White America, Black America, the set-up, and the con

by Jon Rappoport

June 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Whether you believe in God the Creator or evolution or something else as the explanation for the human race, progress was meant to involve the individual coming out of the group and staking his claim to a life of his own making, according to his best vision of his greatest thoughts and values.

THIS was a struggle of blood and courage and intelligence for many centuries. THIS was the journey out of the caves and the clans and the brutal leaders and the mind control imposed from the top. THIS was where each one of us “came from,” that struggle.

And now, through every foul means available, elite controllers want to turn back the clock and take each one of us into the past.

“THERE IS RACISM IN AMERICA.”

Yes, and there is widespread poison by pesticide and GMO, there is widespread and devastating autism by vaccine, there is lung damage by corporate pollution, there is widespread death caused by the medical system and there is insurance fraud and welfare fraud and voter fraud and money-creation fraud, and there are corrupt judges and there are corrupt cops and insane governors running lockdowns….there is a great deal of major ongoing crime in America. All of it affects the black and the white.

The current riots are an operation designed to produce more top-down control in America.

The operation is also designed, through riots, to wreak more havoc on the US economy—piling on the COVID lockdowns, which are themselves part of the overall op: destroy America.

What starts out as fair and just and right for black people has nothing to do with it, THE HIGHER YOU GO on the ladder of power.

Many people fail to understand that, when elite Globalist forces stage an op, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE TWO SIDES TO PIT AGAINST EACH OTHER THAT HAVE NO EMOTIONAL OR FACTUAL REALITY. They’re not going to choose daisies vs. tulips. They’re not going to choose canned pork vs. canned spam. They’re not going to choose single payer health insurance vs. Obamacare.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because that has electric force inside people.

They’re going to choose black vs. white, because there is history, and because both sides have positions and arguments and accusations and claims of prejudice and reverse-prejudice.

But the INTENT is to get white people and black people looking through different and unalterable lenses at each other.

And to ignore all situations in which black and white people get along. I repeat, TO IGNORE ALL SITUATIONS IN WHICH BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE GET ALONG.

The rise of the union movement in America produced a vast amount of black and white cooperation and friendship and mutual loyalty—until unions themselves became big business and mafia money laundries and would-be monopolies.

“But there is racism in America.”

As I said, the planners of an op are going to choose a situation that has reality.

There is also this reality: “You’re white, and so you can’t possibly understand what is going on, because you have inherent privilege, it’s built into you, and you can’t escape it. Therefore, everything you say is tainted.”

That’s a very strong and very divisive and very insane argument. Individuals, no matter who they are, see clearly or see dully, and the ability to know something isn’t determined by skin color or cultural background. Privilege is a con. It’s a con as an argument. It was injected into academia to brainwash the young, to produce class and race hatred, on both sides. And it’s worked.

“I hate you.”

“I hate you, too.”

Perfect.

“You have to take a knee to me.”

“Like hell I do.”

Perfect.

“Black people have to rise through the ranks based on merit alone.”

“Like hell we do. We can’t, because there is institutional prejudice and racism.”

Perfect.

Stoke the fire of opposition. Kill off cooperation. Kill off friendship. Silence the millions of people who are beyond any kind of racism. Drown out their voices. Drown out their warmth for each other, turn it to ice, turn it into ideology that substitutes for human connections. Rip those human connections out of America.

People with black skin and people with white skin have found ways to get along. That is a much larger reality than “race war.” MUCH LARGER.

THE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL is a much larger reality than race war. The ideas embedded in the Constitution turn out to have a lot to do with the unique individual developing his own vision and power and creative force—if he will realize that fact.

I haven’t spent the last 40 years writing for white people or black people or yellow or tan or red people. If that had been my goal, I would have burned out long ago.

Coming out of World War 2, propagandists and government planners and marketers and intelligence agencies and think tanks and corporate advisors and mass communications experts began to realize they could strengthen their position by: convincing individuals to think of themselves as GROUPS.

Groups are easier to control.

Make a group, define it, urge the members to conceive of themselves in limited terms, profile the group, sell products to the group, show the group they have political aspirations that can be satisfied by big government…and the whole society changes.

Face it, these marketers and propagandists are, in many ways, the scum of the earth. They see a glint of promise in group-think, and their goal becomes: create groups. By name, by agenda, by class, by race, by religion, by age, by preferences, by economic background, by every possible marker.

Believe it or not, the marketers caught on to what was happening in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s; they looked at Martin Luther King, and they said, “WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.” Yes. And it was an opportunity that went far beyond the justice of voting rights and integrated education.

The marketers said, “We can create a new group. Not just black Americans. Black Americans with government benefits. We can dead-end the whole Civil Rights movement into a Welfare State of vast proportions. We can create total dependence on government—and at the same time, we’ll be expanding the size and power of government over the people. It’s a double winner.”

From the point of view of the marketers, the fairness and justice and right of black Americans to receive welfare was entirely beside the point. That wasn’t the issue at all. The issue was the pacification of black Americans. A way to use money and benefits to keep black Americans under control. The cynicism was breathtaking.

The marketers realized, of course, that they would need black leaders to say, over and over again, that welfare was a right, and it was fair and just and reasonable, based on the history of slavery. Based on racism. And some black leaders who emerged were co-opted into that cause and that OPERATION.

“But black people DO deserve welfare.”

Again—the marketers are going to choose an issue that can be argued, that can be justified. But the real motive is hidden.

It all starts with forming a group. “Black people must be taught to think of themselves as black and nothing else. As black victims. Certainly not as unique individuals.”

Certain members of the Black Panthers, and Malcolm X, recognized the basic con. They saw certain white liberals who were “on their side” as the enemy. They saw that these fawning liberals were actually hoping and working for a way to PACIFY and sideline black independence.

And of course, on the other side, the marketers would need to create a group of white liberals, a very large group, who would support “black rights,” naively believing this was all about fairness and justice and NOTHING ELSE.

THE WHOLE THING BECAME SYNTHETIC.

Again, the much greater reality of black and white Americans who get along is cowed into silence and drowned out. By louder voices. By violence.

The whole thing is synthetic because THE UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL is submerged. Without the individual, you have mass mind control. You have ideology taking center stage. You have endless solutions, each more absurd than the last. And what for? For the elevation of the GROUP.

Yes, there are groups composed of unique individuals who come together for a common cause, but “black vs. white” is not built that way.

And yes, these current riots in America have trained infiltrators from both the political Right and Left, who are there to pump up the violence and the demands. But the structure of the operation is deeper than this infiltration. It is, as I say, politically neutral, because Globalists who want to level and destroy every last shred of independence and freedom and prosperity in America are neutral. They hide behind, and use, ideology as an ever-shifting weapon to achieve CONTROL.

Create groups to stand in for individuals.

The great unwritten history of America, and other countries, is the hidden record of INVENTING SYNTHETIC GROUPS. A group may start out as real and true, but when it is taken over and distorted and reshaped and given a programmatic agenda and injected with a grossly limited self-image…then you have a construct, and mind control takes precedence.

Then on the screens of the news, you see vicious cartoons playing out…except real people are defamed, injured, dispensed with, disposed of.

“But mass movements against racism have achieved victories.”

Yes they have. Among them, voting rights, and the curbing of racist brutality, particularly in the South. But then what happened?

What happened was a planned dead-ending.

Marketers: “We have to do whatever it takes to stop any talk of the UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL among black-group causes and objectives. It has to be all about the group. Forever. Benefits. Welfare. THAT has to drown out EVERYTHING else. The promise of individuals emerging from groups has to be squelched. Verboten. And the same principles have to be applied to white groups who are supporting black rights. The white groups as well have to be masses, not individuals. And those white groups who oppose black rights have to be infiltrated and cultivated. They, too, must be masses. In each group, hook up minds and brains into collectives. That’s what we’re selling. Collectivism. Take the true and real and twist it.”

