Pandemics are staged on Television

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

September 22, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

The official COVID narrative—more absurd with each passing day—is being transmitted on television. That is a cardinal fact.

The absurdity called TELEVISION NEWS was depicted in a giant of a film, NETWORK (1976)…


When a new epidemic is launched and promoted, despite the absence of good science and good evidence, it is jacked up on television screens. Images begin to flow:

An emergency medical vehicle on a street. EMT personnel, in hazmat suits, load a man strapped down to a stretcher, into the van. On another street, a man collapses on the sidewalk. We see a quarantined man sitting inside a huge plastic bubble on a third street. Cut to an airport lobby. Soldiers are patrolling the space among the crowds. Cut to a lab. Close-up of vials of liquid. Camera pulls back. Techs in light green scrubs are placing the vials into slots of a table-top machine. Auditorium—a man on a platform, wearing a doctor’s white coat, is pointing a wand at a large screen, on which a chart is displayed, for the audience. Back to the street. People are wearing face masks.

These images wash over the television viewer. Meanwhile, the anchor is imparting his prepared meaning: “The government today issued a ban on all travel into and out of the city…hundreds of plane flights have been cancelled. Scientists are rushing to develop a vaccine…”

The television audience has an IMPRESSION of knowing something. They’re in the flow, the flow of the news…they’re in the images…

Network, the 1976 film written by Paddy Chayefsky, reveals what media kings would do if they unchained their basic instincts and galloped all the way into the madness of slash-and-burn Roman Circus.

The audience is jaded beyond recall. It needs new shocks to the system every day. The adrenaline must flow. The line between reporting the news and inventing it? Erase it. Celebrate the erasure. Watch ratings soar.

Why pretend anymore? Why spend countless hours preparing and broadcasting synthetic artificial news, as if it were real? Does the audience care about such niceties? The audience just wants action.

The film proceeds from these premises.

Arthur Jensen, head of the corporation that owns the Network, speaks to unhinged Network newsman, Howard Beale, who has revealed, on-air, a piece of the real planetary power structure in a few moments of sanity: “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Head of programming for the Network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with soaring ratings: Howard Beale, [Religious] Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of
hobgoblin radicals called the
Ecumenical Liberation Army who
go around taking home movies
of themselves robbing banks.
Maybe they’ll take movies of
themselves kidnapping heiresses,
hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges,
assassinating ambassadors.
We’d open each week’s segment
with that authentic footage,
hire a couple of writers to
write some story behind that
footage, and we’ve got
ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the
Network News? It has an 8 in New
York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share
in both cities. Last night, Howard
Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled
‘BULLSHIT’ for two minutes, and I
can tell you right now that tonight’s
show will get a 30 share at least.
I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day
prophet, a magnificent messianic
figure, inveighing against the
hypocrisies of our times, a strip
Savonarola, Monday through Friday.
I tell you, Frank, that could just
go through the roof…Do you want to figure out
the revenues of a strip show that
sells for a hundred thousand bucks
a minute? One show like that could
pull this whole network right out
of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being
handed to us on a plate; let’s not
blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s close.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Howard Beale, over the cliff, a news man screaming on-air about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is explored. What could have resulted in a true popular rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations and mega-money, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network, wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on-air; during his show. And so it is done.


Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, and adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants to BE news; audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population, Network stages only a few minutes of on-air television.

The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image. Which was scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s intent.

Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.

Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.

Beale occasionally breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.

The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.

Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.

The impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen and listened to a narrator. THIS is what the viewer prefers. He wants no part of knowledge.

A basic premise of modern age is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching video flow.

Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image: “This is revolution for democracy, created by the technology of cell phones…”

Viewers thus believe something. Television has imparted a sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the mind.

When you export this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is groped and held close.

“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”

“Really? How did they show that?”

“Well, I don’t remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”

And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.

The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was inside them, busy building up his impression of knowing something.

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. To the extent it exists, it’s wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image.

When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.

Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.

Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.

The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.


A pandemic, the false pandemic I’ve been rejecting in many articles, is delivered through video flow and narration. Stacked and cut images.

There is no challenge to the flow in any basic way, through the intrusion of actual knowledge, because that would shut down the parade of images and nullify the reasons for broadcasting them in the first place.

The old theater adage, “the show must go on,” when adapted for television, becomes, “the flow must go on.” Once its course is set, there can be no turning back.

The television audience, imprisoned in homes, rides the river…


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 Planners: Conversations in the Dark

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

A SIGN LIGHTS UP: JULY 10, 2017.

Do we have a launch date set for the pandemic?

Looks like December of 2019, or January 2020.

I’m still confused about the virus.

There is no virus.

Why not?

We’re selling A STORY ABOUT A VIRUS—that’s a winner. That’s all we need.

How do we sell it? Won’t people catch on right away?

Are you kidding? Our people will develop a diagnostic test for the virus that isn’t there. How they build that test determines the outcome. It’ll register positive much of the time, along with some negatives. And here’s the important point: the technical details involved in constructing the PCR test are very dense. Even many professionals don’t understand them. It’s like speaking Icelandic to a South American tribe in the rain forest. Don’t worry, we’ll get away with it.

And the lockdowns? The quarantines?

They’ll come, trust me. The Chinese will start the ball rolling. They have the force to pull it off. They’ll lock down a few cities right away. Wuhan, for example. Maybe 60 million people. Overnight. It’ll be a startling development. The UN and the WHO will climb on board quickly and praise China for its handling of the crisis. China will become THE MODEL for the rest of the world. Other countries will follow suit.

Who is going to step forward in the West? Italy?

Yes. They’re next in line for big lockdowns. The Chinese regime has enormous clout with the Italian government. So Italy will become the first beachhead in the attack on the West.

America is the key. If they join the club, we’re in. How do we convince Trump to play along?

He’ll cave. We’ll feed him a computer projection of deaths in America. Something huge, like two million. Trump isn’t good with details. He’ll buy in.

But the lockdowns will decimate the US economy. Trump’s whole presidency rests on economic success.

He’ll give in to Fauci and Gates.

Why?

Because he doesn’t have the stomach for this battle. He won’t go up against the medical experts. He’s bold in some respects, but on this issue, he’s a wobbler. That’s our calculation.

The news media are ready?

