even as someone who normally writes about holiday gift-wrapping suggestions and the best way to cook a turkey and building your own sandboxes for small children, I believe that, no matter what gun laws are passed in America, gangs will continue to get guns. Call it an intuitive belief.

And I must say, at this point, gangs in America reach out further than incidents of shooting. They create and sustain a justifiable climate of fear wherever they flourish. And of course, they sell drugs. They move them and they sell them, and if you want to go down a rabbit hole, pursue the links between US gangs and foreign drug cartels. Picking one out of a hat, try the Sinaloa cartel, based in Mexico.

There are people who would say that what I’m about to reveal now is a fairy tale. Since, again, I normally write about group sing-alongs and shopping tips for garage-sale enthusiasts, what do I know? Nevertheless, here goes: the Sinaloa, working with the CIA and/or the DEA and/or the US Dept. of Justice, provides actionable intelligence on rival Mexican drug cartels. And in exchange, Sinaloa is granted clean drug routes up from Mexico all the way to Chicago (a hub of heroin and cocaine distribution, and also a hub of gang violence).

Some US gangs act as drug middlemen and transporters for Sinaloa. Inevitably, among these US gangs, spats break out on issues of money and drugs and turf. And those spats, for some reason, result in guns being drawn and fired.

You could research the recent Chicago trial of a Sinaloa executive vice-president named Vicente Zambada-Niebla. Did I say trial? Actually, an open proceeding never happened. Instead, a secret plea deal was concocted. Apparently, federal prosecutors did everything they could to avoid testimony in court, because Zambada-Niebla’s attorney was claiming his client had struck a previous immunity arrangement with the feds: Zambada-Niebla would snitch on rival cartels, and in return he would be permitted to traffic, for Sinaloa, enormous quantities of drugs inside the US.

Who could believe such a thing?

My point is, to the degree (and for whatever reasons) that the US War on Drugs is failing, US gangs keep selling drugs and fighting with one another and shooting guns and killing and wounding people, not all of whom are gang members.

You would think that any campaign to diminish gun violence in America would include, and focus on, gangs—unless the more important agenda is maintaining the multi-billion or trillion-dollar drug business, with its associated payoffs to “helpmates.”

Accumulating money takes precedence over the downside of killing and maiming people? I know, it sounds crazy, but I put it out there because I want to cover as many bases as possible. A suggestion: you could examine wars in which money and natural resources were higher goals than preserving life. You might find a few instances. Just a guess.

Several weeks ago, I had a wild dream. I hesitate to describe it, because it’s so strange, but I’m going to lay it out there, in the interest of full disclosure. Or something. In the dream I was sitting in a large hall, and several Presidents of the US were standing at the podium. They were functioning like some little team. It was kind of cute. One President would start a sentence, and then another one would continue it. They were speaking in sing-song fashion, as if they were addressing a bunch of children who knew nothing (about how the world works). This was what the Presidents said:

“You see, the gun-violence problem…is part of the gang problem…and gangs are a necessary…part of the drug business…and the drug business…must never be interrupted…because it makes a lot of money…for a lot of people…important people…people like us…not us of course…but people like us…and so whenever we talk about…gun violence…we have to avoid really talking about the gang problem…and so we talk about…everything else except the gangs…do you see…why we are willing to sacrifice lives to gun violence…is that clear…is that simple enough…or should we try to talk in even more basic terms…”

But as I say, I normally write about children’s books and building sand boxes for the kiddies, and happy snacks, and the best trophies to buy for all those juniors who participate in group sports from the age of three, so my opinions are probably less complex than they should be. I’m just trying to open a few avenues of research for you, as a public service…

There was one last piece to the dream I had. While the Presidents were doing their act, a gang member suddenly appeared and stepped in front of them and said to the audience:

“Hey, who do you think I’m working for, aside from the cartels? I’m working for the government. Get it? The out-front government and the shadow government. I’m humping drugs for them and taking my cut. So what’s the problem? Don’t complain to me. Talk to them. If I make a few million and buy a nice house, that’s just me trying to make a living. I’m a capitalist with a gun. I have no moral responsibility. I’m an action-figure. A hero. Look around you. The culture is all about people like me now. Get what you can while you can…”

In the dream, the audience rose up against him and against the Presidents. Apparently, the audience hadn’t lost its sense of what was moral and what was immoral. In the dream.