The marketers found out this was not hard to do—particularly when major media were brought on board and controlled. The news would be all about GROUPS. Government helping groups. Government denying help to groups. Stimulating people to think of themselves as the American group when the occasion demanded it. “We’re all in this together.” “Stay locked down and realize you’re not alone.” “We’ll all get through this together.” “It’s time to wage a war against Iraq. We’re in this together.” As a group. A synthetic group.

Think it through. If media wanted to, right now, they could highlight, wall to wall, Americans, black and white, who get along with each other. THAT could be elevated by a news network, to great prominence. It’s certainly factual. But it’ll never happen. That’s not the agenda. That’s not what is being sold.

The awkward and stark and fantastic truth is, beyond skin color and cultural background, there are no black or white people. There are unique individuals. That’s where the SYNTHETIC stops and the deeper reality begins. That’s where actual liberation takes place. If it doesn’t take place there, it doesn’t happen in the way it was meant to.

Whether you believe in God the Creator or evolution or something else as the explanation for the human race, progress was meant to involve the individual coming out of the group and staking his claim to a life of his own making, according to his best vision of his greatest thoughts and values.

THIS was a struggle of blood and courage and intelligence for many centuries. THIS was the journey out of the caves and the clans and the brutal leaders and the mind control imposed from the top down. THIS was where each one of us came from, that struggle.

And now, through every foul means available, elite controllers want to turn back the clock and take each one of us into the past.

Each one of us must not let that happen.

If that statement causes you to whirl around and ask, HOW, HOW CAN WE STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING, you’re still thinking from the inside of some group. You’re still wrapped up in some kind of group-think.

Be a leader. Form a TRUE group, if that is your answer. Step out and make yourself known. Counter the foul rhetoric of these current times.

Abandon SMALL.

“But I’m only a…” No, you’re not. “I’m only a…” is a synthetic proposition, a lie, a fabulous lie.

When all is said and done, do you want to be known as a person they brought in the room to blow on the ink and dry it, after the men signed the Declaration of Independence?

Is that the greatest distance you can travel, the most important feat you can accomplish?

Yes, I realize when I say “unique individual,” I’m taking a snapshot, as it were, from a more complex reality. The individual flows into and out of family, informal and formal groups, and so on. But at the core, there he is. By choice, freedom radiates out from him, or it doesn’t. By choice, authentic power radiates out from him, or it doesn’t. Love and compassion radiate outward, or they don’t. He invents his best vision of a future and acts on that vision or he doesn’t. He throws away synthetic meaning or he doesn’t. He salutes propaganda or he doesn’t. He takes center stage in his own way, or he doesn’t. He reinvents freedom and power for his time and place, or he doesn’t. He falls for the con of synthetic conflict or he doesn’t. He imagines himself to be a victim or he doesn’t. He accepts a role handed to him or he doesn’t. He buys physical descriptions of himself or he doesn’t. He succumbs to programmed hatreds, or he doesn’t. He chooses to remain naïve and helpless or he doesn’t. He says nothing can change or he doesn’t. He parrots what he’s been taught or he doesn’t. He blames the powers-that-be in a way that cripples him or he doesn’t. He holds out his hand to help others or he doesn’t. He rises above the popular mind control of the moment, or he doesn’t. He remains synthetically and maddeningly polite in the face of war against the human race or he doesn’t. When he falls, he stumbles to his feet and moves forward or he doesn’t. He pretends to be clueless, or he doesn’t. He keeps his mouth shut, or he doesn’t. He looks at a war and chooses the easier side to join, or he doesn’t. He senses the struggle of centuries to establish individual freedom, or he doesn’t. He somehow manages to stand at the gate to slavery and he blocks it, or he doesn’t. He tests his breaking point and tries to extend it, or he doesn’t. He may go gently into that good night, but only after he has waged his highest battle for freedom, freedom from all the synthetic constructs of the individual, freedom FROM oppression and control, and FOR the eternal individual over and above the artifice of the hypnotized group. Or not.

Once you have unique individuals, then groups can begin to make LASTING sense. Without those individuals, they don’t. They can’t. Even if their objective and their rhetoric is designed to achieve some piece of heroic righteous justice, that group will eventually be swallowed up in ill intent. It will disappear into the maw of a constructed conflict against another group. It will fall under the spell of a ruthless leader. It will go backward into the past.

I am not alone. You are not alone. We are connected by something deeper than cliché: the recognition of the fact that we are individuals who can reach across to each other. Who do reach across. The differences between us are to be expected. Otherwise, we would not be unique. But those differences can’t be turned into wars, if we are steadfast and awake.

CODA: I could easily go on for another ten thousand words. But I’ll close with this. Our enemies have their own problems. They aren’t simple, no matter what they try. Aside from the unquenchable thirst for freedom, among us, which is their main problem, they are suffering from too many hands and too small a pie. Their mega-corporations, which have been the leading prow of Globalism around the world, are beginning to see that their days of glory are shrinking. The operation to level and wreck economies, in order to bring on a more severe police state, is drying up the consumer base of people who can afford to buy corporate products. Corporate bosses and big shots are seeing a betrayal. They are the targets of a big con from their own criminal colleagues. How could that have happened? It happened because they were blinded by their own greed. If only half as many people, worldwide, can buy a renowned poison pesticide, then what? Even with a spectacular currency reset, even with the accelerated invention of a new money system, even with more money being produced out of thin air, many products are going to go away. That’s part and parcel of the elite plan. Oh well. I’m not losing any sleep over it…Maybe Bill Gates dreams of raising an army of micro-chipped mind controlled slaves to make Microsoft and his Foundation the new official government of the United States. Good luck with that one, Bill…

Maybe a mega-corporate CEO is telling himself this: “When the great currency reset happens, the bosses of bosses, the bankers, will automatically place five hundred trillion new digital dollars into each bank account of the biggest two thousand corporations in the world, and I’ll be one of the fortunate ones.” Keeping believing that, pal. Good luck…

I’m betting you or your children will be busy sweeping dust and sand in Death Valley. On a welfare check.

And if that day never comes, you know what? It’ll be because individuals who believe in freedom down to the last non-material atoms of their non-material souls stood at the gate to slavery and blocked it and canceled the whole operation.

Because we individuals do not happen to be dogs who drool at the sound of the bell and the prospect of being fed.

Because we individuals do not feed in the back wards of collectivism.

Because we individuals don’t buy the illusion of anarchy led by pathological prop men.

Because we individuals don’t buy fake inclusion in a fake universe.


Exit From the Matrix

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

The pandemic pattern—how the illusion is built

by Jon Rappoport

May 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

This article is based on my study and investigation of so-called epidemics over the past 30 years.

In the case of COVID-19, I’ve written at least one piece covering, in detail, each main element of the illusion. Here, I’m laying out the pattern. It is the same for each fake epidemic.

ONE: A structure is in place to promote and launch the IDEA of an epidemic. World Health Organization, CDC, influential public health officials attached to governments around the world, etc.

TWO: There is a purported incident. An outbreak. The most obvious cause is intentionally overlooked. For example, horrendous air pollution, or the grotesque feces and urine pollution on a giant commercial pig factory-farm. Instead, the world is told a new virus has been found. Local researchers, if any, are augmented by researchers from CDC, WHO.

THREE: There is no air-tight chain of evidence explaining exactly how the purported new virus was discovered. From details released, there is no proof of discovery by convincing methods, no proper unified study of MANY supposed epidemic patients.

FOUR: But WHO/CDC tells the world this is an epidemic in the making, caused by the new virus. The promotion and propaganda/media apparatus moves into high gear. Ominous pronouncements.