With wall to wall messaging, 24/7. PANDEMIC. Cases. Deaths. There are no dissenters among them. We’ve got that all sewed up. Medical experts pontificating on-air. Fear.

Where will the deaths come from?

We’ll relabel and repackage all sorts of traditional lung infections and count them as “pandemic deaths.” We’ll label anything we want to “pandemic.” We’ll be counting the elderly, who die for all sorts of reasons. We’ll use treatments that kill the elderly.

I’m nervous about this. Will it really sell? I mean, how can they construct a PCR test if they don’t have a virus, if there is no virus?

It’s easy, trust me. We’ve done it before. Anyway, your part of the operation comes after the lockdowns. You’ve made a few hundred million doing business with China. You’ll be able to make a few BILLION soon, buying up distressed properties after the lockdowns gain traction.

I’m going to bankroll social justice movements. Protests, riots, burning, looting, assault, in major cities across America. It’s a terrific issue, and it’ll be a major distraction from the lockdowns.

I know all about that. I’m copied in on every aspect of the operation. Just make sure all those riots are focused on racism and police brutality. We don’t want any leakage about inner city gangs and drug cartels and banks.

No problem. The gangs distribute drugs for the cartels, the cartels wash their money through banks. It’s a tight fit. Nobody is going to prosecute the gangs as continuing criminal enterprises. That’s off the table completely. The protests will have no mention of gangs as a problem. We’ve got the foot soldier protestors all sewed up. Hell, some of them ARE gang members. Are you sure the 2020 presidential election is in the bag?

Biden is our man. We need someone with SEVERE cognitive deficits in the Oval Office. Only a completely dim bulb, mentally speaking, would sign some of the orders we’re going to put in front of him. Harris is being prepped to step in if Biden has to resign for health reasons. She knows enough of the score. She won’t try to go off on her own. Give her a whiff of the presidency and she’ll do somersaults for us.

Here’s the thing. Forget about Trump. The real danger is all the people who support him. The millions of deplorables out there. They still think the American Republic and freedom are on the table.

I agree. They’re a problem. But there are solutions. We’re going to put a label on all their heads. ‘They’re very bad people. They all want to destroy the government.’ That’s how we’re going to paint them. Our modelers believe there are enough Americans who are beholden to the federal government…they’ll view Trumpers as a serious threat. Very serious. We’ll have that issue covered.

Is the QAnon op going to keep going?

We’ll keep it going forever. After Trump leaves the White House, we’ll have people saying he’s still president and he’s arresting every high-level evil person in the world.

BLACKOUT

The lights come back up.

Wow, THAT was a hell of a dream—who are you?

Agent Jones. Federal Domestic Terrorism Task Force.

What are you doing in my bedroom?

I’ve been recording your dream.

What?

We have it all. Two pandemic planners. Why were you dreaming about them?

I have no idea. Who—

It reflects a certain state of mind. A dangerous mindset. Why weren’t you dreaming about a television show or a garden in the forest? Have you been reading conspiracy literature?

I read newspapers. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Something in you must have triggered this dream. A psychological predisposition. A latent dissatisfaction.

I’m not dissatisfied.

That was not the dream of a normal man. Thoughts and dreams lead to conclusions, and conclusions lead to action.

I once had a dream about jumping off a building. I haven’t jumped.

Not yet.

Why are you here?

Checking up on a potential defector.

A defector from what?

What the rest of us know.

I’m like everybody else.

Everybody else doesn’t dream about a plan to make billions of dollars buying up distressed properties.

Is that a joke? I wouldn’t know where to start, even if I had that ambition. Which I don’t.

You start from where you are. A man with his thoughts. We need to explore your life thoroughly. You may have connections you’re unaware of. A distant relative. A casual acquaintance. Something may have slipped through the cracks.

I have to be at the office in a few hours. And I want to speak with a lawyer.

About your dream?

About you. This situation. Am I being charged with a crime?

No.

Then I’m free to—

You’re not free. Your status is “suspended, depending on outcome.”

What status?

Who told you Kamala Harris would cooperate in a plot to subvert the government?

No one.

Where did you get the idea that Biden is disabled?

Nowhere. It was a just a statement a man in my dream made. I wasn’t speaking at all. I was watching and listening.

I wouldn’t advise trying to deny responsibility. I didn’t have the dream. Your neighbor didn’t. You did.

Do you dream?

No.

Never?

The kind of dream you had was aberrant. What makes you think there’s going to be a pandemic and it’s some sort of plan?

Why do you care about my dream?

Because some fantasies are dangerous.

And some are meaningless.

The key is the content. You were constructing a conspiracy scenario. Do you have an opinion about viruses?

No.

I’m going to leave now. By tomorrow, you’ll wonder whether this conversation actually took place. If you reject my existence, think of this event as a warning from your subconscious.

What are you going to do?

You’re on a list.

Meaning what?

A more thorough background investigation. Increased surveillance.

Even while I’m asleep?

Listen carefully, sir. You’re always asleep. In the dream, you woke up for a minute or two.

BLACKOUT


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 Galactic Tribunal grills Bill Gates

by Jon Rappoport

September 14, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

We don’t know how Bill Gates was transported to a Galactic proceeding, and we only have fragments of the interrogation. But because no court on Earth would deliver justice, those distant powers intervened.

A judge read an unusual opening statement, which apparently is presented before every trial:

“In our high civilization, we’ve fulfilled the ancient prophecy, THE LOST SHALL BE FOUND. There is no barrier between those of us who live here in the flesh and those most close to us who’ve departed this life. We experience joy with them in dimensions far greater than this. Why then do we bother to conduct these trials? Because we also fight for justice. We will not turn our backs on that ideal.”

FRAGMENT 1: …Mr. Gates, it’s time for the truth. How long did you plan the pandemic before launching it?

Why am I forced to tell the truth?

Because this is a place for conscience.

Will you torture me if I decline?

We’ll keep asking until you answer honestly, no matter how long it takes.

Who can I pay? I’m rich.

Denied. We don’t want money.

How about land? I can deliver you a large colony on Earth. A whole country. Maybe even Europe.

No.