Jon Rappoport

Hillary on the 2nd Amendment: the “viewpoint” crime

Jun18

Hillary on 2nd Amendment: the “viewpoint” crime

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Hillary on guns at a CNN town hall meeting:

“I’m well aware that this 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.”

I see. So the Viewpoint in favor of gun ownership is a hostile act. The Viewpoint itself terrorizes the population.

Could there be a more transparent illustration of political correctness?

Well, suppose I have the idiosyncratic viewpoint that schools who punish kids for bringing toy guns or bubble gum guns or poptart guns or screen saver guns to class—those schools should be shut down and the teachers and administrators who punish the kids should be shipped to a desert island?

Am I terrorizing the population?

Hillary then went on to talk about the need to protect students and teachers from someone who brings a gun to school and goes crazy and shoots people.

This is her example? This is her talking point? This is her rallying cry?

She doesn’t mention where the majority of gun violence takes place in America. She omits that. Where is it? The Southwest? Montana? The plains of Iowa? Key West? Maine? Are good old boys with pickups and shotguns mowing people down on back country roads? Is that the epicenter?

I guess the places where the most gun violence is occurring are on a special list, titled: “not responsible.”

No one shot anyone there.

Poverty pulled the triggers. Drugs pulled the triggers. Bad schools pulled the triggers. Broken homes pulled the triggers.

So those places don’t count—therefore, guess what? Statistically, we have very, very little human-caused gun violence in America. We’re in good shape. We don’t need new restrictions on gun ownership.

Issue solved. Case closed.

These unmentionable places where lots of people are shooting at other people and killing them and maiming them: they’re not real, they don’t exist. After all, Hillary didn’t talk about them.

But if those places did exist, where are the guns coming from? Gun shops? The guns are all legally obtained? Are they coming from the ATF? Oh, wait, no, that’s Mexico. The ATF runs guns into Mexico for the drug cartels. Fast&Furious, and before that, under Bush, Operation End-Around. But that op is also unmentionable now. It’s stale. Old news. Forget it.

And military weapons, including drones, in the hands of American soldiers and the CIA: that’s way off the reservation. It’s called war. Can’t discuss that as part of the gun problem.

Anything else we can’t discuss? How about the CIA program under Bill, when he was governor of Arkansas, whereby factories were secretly built in his home state to manufacture guns for the Contras? (See Terry Reed, John Cummings, “Compromised.”) Were those factories, at the very least, a viewpoint-crime? Seems like it.

Police forces all over America are now being outfitted with military hardware. Armored vehicles, heavy weapons. Does that constitute a hostile viewpoint-crime?

And then there’s this old (but true) saw: people like Hillary walk and drive around with formidable security. Those guards are packing heat. Somehow, it seems unfair. Regular citizens don’t have a cordon of protection. Hillary doesn’t need a gun because her people have them. So why should anyone listen to her pontificate on the subject of weapons?

She’s essentially saying, “See my guys? They’re armed. They’re always around. You people don’t have that. That’s tough. Too bad. Give up your guns.”

Appears to be another hostile viewpoint-crime. Very hostile, pretentious, and condescending.

Reminiscent of her recent comment that she and Bill were “broke” when they left the White House in 2000. Broke, except for a book contract and a house that magically appeared for them in posh Westchester County.

The Clintons are like that. They feel your pain, they’re just like you, except when they’re not, which is always.

But don’t worry. As the symbolic first woman President (every criticism against her will be labeled sexist), she’ll tirelessly work toward that shining day when all guns will be removed from the populace. The police and the military will have all the weapons. The streets will be quiet and serene.

She’ll come rolling into your town accompanied by a bevy of tanks.

Just to be on the safe side.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Guns

Hideous liars lying about guns: what people don’t know, don’t want to know, are too naïve to believe, and are too scared to say

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

Was the Vegas shooter a patsy?

Open letter to NFL players: you’re being used

How often do US police officers discharge their weapons?

Message to Colin Kaepernick: the real disaster of inner cities

Politicians’ class-privilege: armed security

NC mall shooter killed: wasn’t already in jail?

What would a real campaign against gun violence look like?

Hillary on the 2nd Amendment: the “viewpoint” crime