FIVE: Diagnostic tests for the unproven new virus are rolled out. They spit out false “proof” of “infection” like coins from a jackpot slot machine.

SIX: Thus, all case numbers and death numbers, which are based on the tests, are rendered meaningless. And…they were already meaningless, because the supposed new virus “being tested for” was never properly discovered in the first place.

SEVEN: Nevertheless, these tests (plus useless eyeball diagnosis) are used to build official reports on case numbers. For the duration of the “epidemic,” reports keep coming, and escalating numbers are trumpeted. Within the basically meaningless structure of these reports, there is fiddling with totals, to make them even more impressive and frightening.

EIGHT: Real people are really getting sick and dying, but for the most part, they are people who are dying from traditional and long-standing conditions—flu-like illness, pneumonia, other lung infections, etc. These people are “re-packaged” under the new epidemic label—Swine Flu, COVID, etc. The official description of the “new epidemic disease”—the clinical symptoms—is sufficiently general to easily allow this re-packaging.

NINE: If there is new illness, it can be explained by causes having nothing to do with the purported new virus. For example, a toxic vaccine campaign. A highly destructive drug. Highly toxic pesticides.

TEN: Over time, the definition of the epidemic is arbitrarily widened to include more symptoms and clinical features, in order to inflate case numbers.

ELEVEN: Control of information about the “epidemic” is hardened at the top. The talking heads, from the press and public health agencies, know as much about actual science as rabbits know about drone strikes. But they are “in charge.” Dissident information is attacked and censored.

TWELVE: Medical drugs used to treat patients are toxic. If a vaccine is rolled out, it, too, is toxic. Illness and death resulting from these and other medical attacks are counted as “epidemic cases caused by the virus.”

THIRTEEN: ABOVE ALL OTHER ILLUSIONS, the main deception is: “the epidemic is one disease or syndrome caused by one germ.” This is sold with unceasing propaganda. Most people fall for it. They will even argue among themselves about which “it” is the single cause of the “it” disease. There is no “it” cause or disease.

FOURTEEN: The public is sold lie after lie about contagion and the “spread” of the “it.”

FIFTEEN: The public chants (as if no one has ever died before), “People are dying, it must be the virus.”

SIXTEEN: The virus fairy tale always functions as a cover story for government or corporate or medical crimes. It obscures and hides these crimes. For example, a large factory is spewing horrendous pollution into the ground and water of an area, and people are getting sick and dying? No, the cause is actually a new virus no one has ever seen before.

As I wrote at the outset of the COVID illusion, the only difference this time, in 2020, is the weight of the lies—because they led to the lockdowns and the economic devastation. This is West Nile, SARS, Swine Flu, Zika, writ large.

Needless to say, the persons and groups responsible for launching these illusion-operations must hide their crimes.

The criminals have their weapons, of course. Among their most powerful: control of the press, and arcane technical language which pretends to relevance. This language is so dense, the uninitiated stand no chance of penetrating it.

For instance, researchers can babble for hours about their vaunted diagnostic test, the PCR. However, the simple truth is, a crucial piece of the test has never been vetted. The test has never been tested in the real world outside the lab.

I have written about this extensively. Using a little guideline called SCIENCE, you would “test the test” by lining up, say, a thousand patients, some healthy, some sick from a supposed virus. Any virus. Tissue samples would be taken from each patient.

PCR mavens would run these samples through their equipment, reporting which patients show what they call high “viral load.”

This means: these particular patients have millions and millions of virus actively replicating in their bodies, and they will be unmistakably and visibly sick.

The PCR princes would then announce, “Patients 3,45,65,76,132…are all definitely sick.”

Now we un-blind the study and see what’s what and who’s who. Are these designated patients ill or are they running marathons? That’s called simple scientific method. Not technical gobbledygook.

This chunk of research has never been done. It never will be done. It’s too real. Too naked. Proponents of the PCR would have too much to lose, if their assessments of who are healthy and who are sick turned out to be absurdly wrong, and their arcane technical rhetoric about the PCR ended up being useless gibberish.

I include this illustration to indicate there are, indeed, ways of exposing professional liars, if you change the venue on them, if you use common sense, if you stand outside their self-appointed temples of mystical horseshit and observe what their lies look like when you boil them down to human terms…


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Nano-technology: one world, one brain

From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The recent arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of nanotechnology, Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers.

These relationships include, above all, the open sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered closely guarded state secrets. (See my recent piece, “Behind the explosive Charles Lieber scandal.”)

Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control. Control of thoughts, sensations, emotions.

And along with the Internet of Things, why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to “harmonize” many, many brains with one another?

Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.

Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine, etc. And of course, mind control.

“Look, I’m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”

“I understand completely. My government would no more do that than your government would.”

“All right. Then we’re good.”

“Yes. Good.”

How did US-China relations get to this point? At one time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war. Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.

Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973, a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” (“From a China Traveler,” New York Times, August 10, 1973.)

Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people, to such a high degree.

Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself.

—Of course, remember, when political push comes to shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China. In the case of American corporate and government big shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The power of viruses and the Power of You

“I saw a horror movie and somehow it was the greatest experience of my life.”

by Jon Rappoport

February 18, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In this article, I depart, for a moment, from the strategy of citing evidence in my coverage of the “China epidemic.” (For my series of articles on the “China epidemic,” click here.)

Instead, I want to make a few brief notes on the subject of power.

For many or most people, there is a kind of programming in the mind which urges the acceptance of viruses as powerful. This programming results in visceral emotional reactions toward microbes.

The collection of sensations would be something like: riding on a train heading toward a possible break in the tracks. Each person on board has been warned. No one is sure whether the tracks, a few miles in the distance, have actually been ripped apart. The train’s engineer in the cab isn’t stopping.

There is fear, of course. But there is also something else. An almost wild feeling. Where does it comes from? It comes from the realization that power is SOMEWHERE. Where? In the potential break in the tracks.

People don’t often experience a sensation of power. For that reason, they don’t want to minimize the importance of the tracks up ahead. They don’t want to throw away that feeling. At some level, they believe that, if they do throw it away, there will be no power anywhere. And THAT would provoke panic.

The idea that they might be coddling an ILLUSION—and the whole warning they received was a monstrous fabrication to begin with—well, this prospect is entirely out of the question. That couldn’t be, under any circumstances. That would be too, too much.

If you were so foolish as to approach such a person and suggest he could, first and foremost, look to his OWN power, he would stare at you as if you were speaking a language from another planet. To say that your advice, under the circumstances—the speeding train, the tracks, the warning—was inappropriate…this would be a vast understatement.

If a person, for whatever reason, believes he has no significant power, he searches for it elsewhere. If he can find a train, a warning, and danger, he’ll climb onboard. It’s far, far better than nothing.

In our society and present culture, of course, the thought that the individual has a great deal of inherent power, and a right to it, is on the wane. That ship, to go to another metaphor, is taking on lots and lots of water.

Typical sociopaths in high places, and their bootlickers, apply basic psychology they don’t teach in fifty-thousand-dollars-a-year colleges: People must be able to imagine power is SOMEWHERE. They don’t believe they have it themselves. So why not invoke images of power in a venue which results in a strange allegiance:

“I’ll see and feel power in a fearful threat to me. I’ll sign on and remain loyal, no matter what. I’ll cling to my threat, and I’ll feel rising fear and strange rising joy together.”

That’s the speeding train, the warning, the tracks.

That’s the virus.


Exit From the Matrix

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

Video vs. The Mind

by Jon Rappoport

January 14, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I invite readers to try this experiment. To obtain evidence about a significant issue, watch a YouTube video. When you’re done, explain to a friend what you learned. SPECIFICALLY. Chapter and verse.