I could create a medical system for you that would dazzle your minds. On Earth, the Nobel Committee should give me the Prize for my efforts, but they don’t have the balls. Did Melinda put you up to kidnapping me? I demand my rights…

FRAGMENT 2: …The pandemic narrative was simply the occasion for establishing a worldwide dictatorship?

We needed a pretext. There were many meetings over the course of 25 years. We decided early on that a medical story was our best option. It appears to be politically neutral.

On Earth, the modern religion is science.

Exactly. So if we could get out in front of that trend and create a medical scenario of threat and impending destruction, we could apply just enough coercion to control the population.

But you weren’t conducting real science.

We were inventing the appearance of it. We had so-called experts in our camp. They would take the lead. The masses have no way of distinguishing science from fantasy…

FRAGMENT 3: In the planning stage prior to the declaration of a pandemic, what were the vital elements?

I’m most proud of our messaging organization. We had the news media. We had government leaders. We had recognized medical experts. But you see, in that type of operation, you can’t afford defections. The seal has to be tight. Ours was. Over the years, through money, through influence, in some cases through threats, we had built a network of unity and compliance.

You’re proud, you say?

Why, yes. It took work. Much work. You don’t lock up all the key sources of information on a planet overnight.

So it was the message you were aiming for, rather than the truth.

Of course. There was no pandemic. We had to make it seem there was. Convincingly.

You were heading a sales force.

Exactly. The whole idea was to make the buying compulsory…

FRAGMENT 4: …You had planned the lockdowns?

Years in advance. Then, at the right moment, China pulled the trigger, setting the example. When my World Health Organization praised China, other nations followed suit and imprisoned their populations.

So the Chinese regime’s lockdowns were definitely part of the advance planning.

Yes. That was crucial. The government there wasn’t fully on board with the globalist future we set our sights on. China is, first and foremost, for China. But we had enough cooperation from them to make it work.

And social media? You had them on your side from the beginning?

That was easy. Their leaders are willing and compliant. They’re afraid to go against our medical consensus. And they’re globalists. In the long run, they want world government, too.

As do the controlled media?

Yes. Putting the right people in place in the news industry has been a decades-long proposition.

You wanted a planet that was a prison.

Yes.

And the pretext again?

The scenario? There is a deadly virus sweeping across Earth, and in order to stop it, we have to lock down countries…and then inject everyone with a vaccine.

But there was no virus?

Among us, there were arguments on both sides of that question. But if it existed, it certainly wasn’t any more dangerous than the flu. We had to make it seem very, very dangerous.

Through pronouncements to that effect.

Yes…

FRAGMENT 5: …You want depopulation?

We have to have it. You can’t run a planet when 8 billion people are living on it. It’s impossible. The vaccine is the weapon. But not just the COVID vaccine. Vaccines before it and those coming in the future.

And all those deaths will be laid at the door of pandemics?

Yes. “The virus did it.”

And you’re willing to murder all those people.

Hard choices dictate the outcomes of events. A better life for some, rather than a terrible life for all. That’s my choice.

Are you listening to yourself, Mr. Gates?

I always listen to myself.

FRAGMENT 6: …I want to return to the messaging effect you created. It’s difficult for us to understand how you managed it…why so many leaders in their fields went along with your false science.

It was a combination of things. Many people are true believers. Scientists talk, and they believe. Other people wanted money. We paid them money. Certain resistant politicians were threatened. We set an example with several assassinations. As you build a consensus, you reach a threshold where the tide is in your favor. Then people ride it with you, out of fear of excommunication if they don’t. Media leaders were given to understand that the pandemic was the gateway into a global governance system. And the system was inevitable.

What about Anthony Fauci?

He’s a little man, a striver, who wants to be accepted in elite circles. I recruited him a long time ago…

FRAGMENT 7: …You yourself have given much money to media companies.

I praised their work, gave them money, and they showed loyalty to me. You see, life runs on stimulus-response. I make use of that principle on a worldwide basis. My colleagues and I provide calculated stimuli, and the population, in all areas of life, responds as we predict.

You view humans as machines.

Well, they are.

But you and your colleagues aren’t.

We’re of a higher order. We can stand outside stimulus-response and operate the levers.

As you sit here, Mr. Gates, you don’t believe you’re confessing to crimes. You’re proud of what you’ve done.

Of course.

Listen to me carefully now. We know enough of what you are, in order to pass sentence on you. But we know a great more than that. Like every individual, you have a greater dimension. We could show it to you. We could compel you to experience it. If we did, you would come apart at the seams. You would understand your own evil actions in a way that is undeniable.

…I don’t like the sound of that. What are you talking about?

I think you have an inkling of what I mean. The experience we could compel you to have is one you yourself, on your own, will come face to face with, some day. Not in your present life. Afterwards, at some point. There is no telling when, but it will happen.

You mean some supposed higher power will force it on me?

No, Mr. Gates. It’s much worse than that. You’ll force it on yourself.

Why would I do that?

Because although you’ve embraced crime and destruction, somewhere inside yourself you also understand The Good. And in that understanding, you can potentially live in joy and peace. As anyone can.

You’re not making sense.

You’re beginning to see I am making sense.

I don’t like this.

Why would you like it, given what you’ve made of your life and lives of others?

You’re trying to pass off some kind of religious nonsense on me.

Far from it. We don’t have churches in this place, Mr. Gates. We don’t need faith in things unseen. We’ve already seen.

I want to go home.

You will.

You’re not going to kill me?

So you can blame us for what you’re doing to yourself?

You’re insane.

We’ve opened up just a bit of light here for you.

Why?

Because although we’re a just people and don’t need justice for ourselves, we will exercise it on behalf of others, who’ve been harmed.

This is ridiculous.

Even the worst murderers have it in themselves to become good. They can cross that bridge.

No they can’t.

We can hear voices, Mr. Gates. Many voices are telling us to put you to death.

Then why don’t you? Go ahead.

We’re doing something much worse. We’re imposing this sentence…YOUR FATE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS. That sentence is real. It carries weight. As you’ll discover.

It’s meaningless.

Take Mr. Gates away. He’s about to become ill. Take him home…

You don’t have the courage to kill me. You’re cowards.

I’ve heard that refrain from hundreds of murderers in this court…they all want a quick death. We don’t give it to them…

Kill me.

Take him home.

You did something to my mind.

We heard your confession of crimes. Mass imprisonment and murder.