Revelations like “the government is corrupt” or “you really need to watch the video yourself” don’t count.

There is an intrinsic problem with video, with moving images. They go by too quickly. Gaps and holes in the logic of presentation are behind you before you can analyze them. The relationships among presented facts or assertions are also gone before you can piece them together.

With video, the viewer can gain an IMPRESSION, but the details of the evidence tend to leak away.

Try this experiment next. Read a thing called a book.

Make notes.

For most people, this is on the order of asking them to fly to Mars on the back of a dead horse.

“Today, a college student filed suit against his professor, charging that an assignment to read a two-page article, take notes, analyze those notes, and write an essay based on evidence had collapsed his mind and placed him in the Ninth Circle of Hell. The student’s therapist has recommended he watch a hundred hours of YouTube videos…”

As I write this article, needing my own video fix, I have three added screens running in my office. The NFL playoffs, treasure hunters digging up an entire island as they search for a wooden box holding the Ark of the Covenant, and the Toodie Boo Bubble Gang cartoon marathon. This, alas, is not enough. I plan to opt for a fourth screen. I’ve found the channel transmitting the most commercials and infomercials per unit of air time. I need that one, too. I’ve also discovered a channel that broadcasts sixty seconds of news headlines every half-hour, amidst storm warnings and wall-to-wall coverage of vets performing surgeries on animals. MUST HAVE VIDEO.

According to merchdope.com, “300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute!”

There are many reasons why people who ingest evidence do nothing with it. One of those reasons is video. That’s where the supposed evidence is coming from.

Reliance on video is also a reason why people who ingest evidence tend to believe in Doom. There is no solid ground for shared discourse about the evidence, since it comes across as an impression and then sits vaguely in memory, decaying like rotten eggs. “Wow, dude, that video, wow,” does not quite qualify as discourse.

With a book or an article, you can stop. Not pause; stop. You can think. You can read what you just read. God forbid, you can look up the history of a word in a dictionary. You can underline a passage with something called a pen. You can make notes. You can engage.

With video, it’s all flow. You tend to follow along passively. You’re solidly in the march-of-frames-per-second.

Aside from all the other problems with television news broadcasts, they’re on a screen. They’re video. One little moment morphs into the next little moment.

“Did you watch the news?” “No, why?” “They’re impeaching the president.” “Yeah? And?” “What?” “Never mind.” Brilliant.

Back in the stone age of the 1970s, a friend arranged an exhibition of my paintings at her house. Prior to the opening, she came to my studio and shot video of me painting and of my work on the walls. She then set up a TV set outdoors on her patio, and during the opening she ran the video over and over. When people arrived, as if by magic they migrated to the patio and watched the video. THEN they came back inside the house and looked at my work. Several people said to their friends, “Look, that’s the painting that was in the video!” Case closed.

Teacher: “All right, class, now that we’ve watched today’s video of animals eating each other on the plain, what do you think?”

“I liked it.”

“I liked it.”

“I didn’t like it.”

“When he was talking about the thing with the thing, I wasn’t sure he was making sense.”

“Very good. We’re out of time. See you tomorrow.”

Video is in its own time. Analysis is in another time. They don’t match up.

So, what DOES YouTube do? It helps creates the illusion of sharing and pumps it up into a reality. So do Facebook and the other social media—to a greater degree. If a person in Albany passes a little video to a person in Bombay, and vice versa, that reality becomes preeminent for both people. The content of what is shared is irrelevant, as long as they can say they like it. And they can. In this bubble, disagreement doesn’t work. It doesn’t fit. It’s too complex for the structure. Yes and no are the limits. No means next to nothing. It might mean sharing will stop, but that’s about it. Entrance into the bubble has only one requirement: can you make a snap judgment?

The idea that political movements can be birthed by Facebook is fatuous. Political mobs can be formed. But not movements. If a teacher asked his students, “How many of you would join a political cause you discovered after watching a ten minute video and reading three or four brief online messages?”—some students might actually think before answering. But after only watching the video and reading the messages, without the teacher’s question, some of them might sign up for the cause.

There are subliminal factors at work. Of course, there is the desire to BELONG. But also, the very notion that an idea exists, in and of itself, outside the stream of moving images, and that this idea can be looked at, examined, considered, questioned—well, for many minds, such a reality makes no sense. Therefore, one chooses among different streams of images. “I like stream A more than stream B.”

Let’s move to the arena of movies. First of all, most movies these days are shot with the GET-EVERYTHING approach. Multiple cameras gobble a scene from various angles. Before the action even starts, cameras obtain close-ups of objects in the scene, pictures on the walls, rugs on the floors, in case the editor wants to use them later. The final version of the movie is primarily fashioned by the editor. And what is he doing? He’s cutting together little pieces of each scene, to simulate WHAT A HUMAN WOULD SEE AND TRACK IF HE WERE IN THE ROOM WHERE THE ACTION IS TAKING PLACE. For example, this happens in five seconds:

Extreme close-up of a bright light. Camera pulls back and we see a map. A hand moves across the map. New angle: three men stand around a table, on which the map is spread out. They’re discussing a military invasion. Close-up of the highest ranking officer as he talks. Cut to a close-up frown from a junior officer who is opposed to the plan. Back to a shot of the map. A finger points to a town with a red circle around it as the men continue to talk. Sound of gunfire in the distance. Close-up of a hand picking up a cup of coffee.

Several things are occurring here. First of all, there is the pace. Fast cuts. They capture and lead the viewer’s eye. Second, the question and answer trick—the viewer sees the bright light and asks himself, WHAT IS THAT? In the next instant, he sees the map and the lamp over the map. The bright light was coming from the lamp. Asked and answered. That’s a cheap trick to, again, capture the viewer’s eye/mind and lead him. And third, the sequence of cuts within the scene is meant to convince the viewer that THIS IS THE WAY HE WOULD LOOK AT AND SCAN THE ROOM IF HE WERE THERE. That’s false, but it seems to be true. This trick is part of the editor’s craft, if he doesn’t really care about the art of making a film. He just wants to create an easy impression of “realism.” (If you want a standard of comparison/contrast, watch Citizen Kane, A Touch of Evil, and The Godfather.)

The point is, in most modern commercial movies, the goal is controlling the viewer. So in addition to the intrinsic stream of images, we have the editor’s craft; a layer of heavy influence.

When movies were first invented, the original idea that jumped out at directors was: put a DREAM on the screen. Make no bones about it. Show audiences fantastic dreams. This was as far from contemporary “realism” as planets in the sky are from dogs eating garbage in alleys.

Have you watched little PR documentaries or video ads featuring political candidates? Most of them are assembled by level-B editors. The videos are transparent fakes. Why? Because real pros weren’t brought in—pros who would have cut together sequences that made us feel we were there tracking the candidate. In other words, top-flight fakery wasn’t executed. We had to settle for awkward fakery. “Why would I vote for Joe X? His ads don’t really deceive me into thinking I’m on the campaign trail with him.”

“A candidate’s IDEAS? What? We already know them. He stands for prosperity and peace. Or maybe it’s war. I can’t remember.”

A PSYCHOLOGIST OF THE FUTURE: “Well, Mr. Hogslocker, how many videos would you say you watch every day?”

HOGSLOCKER: “Since the annual universal guaranteed income level was raised two percent? I’d estimate two hundred and fifty.”

PSYCHOLOGIST: “Have you thought about cutting back?”

HOGSLOCKER: “You know, I tried that. I really did. I ordered the glasses that make you think you’re watching yourself in Hell burning for eternity. But I actually got interested in those scenes. I started watching thousands of videos of Hell. After my wife took the kids and left me, I went to cooking vids. Then haircutting videos.”

PSYCHOLOGIST: “Excuse me?”

HOGSLOCKER: “They show stylists cutting people’s hair. There’s something about it. I go into an altered state. I’m very relaxed. I sleep. The problem is, when I wake up, my brain seems to be on hold. I can’t remember where I’ve put things. Keys, credit cards, remotes, groceries, underwear. It’s a problem. Can you help me?”

Many years ago, I proposed that, in the future, movies would be transmitted directly, in an electromagnetic package, to the viewer’s brain. In a single instant. Streams of images would become outdated. The viewer would wobble out of the theater and say to his friend, “That was fantastic.” “Yes,” his friend would say. Neither person would know what was in the movie. They would only know their own reactions. Why bother with inessentials?

Once upon a time, there were ideas. People knew what they were. They could read them and even write them. They could walk around an idea and look at it from all sides and think about it and talk to each other about it. Then came streams of images. These streams contained ideas, but viewers found it difficult to isolate them because the streams moved and kept on moving. Then, the streams were concocted to achieve the simulacrum of “realism.” No ideas, just the sensation that the viewer was there, in a scene, looking at it as he would if he were REALLY there. Then, finally, since the viewer’s reaction was the only event that counted, he would receive a “stimulus package” of electronics, transmitted to his brain, in a brief moment, and he would experience satisfaction. Nothing to think about. Thinking was way back there, in the landfill of history.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Which is worse: the NSA or the FDA?

A message to Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other sites that expose secrets

Does 2.25 million deaths in America, per decade, at the hands of the medical system, rate as a significant leak?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other similar sites, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

Some of the best exposers of political, intelligence-agency, and military crimes are way behind the curve, when it comes to medical matters.

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

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

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

106,000 of those annual deaths, as Starfield reports, are the direct result of medical drugs.

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also imply massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

Such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year. How is this possible unless deep, continuing, and abetted research fraud are the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to Wikileaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I stated that medical covert ops are the most successful methods for pacifying, debilitating, and controlling populations, through toxification, because these ops fly the flag of political neutrality.

They appear to favor no king, dictator, president, government administration or partisan position.

Their propaganda is all about healing and helping.

In fact, the medical cartel is, in the long run, the most effective branch of political repression, from one end of the planet to the other.

It favors top-down control by those in power, whoever they are, whatever they claim to stand for.

Consider this: when Ed Snowden released NSA documents that showed the extent of government surveillance on populations, no one from the intelligence establishment made a serious case that Snowden’s revelations were false. Instead, they attacked Snowden for exposing “methods” of “the war on terror.”

However, in the medical arena, leakers would be afraid that doctors, medical bureaucrats, public health agencies, government leaders, drug-company fronts, and major media outlets would, all at once, deny the validity and truth of the leaks—despite the fact that the truth is there for all to see.

In other words, the best protected cartel in the world—medical—would act in a far more Orwellian fashion. It would say: the truth is not the truth, the facts are not the facts, 2 and 2 do not equal 4—and the cartel would get away with doing that.

This is the kind of clout we’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.

Over the years, I’ve alerted mainstream reporters to the Starfield review, cited above, and other confirming published studies that reveal the horrific extent of medical destruction. Those reporters who bothered to get back to me issued blanket denials. They essentially said, “Yes, I see the evidence and the facts, but the facts aren’t facts. What’s happening isn’t happening.”

Now we’re talking about some heavy brainwashing.

By comparison, it makes the quality of the scandal around Snowden seem like a Sunday lunch in the park.

A few years ago, I had one reporter, who exposes political leaks, tell me: “I don’t mess with medical stuff. It would ruin my credibility.”

Indeed. Another indication of how powerful the medical apparatus is.

Recently, the Washington Post highlighted a new study that puts “medical errors” as the 3rd leading cause of death in America. There hasn’t been any significant follow-up. There hasn’t been an explosion of outrage. So even when exposure occurs, the brainwashing factor is so strong it makes no difference. It’s just another ho-hum day in the news business.

That’s mind control par excellence. That’s tremendous protection of criminals.

That’s like a crime boss saying, “Yeah, I kill 225,000 people every year, but it’s an accident”—and nothing happens.

He goes his merry way, and everyone praises him as a humanitarian.

Talk about inventing and selling false reality.

This one is at the top of the charts, and it stays there.


I could stop here, but I’m going to take this one step further, because, as you can see, I’m talking about mind control. So here is the vital add-on:

From the dawn of history, humans have been particularly vulnerable to statements, from “selfless altruists,” about being saved, being rescued, being given gifts from above. And behind those statements, when there is an organization involved, a top-down organization, the threat level rises considerably.

Leaders have always recognized that if they match their pronouncements and assurances with the population’s unflagging hope of being saved, they, the leaders, win. They win big.

Even in societies where overt human sacrifice was practiced, the cover story involved some kind of healing and rescue. The good gods would see the sacrifices and intervene to produce “better days.” Better life for all.

This is what was sold, and this was what was bought. For many people, the times have not changed. Make them a promise of medical rescue, and they’re in. They’re floating in a hopeful trance.

A hypnotic induction has been performed, and it works.

The controlled subject responds with gratitude.

At that point, you can engage in complete contradictions, rank absurdities, and doublespeak.

The trance will hold.

As my old research collaborator, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview, “People want dreams. When they lose faith in their own ability to dream about the life they want, they’ll accept someone else dreaming for them. That’s what hypnosis is. Someone else dreaming for you. You accept a substitute. That’s mind control. That’s believing you can live in someone else’s creation forever…”

If I were the head of an institution of higher learning, I would engrave that quote above the gates, and I would build a four-year course that explores the implications of the quote in every dimension of human existence.

The medical cartel is the best-protected organization on the planet.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Pleasure vs. pain in the programmed society

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“In experiments on mice, scientists rewired the circuits of the brain and changed the animals’ bad memories into good ones…The researchers said they were able to do the opposite as well—change a pleasurable memory in mice into one associated with fear.” (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 8/27/14)

Aldous Huxley once wrote to George Orwell:

“[The world’s rulers’] lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.”

Brain researchers believe they have the future of the world in their hands. For example, they assume that one day, they will be able to turn on or turn off circuits that induce pleasure and pain in humans. Easily, reliably, precisely.

If humans seek to find pleasure and avoid pain, or if they pursue goals that deliver pleasure as a side effect…why wait? Why go through the process of striving at all? Why not cut to the bottom line immediately and experience pleasure?

In an age where instant reward, entitlement, flickering attention, and entertainment are paramount, why not stimulate the brain and give people what they want?

Work is the middle-man. Eliminate it. The interval between desire and fulfillment is long. Erase it.

In the process, simplify human aspirations. Reduce them to a lowest common denominator. Assume that what a Tesla, a Rembrandt, a Beethoven achieved was unnecessarily complicated—the “same result” could have been handed to them on a silver platter.

Individual triumph? An outmoded concept. And why should one person accomplish more than another? It’s victimization. A cardinal sin.

If a thousand robots working in a factory can turn out more cars per day than their human counterparts, thus alleviating the stress of labor, then by analogy, delivering pleasure to a population through drugs or electromagnetic stimulation, bypassing the need for work, is a worthy objective.

These are the arguments, and a significant and growing percentage of the human race would find them persuasive and attractive.

“I’m bored (tired, frustrated, unhappy, confused). Give me pleasure. Now.”