Then destroy me. I throw myself on the mercy of this court.

Goodbye, Mr. Gates.

This is just a dream.

If it is, it’s your dream. You have to ask why you’re presenting it to yourself…


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 Great Walkout is starting; against the vaccine mandate

by Jon Rappoport

September 13, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Children’s Health Defense: “Thousands of Parents and Educators Plan to ‘Walk Out’ To Protest Masking, Vaccine Mandates. We have launched a nationwide ‘Walk Out Week’ starting on September 13 in response to mask and vaccine mandates in schools and businesses around the country. Parents, educators and concerned citizens across the U.S. will participate in the coordinated week-long event focused on peaceful non-compliance, to remind government officials that individuals should have the final say when it comes to their health and that of their children.”

Nny360: “In a letter to [New York] Gov. Kathy Hochul and state Health Commissioner Howard Zucker, the GOP lawmakers warned the [vaccine] mandate could lead to massive resignations and firings of health care workers who refuse the shot.”

Madison.com: “Increasingly, health care facilities in Wisconsin and around the country require their employees to be vaccinated. Yet in long-term care facilities such as nursing homes — where residents are highly susceptible to severe illness and death from COVID-19 — some workers refuse the shot.”

“As of late August, Wisconsin’s rate of fully vaccinated nursing home employees was around 60%.”

Bloomberg: “Right now nearly 1 in 8 nurses are neither vaccinated nor planning to get a shot.”

“And in some parts of the country, hospital administrators say only about half of their nursing staff are vaccinated.”

Stat News: “Millions of unused Covid-19 vaccines are set to go to waste as demand dwindles across the United States and doses likely expire this summer, according to public health officials…”

“Currently, states have administered 52.36 million fewer doses than have been distributed to them, according to federal data.”

“A significant tranche of Pfizer doses is expected to expire in August… Given waning domestic vaccine demand, those doses are unlikely to be fully used before they must be tossed.”

“’We’re seeing demand [for the vaccine] falling off across all the states,’ said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.”


Frank has his weekly appointment with his therapist.

Doc, I had a very disturbing dream.

Well, Frank, you know, during the pandemic and the lockdowns, the subconscious is swinging into high gear. Many people are having uncomfortable dreams.

That doesn’t make me feel better.

I could write you a prescription for Depoxywraparound-3-x.

What’s that?

Doesn’t matter. You won’t dream anymore.

Really? So in the dream, I was at a small rally in a country town. Biden was talking to a few people. Then I was standing with him alone, off to the side, next to a tent. I handed him an ice cream cone. He went at it like it was his last meal.

Could you see his teeth?

I don’t know. Why?

Teeth could be symbolic.

So I asked him, Do you really know what you’re doing with this new vaccine mandate? It affects a HUNDRED MILLION people.

What did he say?

He kept gobbling up the ice cream. Between bites, he said, “That many people? That’s good. I want to force everyone.” Why, I said. He said, “Because it’s standard. We have to have a standard. Otherwise people go off on their own. That would be dangerous.”

And his comment disturbed you?

Yes. When he said go off on their own, he meant…he was talking about anything they might do that wasn’t regulated. Anything at all.

How do you know he meant that?

I could tell. In the dream, it was obvious.

You could have misinterpreted him.

No. I saw something in his face.

What was that?

A desire for revenge. He was suffering and he wanted to blame everybody else. There was blankness in his face. As if he was acting under orders.

That’s a pretty large interpretation. You’re assuming a great deal.

I’m not assuming. I SAW all that.

In the dream you were telepathic?

Haven’t you ever had a dream where you just KNEW what was going on?

I don’t dream.

Ever?

Ever.

Don’t you think that’s odd?

No.

Why don’t you dream, Doc?

Several reasons. I’ve resolved, in therapy, many of the issues that would cause my subconscious to work overtime while I’m asleep. Also, several years ago, I participated in a contract with the Department of Defense.

What contract?

We studied automatic reflexes. The training involved using physical inputs to change the responses to stimuli.

You lost me.

Let’s say when a person hears the sound of gunfire, he feels fear. We want to change that reflex. We want a soldier to feel nothing, or a sense of excitement.

How is that possible?

Through inputs. Certain frequencies.

Electronic?

You could say that. So continue describing your dream, Frank.

I said to Biden, This is has never been done in the history of America—telling more than a hundred million people they can’t work at a job unless they take a vaccine. It’s UNTHINKABLE.

Did he answer you?

Yes. He said, “We’re at that stage now. We have to do unthinkable things.” Why, I said. He said, “It’s on the schedule.”

That’s interesting.

It was as if there was a schedule, and Biden couldn’t do anything about it. He accepted that.

In life, there ARE certain things we can’t change. It’s a sign of maturity when we come to terms with—

No. That’s not what I mean. Biden was a disabled old man saying that. He knew what was going on, and he was…

He was what?

Beyond despair. He had already felt despair, and he found out it didn’t do any good. Years ago. Do you see? He’d totally surrendered to something.

You’re making all sorts of assumptions again.

No I’m not. In the dream, what I’m telling you…it was as clear as day.

You know what your problem is, Frank?

Tell me.

When you go to sleep, you dream. That’s the basic issue. I see I can’t talk you out of your own interpretations of these dreams. So you just have to stop.

Stop dreaming?

Yes.

That doesn’t sound good.

Why?

I don’t know. It sounds like surgery. If I stop dreaming, will I be different when I’m awake?

I would say yes. You won’t be as emotional. You’ll have more balance.

Like Biden in the dream? I’ll be blank? You know, he kept eating ice cream. The cone didn’t run out. There was always ice cream in it.

That alone should tell you…in your dream, you obviously weren’t talking with Biden. It was your version of him.

I’m not so sure.

Come on, Frank. You can’t believe the man in your dream was like the actual Biden.

Why not?

Let me write you a prescription. Try it for a week. You’ll stop dreaming. If you don’t like the effect, I’ll wean you off the drug.

By then, it might be too late.

What do you mean?

In my new state of mind, I might want to keep taking it.

And what would be so wrong with that?

Biden was under…he had given up his…he was under the control of other people. He knew it. Way back in the past, he had fought it, and he lost.

There you go again. What do you want to change about your life, Frank?

Right now?

Yes.