Kent Berridge, PhD, at the University of Michigan Affective & Biopsychology Lab, writes (“Hedonic hotspots of ‘Liking’ — The brain’s pleasure gloss”):

“Pleasure arises within the brain. Sweetness or other natural pleasures are mere sensations as they enter the brain, and brain systems must actively paint the pleasure onto sensation to generate a ‘liking’ reaction — as a sort of pleasure gloss or varnish. Our lab has discovered brain generators of sensory pleasure, in the form of anatomical ‘hedonic hotspots’ in the brain, which use neurochemcal signals [to] paint intense pleasure on sensation, embedded within larger hedonic circuits. It is important to identify such pleasure-causing brain hedonic hotspots, neurochemicals and circuits, in order to identify true mechanisms of pleasure. The need to find true pleasure generators is especially pressing because hedonic circuit dysfunctions may underlie mood disorders and related clinical disorders, and because several other brain candidates once thought to mediate pleasure are now increasingly recognized to not cause pleasure after all (e.g., dopamine, electrical brain stimulation). Therefore we aim to find true causes and mechanisms in the brain for pleasure.”

Thousands of brain researchers all over the world believe they are on the road to curing “mood disorders.” But the big picture is quite different. It involves the shaping of society.

The individual, stripped of goals, vision, imagination, and creative force drops into a slow-motion vortex of despair; and painting a pleasure-gloss on his interior sensations is no cure.

It’s reduction.

Brain research has come a long way since Pavlov, but the basic formula is still the same: stimulate a reaction.


Humans brought to a trough of “sweetness” and drinking from it all at once may initiate a pleasant scene; but at what price?

Tesla is just a little boy with wild ideas and a talent for mechanics, and he is offending other little boys who can’t approach his insight; so he must be cured of his disorder. To do that, he’s given a few jolts of precisely directed pleasure-stim, and he forgets. He forgets what he is and what he can do.

He’s sacrificed on the collective altar.

The pleasure dome expands. People are happy.

The level of happiness is not important. It only matters that people will accept the degree of pleasure they are afforded. They will come to view it as the fulfillment of what is possible.

So it rests with the individual to become free, powerful, and creative. No one else is going to deliver that gift.

Up the road toward the Brave New World, pleasure will be counted as a fundamental sacrament underlying the Bill of Rights. “Everyone deserves it.”

In whatever form the technology can deliver it, it will be given.

Until something untoward happens.

Below the level of consciousness, a massive rebellion will be brewing and boiling. People, like it or not, will experience waves of repressed energy they can’t explain or identify.

The inchoate desire to be what they actually are will force its way to the surface and shake the world.

The pleasure dome will shatter and fall into the sea.

Beyond the reworked and cauterized brain, like a memory, the fires of consciousness will return.

The technocrats will take to the hills.

Or: knowing what the utopian program is—and what we are—we can refuse the program now.

Jon Rappoport

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

Foundation of Mass Mind Control

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

My third collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains a lengthy Writer’s Tutorial. Aside from practical advice, I stress what freedom means to a writer, what it really means in terms of available energy.

And one thing it means: symbols, as they are received and understood by the culture, are a way of shaping, channeling, and ultimately draining away energy.

Let’s start here: symbols have meanings because someone assigns those meanings.

Despite common belief, symbols aren’t tagged with meanings in some cosmic way that precedes humans’ presence on the scene.

Of course, various groups would like to believe otherwise. They want you to react to symbols as if they were permanent, eternal, unavoidable, engraved in stone.

This is the objective of all cosmology: “It’s the way things are, get used to it, accept it, the universe is built in this fashion, there’s nothing you can do about it, remain passive, don’t rebel, comprehend what is given to you.”

It’s how priest classes have always operated. They paint a mural and try to get everyone to prostrate themselves before it.

They say, “This symbol is evil, avoid it and reject it. This symbol is good, praise it.”

Humans will take it to the bank. They’ll go so far as to presume God decided which symbols stand for evil and which stand for good. Naturally, they have an inside line on God’s motives and intents.

Then we have those who argue that certain symbols have meaning created by a collaboration of “collective consciousness.” And this, they claim (“woo-woo”), is very, very powerful.

Yes, it’s powerful if you don’t reject it. It’s powerful if you believe that collective consciousness contains some sort of magic. It doesn’t. It’s just another version of consensus reality.

Some people cling to the idea of the boogie man. They swim in it. They derive their moral stance from it. They depend on it. Without it, they wouldn’t know what to do. And that’s exactly why they claim symbols of evil are inherent and forever and horrible: they wouldn’t know what to do if they abandoned the notion. They’d be lost. Utterly lost.

Therefore, they grotesquely pump up the concept that some symbols are dangerous and can only be dispelled by other symbols.

The truth is, for the individual, symbols are whatever he wants to make of them. He’s free to turn them upside down, inside out, drain them of all meaning, add new meaning, slather them with mayo and mustard, grill them with cheese, pave the driveway with them, hang them from the rafters, step on them, toss them in the garbage, hurl them out of apartment windows, snort them up his nose.

What other people might think about all this is supremely irrelevant.

Society always wants to parade an ever-increasing column of symbols past the populace and define them.

Mass mind control focuses on two elements: image and feeling.

By linking the two primary elements (this is a form of symbol-making), it is possible to short-circuit thought and “cut to the chase,” when it comes to enlisting the allegiance of huge populations.


Two seemingly unrelated events spurred my interest in mass mind control.

On the evening of April 12, 1945, I listened to a radio report on the death of Franklin D Roosevelt. I was seven years old.

I became upset. I didn’t know why. I was angry at my own reaction.

Forty years later, I pulled into a gas station near my apartment in West Los Angeles. I got out of my car and took the cap off my gas tank. I looked to my right and saw Tony Curtis sitting in his car. I was shocked.

A few days later, I began making notes under the heading of “image-emotion cues.” At the time, I had just started working as a reporter, writing articles for LA Weekly. I knew next to nothing about mind control, MKULTRA, Soviet psychiatric gulags, Chinese re-education programs, or US psychological warfare operations.

But because I had been painting for 25 years, I knew something about the power of images.

I remembered my first exhibition of paintings in LA, at my friend Hadidjah Lamas’ house. We had hung my work in her large living room and dining room. Hadidjah had enlisted the services of a friend who had videotaped me painting in my studio, and at the exhibition she set up a television set out on her patio and continuously played the videocassette.

People came through her front door, almost automatically walked through the house to the patio, as if guided by an unseen hand, and watched the video; then they came back inside and looked at the paintings.

They would stop at a painting and say: “That picture was in the video!” “ You see that one? It was in his studio!”

My first note on “image-emotion cues” was, “Investing an image with importance. Projecting emotion into an image.”

Projecting emotion into a newspaper image of the president, FDR. Projecting emotion into the screen image of Tony Curtis. Projecting emotion into a video of a painter working in his studio.

When people encounter an image, when they invest it with importance, they project feeling into the image—and this all happens in a private sphere, a private space.

If this didn’t happen, there would be no way to control populations through images. It wouldn’t work. It all starts with a person setting up his own personal feedback loop that travels from him to an image and back again.

Coming out of World War 2, US psychological warfare operatives knew they could turn their skills to political purposes. They had just succeeded in making Americans believe that all Japanese and German people were horribly evil. They had been able to manipulate imagery successfully in that area. Why couldn’t they shape America’s view of a whole planet that lay beyond personal experience?

They could and they did. But the power to do that emanated from the fact that every person invests images with feeling. That’s where it really starts.

I had seen the 1957 film, Sweet Smell of Success, a number of times. I admired it. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis gave tremendous performances. When, decades later, I saw Curtis sitting in his car at that gas station, I was “working from” the emotion I had invested in his onscreen image. It produced a sense of shock and paralysis for a few seconds.

Other people might have rushed up to Curtis and asked for his autograph. With me, it was shock, cognitive dissonance. Ditto for the death of FDR. I was working off newspaper pictures I’d seen of him, and the feeling I’d invested in those presidential images. Other people, when FDR died, went out into the street and hugged their neighbors and wept openly. For me, it was upset and shock and anger.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with investing emotion in images. It can be exhilarating. It can be uplifting. As a painter, I know this in spades. Putting emotion into images can, in fact, vault you into a different perception of reality.

But on the downside, it can also take you into lockstep with what media operatives want you to experience, second-hand.

We focus to such a degree on how we are being manipulated that we don’t stop to consider how we are participating in the operation. And our own role is clear and stark: we invest images with feeling.

So how does one individual’s projection of feeling into an image become a uniform projection of the same feeling into one image, by millions of people? How does what one person invests privately become mass mind control?

Through external instruction or cues.

Why does this work? Why do millions of people fall into line?

Because they don’t realize they started the whole ball rolling themselves. All they know is: images are connected to feelings.

If they knew they were the real power in the whole operation, if they knew they were investing feelings into images all day long, if they could actually slow down enough to see how they do this….then they would be far less prone to taking instruction about what feelings they “ought to” invest in second-hand images.

Hypnotherapist Jack True unceremoniously put it to me this way: “If a dog could analyze how he got from eating meat to drooling at the sound of a bell that came at feeding time, he could stop drooling.”

I would add: If Chris Matthews could analyze how his own voluntary investment of feeling in the image of Barack Obama sends a tingle up his leg, he could stop tingling.

We see images of people rioting all over the Middle East. We see burning flags and crowds outside embassies. We’re supposed to invest our own anger into those images. Outrage. Or joy, depending on the narrative the television networks are selling.

We see an image of miles of flat farmland and wheat waving in the breeze. We’re supposed to invest that image with feelings of happiness and pride.

Nowhere are we told we can back up a step and realize that we are the ones who begin the whole process, by projecting feelings into images. Any images.

Imagine a thought-experiment. You’re watching your computer screen. It holds an image of a tall blue vase. With purpose, you project the feeling of joy into the vase. Then you project the feeling of disgust. Then, fear. Then, worry. Then, pleasure…on purpose.

The objective is to gain some measure of consciousness about an unconscious process.

When I was 19, I was sent to a trained expert in New York to take a Rorschach (ink-blot) Test. I was displaying signs of what would now be called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

The expert said he wanted me to tell him everything I saw in each ink-blot. I took him at his word.

An hour later, I was still working on the first blot. I was describing everything from bats and owls and chickens to space ships and buckets of hidden treasure in caves.

Well, I was cheating a little. I wasn’t really describing what I saw. I was imagining. I was taking off from what was on the page and improvising. This was outside the bounds of the Test.

The expert was seething. He was sweating, because he had many other blots to show me, and it was late in the afternoon, and he was looking at spending the entire evening with me. Finally, he held up his hand and put an end to the Test.

I wasn’t playing his game. Among other sins, I wasn’t investing dumbed-down feelings in the images. Therefore, my choices of “what to see” in the blots expanded greatly.

When I go to a museum, I like to watch people stand in front of abstract paintings. Many of them are stumped. They’re trying to figure out what feelings they “are supposed to” project into the painting. They’re looking for “instruction,” and there isn’t any. They’re asking for mind control, and they’re not getting it.

Fanaticism of any kind begins with individuals projecting feelings into images. This is harnessed by leaders, who then choose the images and direct which feelings are permitted. The tempting prospect for the follower is: participation in a drama that goes beyond what he would ordinarily experience in life. This is bolstered by the idea that what he is doing is moral.

In the 2012 election season, people on the left were urged to project messianic feelings into images of Barack Obama. People on the right were cued to invest feelings of pride, hope, and “tradition” into images of Mitt Romney. On both sides, it was principally images that were presented. The real candidates weren’t actually experienced.

Since Vietnam, shooting wars have been more difficult to sustain among soldiers. “In the old days,” feelings of hatred could be projected into images of enemies that included civilians, so overtly killing everybody on foreign soil was easier to accept. Now, soldiers are taught “enemy combatant” and “civilian” are two different images that require the injection of two different feelings.

Here at home, police and military are taught, more and more, to invest feelings of suspicion into images of American civilians. This is an acceleration of mass mind control for law enforcement.

The astonishing number of civilians who participate in government and corporate surveillance of the public, through technological means, learn to invest “dead empty feelings” into images of citizens, as if these targets are nothing more than ciphers, units.

The bizarre instances of police detaining and questioning parents who allow their children to play unsupervised reveal another accelerating trend. These confrontations start with neighbors snitching on the parents. The neighbors have learned to invest feelings of panic, suspicion, and anger in images of “free children.”

In all these cases, there is no real experience. It’s all second-hand. It’s all feeling-projected-into-image.

In the medical arena, countless advertisements and news stories are geared to convince people to invest feelings of trust in images of doctors. The suggestion, “Ask your doctor if X is right for you,” is framed as the solution to a little problem. The problem is set this way: Drug X is wonderful; drug X has serious adverse effects; what to do? Solution: ask your doctor; trust him; he knows.

As the class of victims in society has grown by leaps and bounds, including any group that can organize and promote itself as needing help or justice—going miles beyond the people who really do need assistance—citizens have been trained to invest feelings of sympathy and concern for all images of victims everywhere, real or imagined. This, too, is mass mind control.

Pick an image; invest feelings in it. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter.

We shouldn’t leave out a peculiar twist on the feeling-image op. The very people who are portrayed, image-wise, as objects for us to invest feelings into, take their cues from this game as well: doctors act like the doctors on television; gangsters acts like gangsters on television; FBI agents and cops act like law-enforcement officers on television. They’re roped in, just like everyone else.

You’ve heard people say, So-and-so celebrity has become a caricature of himself. Well, that’s what it means. The person has projected massive feelings of approval into an image of himself—often an image shown on television.

As a society, we can go on this way until we become a horrific cartoon of ourselves (we’re already there), or we can step back and discover how we invest emotion into images, and then use that process to pour feeling into visions of our own choosing and invent better futures.

Since the dawn of time, leaders have portrayed themselves as gods. They’ve assembled teams to promote that image, so their followers could project powerful emotion into the image and thereby cement the leaders’ control and power.

The game isn’t new. Understanding the roots of it within each individual could, however, break the trance of mass mind control.

During the first West Nile “outbreak” of 1999, I spoke with a student who had just dropped out of medical school. He told me he’d been looking at electron-microscope photos of the West Nile Virus, and he suddenly realized he was “supposed to” invest feelings of fear in those images.

Somehow, he broke free from the image-feeling link. He was rather stunned at the experience. His entire conditioning as a medical student evaporated.

Parents all over the world are having the same experience vis-a-vis vaccines. They realize they’re supposed to invest fear in images of germs and disease, and they’re also supposed to invest feelings of hope and confidence in images of needles and vaccines. They see the game. They’re supposed to ignore evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. They’re supposed to remain victims of mass mind control.

But they’ve awakened.

We’ve all been taught that what we feel is always and everywhere out of our control. These feelings are simply part of us, and we have to act on them. The alternative would be to sit on them and repress them and turn into androids, robots.

This is simply not true. There are an infinite number of feelings, and as strange as it may sound, we can literally invent them.

This, it is said, is inhuman. It’s a bad idea. It’s wrong. It would lead us to “deserting the human community.”

Nonsense. That’s part of the propaganda of mind control. If the controllers can convince us that we’re working from a limited map of emotions and we have to stay within that territory, they can manipulate that limited set of feelings and trap us.

(The power of art is that it shows us there are so many more emotions than we had previously imagined. We can be much freer than we supposed.)

The synthetic world of mind control and the handful of feelings that are linked to images is what keeps us in thrall.