I don’t know.

You want to be happy. You don’t want to be bothered and distracted by troubling things. Doesn’t that sound about right?

Maybe.

You come in here with a dream—sure, I could analyze it for you, but it’s just a dream…

He was talking to a Chinese official.

What?

Biden. He was sitting in a chair in an empty auditorium. A Chinese officer was standing over him, lecturing him.

We’re back on that again. Why don’t you call the White House and tell them about your dream, Frank? Lay it out. They’ll put you on a long list of nutcases. Is that what you want?

No.

Will you take the medicine I want to give you?

No.

All right then…was Biden eating cherry vanilla?

What? Yes, yes he was.

With sprinkles?

Yes. How did you—

He was wearing a gray suit, and a blue tie?

Yes—

The place where you were asking him about the vaccine mandate—there was a tree, a large oak tree. You were standing in the shade. There was a tent nearby.

How do you know that?

The ice cream cone. It was a dark brown.

That’s right.

A small boy rode by on a bicycle.

How do you know all this?

I’ve had ten patients in the last two weeks who’ve had the same dream.

That’s impossible.

I’d agree with you. Except for the ten patients.

How can you explain it?

I can’t. Actually, it’s more than ten. I’ve spoken with several colleagues. They’ve all had patients who had the same dream.

Someone is putting the dream in our minds?

I don’t think so. I think it’s an organic event.

What?

People are staging a rebellion, internally. That would be my interpretation. The vaccine mandate is going too far. The shared dream is the first wave of the resistance. A new level of resistance.

What’s going to happen next?

I don’t know.

There was something else I said to him in the dream.

I know what it was, Frank. You said the whole country is going to stage a walkout. The whole country is going to stay home from work. In protest against the mandate.

That’s exactly what I said.

Every patient, in his dream, told Biden that.

So let’s do it, Doc.

You’re including me, Frank?

Come on, Doc. Don’t you think I know what’s going on? You had the same dream, too.

It’s the first time I had a dream in ten years.

How did it feel?

The next morning, I remembered what it was like to be happy.

Here’s the thing, Doc. It’s already started. We just don’t know about it yet.

What’s started?

The walkout. The nurses, for instance. They’re leaving their jobs because they won’t take the vaccine. More nurses than we know about. Many more.

You know, Frank…my cousin was killed in Vietnam. His mother had a dream about it, before it was reported to her. The Army stalled the report, because her son was killed by friendly fire. She actually had the dream after her son was dead, but before it was reported…

That’s why we’re dreaming, Doc. Because the walkout has started, but the news doesn’t want to report the extent of it…


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.

Memo to Corporate-State COVID Medical Bloggers living in Mommy’s basement

And to morons and CIA assets who call themselves medical reporters

by Jon Rappoport

August 16, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I know times are tough for you. You’re devoted to following the science, but over the past year, it’s changed so many times you’re dizzy and confused.

For example—

There’s no need to wear a mask.

Wear a mask.

Wear two.

Wear three.

You can take them off now.

Put them back on, until the vaccine arrives.

After you take the vaccine, wear a mask anyway.

Wear it outdoors and indoors. Wear it during sex. Don’t talk during sex. Don’t talk at all.

Asymptomatic infected people never drive an epidemic.

Asymptomatic infected people are driving this epidemic.

The PCR test is accurate.

The PCR test may have resulted in 90% of all COVID cases actually being false-positives. But take the test anyway.

Setting the sensitivity of the test at 35 cycles or higher makes the test meaningless.

Labs run the test at 40 cycles or higher.

A “COVID case” is defined as someone who tests positive, even if he has no symptoms and is perfectly healthy.

A “COVID death” is defined as anyone who dies for any reason, as long as a doctor writes “COVID-19” on his patient file.

SARS-CoV-2 was isolated (discovered). Isolated means: “assumed without evidence to be buried in a soup in a dish in a lab surrounded by toxic drugs and chemicals and cells and random genetic material; in other words, un-isolated. Isolated means un-isolated.”

The vaccine prevents serious illness.

The vaccine was only designed to prevent mild illness (cough, or chills and fever).

The vaccine keeps the vaccinated person from being infected with virus.

No it doesn’t.

The vaccine prevents a person from transmitting the virus.

No it doesn’t.

Get vaccinated.

Public health agencies are reporting huge numbers of vaccine injuries and deaths. In any other situation, this would have resulted in the whole vaccine campaign being halted.

The vaccine is safe.

The virus (which has never been discovered) has been sequenced. Various bits of so-called genetic information were cobbled together by a computer program. This method is as reliable and meaningful as a blind drunk aimlessly fiddling with the combination to a vault, and then claiming he retrieved a billion dollars from the room inside the vault.

Yes, you bloggers and reporters…you’ve had a tough year.

Oh, wait. Did you think I was going offer some helpful suggestions?

Why would I?

You’re hopeless.


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.

Pandemics are staged on Television

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

July 2, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

When a new epidemic is launched and promoted, despite the lack of good science and good evidence, it is jacked up on television screens. Images begin to flow:

An emergency medical vehicle on a street. EMT personnel, in hazmat suits, load a man strapped down to a stretcher, into the van. On another street, a man collapses on the sidewalk. We see a quarantined man sitting inside a huge plastic bubble on a third street. Cut to an airport lobby. Soldiers are patrolling the space among the crowds. Cut to a lab. Close-up of vials of liquid. Camera pulls back. Techs in light green scrubs are placing the vials into slots of a table-top machine. Auditorium—a man on a platform, wearing a doctor’s white coat, is pointing a wand at a large screen, on which a chart is displayed, for the audience. Back to the street. People are wearing face masks.

These images wash over the television viewer. Meanwhile, the anchor is imparting his prepared meaning: “The government today issued a ban on all travel into and out of the city…hundreds of plane flights have been cancelled. Scientists are rushing to develop a vaccine…”

The television audience has an IMPRESSION of knowing something. They’re in the flow, the flow of the news…they’re in the images…

Network, the 1976 film written by Paddy Chayefsky, reveals what media kings would do if they unchained their basic instincts and galloped all the way into the madness of slash-and-burn Roman Circus.

The audience is jaded beyond recall. It needs new shocks to the system every day. The adrenaline must flow. The line between reporting the news and inventing it? Erase it. Celebrate the erasure. Watch ratings soar.