The natural world—the world of what we can be—is so much wider and more thrilling and revealing.


power outside the matrix

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

Cosmic meddling

by Jon Rappoport

June 18, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

PART ONE:

This article should go a long way toward explaining the difference between my basic position and the position of others who seek to improve the condition of humanity. There is no effort on my part to diminish the efforts of others—I only want to highlight several bottom lines.

First of all, long-time readers know I have advocated and written on a variety of issues that impact our future: harmful vaccines, fake climate change, corporate pollution, the corporate State, elite socialists who seek control of populations under the guide of doing good, medical destruction of life, lying media, and so on. The list is long. I support all sources of truthful information and all positive activism on these issues. In 1994, I ran for a seat in the US Congress based on several of these positions.

More basically, I have written much on the subject of The Individual, his freedom, independence, creative power, and imagination.

I begin with the moral statement that the individual has unlimited freedom, as long as he doesn’t interfere with the freedom of another.

That said, the question becomes: how does the individual attain the greatest possible degree of power and freedom—which are ends in themselves.

And here I make a crucial distinction. I don’t try to help increase individual creative power so that a person creates what I think is most important. In other words, I’m not trying to harness the creative power of individuals so they do my bidding. To the contrary: I would like to see individuals look for, find, and invent their Most Profound Desires—and then create ways and paths toward fulfillment of those desires.

I’m not in the business of cosmic meddling. I don’t wish to interfere in the self-chosen destiny of the sacrosanct individual. I’m not trying to shape a particular system of the future. My image of the best future is:

Simultaneous and side-by-side individual inventions of many realities. Each invention by each individual expresses his most profound desires.

Otherwise, you get, at best, half-freedom, half-power, half-perception, half-satisfaction, half-energy, half-creating.

And you eventually get individuals bowing to “the needs of the group.”

You get individuals meddling in their own futures in order to diminish them.

PART TWO:

ALL SPACES INVENTED FOR YOU BY OTHERS ULTIMATELY POINT TO YOUR DECISION—THAT DECISION COMES DOWN TO: DO I WANT TO BE HERE? DO I WANT TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE? DO I WANT TO MAKE CHANGES IN THIS SPACE?

A space can be of any size or location.

What we call the universe is a space that was made, created, designed. There are many spaces, many universes. They don’t all operate on the same principles and laws and rules. They don’t all look and feel the same.

This universe, the one we are in, is, like the others, a work of art. That doesn’t mean it has “holy content” or “holy direction.” It’s a work of art.

What the individual comes to decide about this universe and other universes has a great deal to do with how much of his creative power he is deploying. Persons “at the height of their creative power” tend to recognize the products of creativity (like spaces and universes) more readily.

For example, consider this excerpt from a 1978 speech novelist Philip K Dick gave, titled, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later”:

“…today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

When you create often enough and intensely enough, you begin to outdistance certain aspects of mind control. You begin to see through the premise, for instance, that this is the only universe. You begin to realize that many systems are invented with the hope that they will become little universes. At first, it might seem that a universe is invented in order to give people something to do—go there, inhabit it, and play along with its rules. Yes, that is so on one level. But more than that, universes are invented by the ton because individuals don’t want to find more and more of their own creative power. They would rather settle for fitting into the operations of what others have designed…


Exit From the Matrix

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

Pleasure vs. pain in the programmed society

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“In experiments on mice, scientists rewired the circuits of the brain and changed the animals’ bad memories into good ones…The researchers said they were able to do the opposite as well—change a pleasurable memory in mice into one associated with fear.” (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, 8/27/14)

Aldous Huxley once wrote to George Orwell:

“[The world’s rulers’] lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.”

Brain researchers believe they have the future of the world in their hands. For example, they assume that one day, they will be able to turn on or turn off circuits that induce pleasure and pain in humans. Easily, reliably, precisely.

If humans seek to find pleasure and avoid pain, or if they pursue goals that deliver pleasure as a side effect…why wait? Why go through the process of striving at all? Why not cut to the bottom line immediately and experience pleasure?

In an age where instant reward, entitlement, flickering attention, and entertainment are paramount, why not stimulate the brain and give people what they want?

Work is the middle-man. Eliminate it. The interval between desire and fulfillment is long. Erase it.

In the process, simplify human aspirations. Reduce them to a lowest common denominator. Assume that what a Tesla, a Rembrandt, a Beethoven achieved was unnecessarily complicated—the “same result” could have been handed to them on a silver platter.

Individual triumph? An outmoded concept. And why should one person accomplish more than another? It’s victimization. A cardinal sin.

If a thousand robots working in a factory can turn out more cars per day than their human counterparts, thus alleviating the stress of labor, then by analogy, delivering pleasure to a population through drugs or electromagnetic stimulation, bypassing the need for work, is a worthy objective.

These are the arguments, and a significant and growing percentage of the human race would find them persuasive and attractive.

“I’m bored (tired, frustrated, unhappy, confused). Give me pleasure. Now.”

Kent Berridge, PhD, at the University of Michigan Affective & Biopsychology Lab, writes (“Hedonic hotspots of ‘Liking’ — The brain’s pleasure gloss”):

“Pleasure arises within the brain. Sweetness or other natural pleasures are mere sensations as they enter the brain, and brain systems must actively paint the pleasure onto sensation to generate a ‘liking’ reaction — as a sort of pleasure gloss or varnish. Our lab has discovered brain generators of sensory pleasure, in the form of anatomical ‘hedonic hotspots’ in the brain, which use neurochemcal signals [to] paint intense pleasure on sensation, embedded within larger hedonic circuits. It is important to identify such pleasure-causing brain hedonic hotspots, neurochemicals and circuits, in order to identify true mechanisms of pleasure. The need to find true pleasure generators is especially pressing because hedonic circuit dysfunctions may underlie mood disorders and related clinical disorders, and because several other brain candidates once thought to mediate pleasure are now increasingly recognized to not cause pleasure after all (e.g., dopamine, electrical brain stimulation). Therefore we aim to find true causes and mechanisms in the brain for pleasure.”

Thousands of brain researchers all over the world believe they are on the road to curing “mood disorders.” But the big picture is quite different. It involves the shaping of society.

The individual, stripped of goals, vision, imagination, and creative force drops into a slow-motion vortex of despair; and painting a pleasure-gloss on his interior sensations is no cure.

It’s reduction.

Brain research has come a long way since Pavlov, but the basic formula is still the same: stimulate a reaction.


Humans brought to a trough of “sweetness” and drinking from it all at once may initiate a pleasant scene; but at what price?

Tesla is just a little boy with wild ideas and a talent for mechanics, and he is offending other little boys who can’t approach his insight; so he must be cured of his disorder. To do that, he’s given a few jolts of precisely directed pleasure-stim, and he forgets. He forgets what he is and what he can do.

He’s sacrificed on the collective altar.

The pleasure dome expands. People are happy.

The level of happiness is not important. It only matters that people will accept the degree of pleasure they are afforded. They will come to view it as the fulfillment of what is possible.

So it rests with the individual to become free, powerful, and creative. No one else is going to deliver that gift.

Up the road toward the Brave New World, pleasure will be counted as a fundamental sacrament underlying the Bill of Rights. “Everyone deserves it.”

In whatever form the technology can deliver it, it will be given.

Until something untoward happens.

Below the level of consciousness, a massive rebellion will be brewing and boiling. People, like it or not, will experience waves of repressed energy they can’t explain or identify.

The inchoate desire to be what they actually are will force its way to the surface and shake the world.

The pleasure dome will shatter and fall into the sea.

Beyond the reworked and cauterized brain, like a memory, the fires of consciousness will return.

The technocrats will take to the hills.

Or: knowing what the utopian program is—and what we are—we can refuse the program now.

Jon Rappoport

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