Why pretend anymore? Why spend countless hours preparing and broadcasting synthetic artificial news, as if it were real? Does the audience care about such niceties? The audience just wants action.

The film proceeds from these premises.

Arthur Jensen, head of the corporation that owns the Network, speaks to unhinged Network newsman, Howard Beale, who has revealed, on-air, a piece of the real planetary power structure in a few moments of sanity: “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!! Is that clear?!… You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!”

Head of programming for the Network, Diana Christensen, shifts the whole news department over to the entertainment division.

Thus emerge new shows with soaring ratings: Howard Beale, [Religious] Prophet of the Air Waves; The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, in which a guerrilla group films itself carrying out armed bank robberies; and Sybil the Soothsayer, a Tarot reader.

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

There is no longer even a pretense of a need for news anchors to appear authoritative, objective, or rational.

Diana Christensen is unstoppable. She sees, with burning clarity, that audiences are bored to the point of exhaustion; they now require, as at the end of the Roman Empire, extreme entertainment. They want more violence, more insanity, out in the open. On television.

In promoting her kind of news division, she tells network executives:

“Look, we’ve got a bunch of
hobgoblin radicals called the
Ecumenical Liberation Army who
go around taking home movies
of themselves robbing banks.
Maybe they’ll take movies of
themselves kidnapping heiresses,
hijacking 747’s, bombing bridges,
assassinating ambassadors.
We’d open each week’s segment
with that authentic footage,
hire a couple of writers to
write some story behind that
footage, and we’ve got
ourselves a series…

“Did you see the overnights on the
Network News? It has an 8 in New
York and a 9 in L.A. and a 27 share
in both cities. Last night, Howard
Beale went on the air [as a newscaster] and yelled
‘BULLSHIT’ for two minutes, and I
can tell you right now that tonight’s
show will get a 30 share at least.
I think we’ve lucked into something…

“I see Howard Beale as a latter-day
prophet, a magnificent messianic
figure, inveighing against the
hypocrisies of our times, a strip
Savonarola, Monday through Friday.
I tell you, Frank, that could just
go through the roof…Do you want to figure out
the revenues of a strip show that
sells for a hundred thousand bucks
a minute? One show like that could
pull this whole network right out
of the hole! Now, Frank, it’s being
handed to us on a plate; let’s not
blow it!”

Television in the “real world” isn’t all the way there yet, but it’s close.

In Network, Diana Christensen personifies the news. She is the electric, thrill-seeking, non-stop force that is terrified of silence.

She lives and feeds on adrenaline. So does the viewing public. Nothing else ultimately matters. Ratings are the top line and the bottom line. The individual and his thoughts are completely irrelevant.

Howard Beale, over the cliff, a news man screaming on-air about the insanity of the news, is perfectly acceptable, because the audience is simply responding to Beale’s inchoate outrage and their own. Nothing deeper is explored. What could have resulted in a true popular rebellion is short-circuited. Beale becomes a crazy loon, a novelty item. Yet one more distraction.

When, in a brief interlude of clarity, he begins telling his audience about the takeover of society by mega-corporations and mega-money, his show droops. Ratings collapse. Diana is no longer interested in him; she wants to sack him.

However, Arthur Jensen, the head of the corporation that owns the television network, wants to keep Beale on the air, as a messenger of the “galactic truth” about the beneficial integration of all human activity under the rubric of global money and global power. He converts Beale to his cause.

Diana sees only one way out of this ratings disaster: kill Beale; on-air; during his show. And so it is done.


Network also shows us the audience becoming actor, player, participant. The audience is jumping out of its skin to be recognized, courted, and adored as a mighty rolling force embodying no particular meaning.

Audience wants to be a star. Audience wants to BE news; audience wants its actions to be shown on television. That establishes its legitimacy. Nothing else is necessary.

Diana knows it, and she is more than willing to accommodate this frantic desire, if only her bosses will let her go all the way.

The best film ever made about television’s war on the population, Network stages only a few minutes of on-air television.

The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image. Which was scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s intent.

Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:

“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”

It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.

Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image.

Beale occasionally breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.

The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired.

Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.

The impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen and listened to a narrator. THIS is what the viewer prefers. He wants no part of knowledge.

A basic premise of modern age is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching video flow.

Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image: “This is revolution for democracy, created by the technology of cell phones…”

Viewers thus believe something. Television has imparted a sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the mind.

When you export this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is groped and held close.

“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”

“Really? How did they show that?”

“Well, I don’t remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”

And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of “knowledge”: amnesia about details.

The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was inside them, busy building up his impression of knowing something.

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. To the extent it exists, it’s wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image.

When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.

Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.

Willing Devotees of the Image WANT images, food stamps of the programmed society.

The triumph of Network is that it makes its words win over pictures, IN a picture, IN a film.


A pandemic, the false pandemic I’ve been rejecting in many articles, is delivered through video flow and narration. Stacked and cut images.

There is no challenge to the flow in any basic way, through the intrusion of actual knowledge, because that would shut down the parade of images and nullify the reasons for broadcasting them in the first place.

The old theater adage, “the show must go on,” when adapted for television, becomes, “the flow must go on.” Once its course is set, there can be no turning back.

The television audience, imprisoned in homes, rides the river…


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.

Here comes global cooling

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote this piece on May 10, 2011. It was a look back at 1975 media coverage of global weather:


Inventing media reality

Here comes global cooling

May 10, 2011

I offer this piece, not to dig into the science, but to show how strong the media effect is. Thirty-five years ago, newspapers and magazines were drumming up support for a global cooling scare.

Notice the language in this April 28, 1975, Newsweek article, “The Cooling World,” by Peter Gwynne. It has the same rhythms today’s warming pieces display, the same transitions, the same reliance, of course, on experts.

It’s all about INVENTING REALITY, because the 1975 Newsweek reporter—or today’s highly confident journalists and smirking pundits—have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re simply taking their cues from people they accept as experts. And then fabricating the whole business. Cooling, warming—none of them [journalists] has ever really thought about the state of the science. None of them has even turned a layman’s mind, armed with some degree of logic, to the statements and methods of the climate researchers. They’re personally clueless.

Their editorial meetings should really go this way: “Okay, boys, we’ve got the quotes from the expert researchers, so now we know which way to go. It’s cooling (or warming). From here on out, make it up. Make it sound somber, inject apprehension and fear, you know how it works. We want that dignified tone in our pieces. Of course, we have no idea what the hell we’re doing. Not really. We’re just the messengers. But who cares? Give it your best shot. Invent reality.”

Newsweek, April 28, 1975. The ironies in this piece, knowing what we know now about the warming media campaign, are so thick you’ll need a de-fogger. And if you think the subsequent media shift from cooling to warming was simply a matter of discovering new iron-clad data, I have a villa in the center of the Arctic I’m dying to sell you. Here is the 1975 Newsweek article:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.”

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively [!] that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.”

“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,’ warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ‘because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century’.”

“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”

“To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ‘little ice age’ conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.”

“Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ‘Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,’ concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ‘Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions’.”

“Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.”

“’The world’s food-producing system,’ warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ‘is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.’ Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.”

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”


That’s Newsweek in 1975. Sounds like science, must BE science, right? What else do you want? You’ve got experts weighing in, plus standard journalistic sentences, plus familiar rhythm and flow. It all adds up to…credibility. And possibly, a few of you who’ve been living in Florida for the past 60 years have parkas, snow shoes, snow plows, and audiocassettes on igloo- building in a shed. You bought these items in 1975. Because reality was what media said it was. Just like now.

So buy extra sunscreen and line up for your COVID shot in the arm, with full confidence.


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.

Memo to medical bloggers living in Mommy’s basement

And to medical reporters living in New York and Georgetown pulling down nice paychecks

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

You see, bloggers and reporters, here is the problem (one among many, actually). You have no background.

You don’t understand that every time you write a medical piece, there is a context which should inform your every move:

The modern medical system kills and maims huge numbers of people.

To put it another way, THE MODERN MEDICAL SYSTEM KILLS AND MAIMS HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

Let me help you out.

ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed or maimed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.

THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield. Here is an excerpt:

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—

FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

SIX: Here is a stunning quote from a doctor who has quite probably read and analyzed as many medical-drug studies as any other doctor in the world:

“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.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)


Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

They take things so seriously at the New England Journal, they routinely publish glowing studies of medical drugs which, as evidence shows, are killing people in great numbers.

So…you medical bloggers living in mommy’s basement, and you medical reporters who live in New York and Georgetown and pull down nice paychecks, you now have some background. Every time you write a Mockingbird article (aka puff piece), you can fathom how deep your lies really go, and how much crime you’re really involved with.

It’s never too late to tell the truth. I’m offering you a way out.


SOURCES:

(forthcoming)


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.

Police shootings vs. Medically caused death; how the news shapes public perception and controls minds

by Jon Rappoport

April 30, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Well, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you for appearing before this committee today. It’s been many years since you served as the CEO of one of the largest news networks in the world.

Many years since I was ousted, yes.

We’re not here to discuss that today.

No.

We want your point of view on news media in general. How they shape public perception.

Mr. Chairman, let me start with this. Every year in the US, people commit about 1.2 million violent crimes. That would be murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery.

That many?

Yes. Have you ever seen a full-length news documentary revealing, step by step, the recovery of a victim of one of those crimes?

Why, no. I haven’t.

If such a documentary were produced, it would show the surgeries to repair the wounds, the hospital stay, the period of rehabilitation in another facility, the arrival at home, the anguish of friends and family, the economic hardship, the attempt at psychological recovery, and so on—over a long period of time.

I’ve never seen anything like that on television.

I’ll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Viewers watching it would finally understand, up close, the effects of violent crime. And therefore, they would hold the perpetrators, the criminals, more accountable and responsible. And THAT would bring about a change in our culture. News media don’t want that change to occur.

Why not?

Because news media are devoted to enlisting public sympathy for the criminal. That’s their agenda. It’s a destructive agenda.

That’s a very serious charge, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, sir, it is. But it’s just the beginning of what I have to say here today. Let me continue. According to available statistics, the police in America shoot and kill about 1200 people a year. A few of those shootings cause major upheavals in society. Protests and riots. Every year, in America, the medical system kills 225,000 people. There is no upheaval. The news media don’t cover this fact in any way at all.

Are you sure about that medical statistic, Mr. Wilson?

It’s a conservative estimate, Mr. Chairman. I’ll offer one citation out of several. Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at Johns Hopkins. July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Her review was titled, “Is US Health really the Best in the World?” She stated: 106,000 deaths result from the administration of FDA-approved medicines. 119,000 deaths come as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

That’s astounding, Mr. Wilson.

Yes, it is. Yet, no coverage from the news media. The police shoot and kill 1200 Americans a year. The medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. So imagine would happen if the media covered the medical deaths in the same way they cover four or five police shootings that lead to protests and riots.

And you’re saying the news media intentionally ignore the medically caused deaths?

Yes. Of course.

Well, television news is supported to a great degree by pharmaceutical advertisers.

Correct. And those advertisers would remove their money if medically caused death suddenly became a leading story, night after night, on the evening news. But there is more to the story.

Which is?

The medical system is a cornerstone, a pillar, a foundation of society. People pay homage to it. In order to maintain the kind of society we have now, people must believe in the foundation. Otherwise…a collapse would occur.

You’re really saying the news media are propping up—

Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Take that figure—the medical system causes 225,000 deaths in America every year. That would be 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And we’re not even talking about the millions of other people who are maimed by the medical system and manage to survive.

I’m trying to picture what you’re—

Let me go even further, Mr. Chairman. Suppose one news network devoted a week of coverage to ONE PERSON killed by the medical system. Up close. The period of suffering, the death, the effect on family, the incredible emotional distress and pain and turmoil, the financial burden, and so on. And then, at the end of the week, the news anchor stated: THIS HAPPENS TO 225,000 PEOPLE IN AMERICA EVERY YEAR. 2.25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY DECADE.

There would be a national uproar.

And, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is the only way the US medical system can be reformed and rebuilt from the top. But it will never happen. The news media will not permit it. Therefore, the medical system has to be rebuilt from lower levels—ultimately, by the people themselves.

So how are news media shaping the public perception of the medical system?

I hope that’s a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman. The public is led to believe we have a system with only RARE adverse effects. This belief is created and cultured by news media. They are complicit in the crime.


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 Pandemic on Television

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

It should obvious to all but the most addled minds that television news anchors, their script writers, and editors never question the following (false) assertions:

SARS-CoV-2 is real. It was discovered and sequenced.

The test for the virus is accurate.

Every positive test denotes a “case of COVID-19.”

The case numbers and death numbers are accurate.

Masks, distancing, and lockdowns are necessary, in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

The COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

People who take the vaccine should nevertheless continue to wear masks and limit their exposure to non-family groups.

The mainstream news denizens accept these presumptions without investigation. They’re taking dictation from public health agencies (CDC, WHO).

Therefore, of what value is the news? Instead of elaborate broadcasts, why don’t the networks simply present, once a day, announcements from CDC spokespeople delivered from bland bureaucratic offices?

The answer, of course, is: commercials. Ad revenues. News divisions are expected to make money. They’re not public charities.

News is business.

Lester Holt (NBC) makes $10 million a year. Norah O’Donnell (CBS) makes $6 million a year. David Muir (ABC) makes $5 million a year. Wolf Blitzer (CNN) makes $5 million a year.

News also dresses up content. Instead of a CDC bureaucrat saying, “4000 new cases in Michigan today,” Norah can say, “ALARMING REPORT OF 4000 NEW CASES IN MICHIGAN,” with accompanying quick cuts of charts and graphs, footage of people waiting in line for the vaccine and lab workers fiddling with vials and EMT personnel wheeling a patient down a hospital corridor and Anthony Fauci sitting in the Oval Office across from Joe Biden.

Cut to the Michigan governor at a podium: “The pandemic is far from over. We have a lot of work to do…”

A general in full-dress uniform tells Norah, “Right now, we’re working on a vaccine that will protect against any virus, even ones we’ve never seen or discovered…”

For 60 seconds, two talking heads offer points of view on “the disproportionate dispensing of the vaccine to minority communities.”

A U of Michigan assistant athletic director speculates on whether home football this fall will be played in a packed stadium.

And “We’ll be back after this.”

COMMERCIALS. A drug that causes heart attacks. A drug that causes brain damage. A public service announcement for COVID vaccination. Chevy truck. Teaser for upcoming premiere of a new CBS cop show. One dollar special for double burger and fries and egg and bacon and cheese breakfast at McKing. Save money on your car insurance, click or call. Thick or thin crust, square or round pizza. A drug that makes your hair fall out. Tires that hold the road in the Arctic. Teaser for upcoming special: A Life Well Lived, the Man Who Changed America: Anthony Fauci.

And—back to the news.

That’s not hard work. It’s not intelligent work. It’s certainly not investigative work.

Truth be told, thousands of people could do it, could head up network television news coverage. The quality of American education aside, there are still MANY literate high school and college cheerleaders, drama majors, athletes, and self-assured nerds who could stand in for these high-priced anchors and deliver the goods.

If you peruse the bios of Lester Holt and David Muir, for example, you find they worked their up through positions as local anchors—meaning news readers. They also, up close and personal, “covered hot spots around the world.” Plane crashes, revolutions, hurricanes. In other words, they spoke with official sources in those places, and repeated the official versions of events, while standing under umbrellas whipping in the rain or on evening city rooftops wearing a Dan Rather-style bush jacket or flak jacket.

It goes without saying that network talent spotters are looking for young stars who are INCURIOUS. No digging beneath the surface on stories. Instead—shift horizontally across the top layer and find sweet spots that align with politically designated objectives, when necessary.

“I really like this kid in Cincinnati. He has good teeth, a strong jaw, and his hair looks like it’s made out of iron. Smooth baritone. Occasional self-effacing smile.”

“Yeah, I don’t know. He’s Clark Kent. Too straight.”

“We can work with that. Road trips. Send him to the Ukraine for a few weeks, Poland, El Salvador. Give him some seasoning. Hey, David Muir’s doing all right and he looks like he just stepped out of a men’s underwear catalog.”

“The Cincinnati kid played football at a small college in Nebraska. We could put him with the Bengals reporting on racial issues. That ought to give him a rough edge or two…”

“Wait. Here’s a red flag. Three months ago, he had this lawyer on his broadcast. The lawyer’s filing a suit against a university lab. Claims the COVID PCR test is spitting out false-positives like a fire hose.”

“Crap. Was it just a one-time screw-up?”

“No. Our boy tried to take it further. He brought a crew to the university lab. Got some quotes from techs there.”

“That’s not good. He’s an anchor and he thinks he’s making the news.”

Indeed, that isn’t good. Anchors don’t make news. They don’t ferret it out. They take what’s there and make it sound important.

You or I could go into a college drama department, stand in front of a hundred students, and say, “We’re looking for people who can read text without mistakes and make it sound important”—

And voila, we’d discover a few young men and women who could, with a few weeks of training, assume the role of a local TV news anchor and do a credible job.

In the history of television news, I know of two elite network anchors who—if not in their coverage of stories, but in their manner and attitude—transmitted a significant dissatisfaction with their roles, their limitations, and their virtual imprisonments: Peter Jennings and Jessica Savitch.

Jennings came across as “the man who knew more but wasn’t allowed to report it.” Savitch was a tiger caged at a circus, pacing back and forth in her cell, angry, wanting to rip the bars and jump out. Savitch died at 36, Jennings at 67.

Jennings managed to keep on his staff, for six years, an ACTUAL medical journalist, the late Nick Regush. Regush spent many hours digging below the surface. For example, in 1999, in a blistering ABC report, he expressed serious doubt that the Hepatitis C virus exists. After his departure from the network, he echoed that report:

“Consider this a challenge in progress. This scientific adventure raises the question of whether the hepatitis C virus, blamed for a major silent epidemic of liver disease and even cancer, actually exists. That’s right. You read this correctly: I am raising a question that may disturb scientists and hepatitis C patients alike. But I’m raising it anyway because it is vital to do so in the interests of public health. I’m issuing a challenge to the scientific community to present me with the published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that such a virus actually exists—namely that it has been properly isolated, according to accepted, fundamental principles of virology.”

Were Regush working for ABC today, he would last about five minutes before being fired.

“Don’t DISCOVER news, RELAY it.”


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.