Misplaced faith in the Church of Biological Mysticism

by Jon Rappoport

September 30, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“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)

In past articles, I’ve offered compelling evidence that researchers never discovered a new coronavirus by proper scientific procedures, and therefore the whole pandemic-story rests on nothing.

In this piece, I’m coming at that point from a different angle: misplaced faith, an unwarranted transference of feeling.

Start here: Because a man was put back together by ER surgeons after a car wreck on the I-15, he believes doctors know everything there is to know about germs, infections, and long-term chronic conditions.

Wrong.

Analogy: Joe, at the end of his rope, his life a mess, happens to have a casual conversation with a small-town preacher on a park bench. He emerges with a new-found sense of faith, and then…

The next time we see Joe, he inexplicably has a job washing down steps and statues in Vatican City, and he’s attending Mass three times a day, where the priests deliver services in Latin. He’s shining the shoes of a Bishop who’s been transferred from his posting three times to avoid prosecution as a pedophile…

Boggling leap and transference of faith.

A Hollywood actress gets a first-class nose job from Dr. Frankenstein in Beverly Hills, and therefore she believes everything doctors tell her about viruses and childhood vaccines.

Athletes wised up to this problem of misplaced faith about 25 years ago. A successful Tommy John surgery wasn’t proof doctors knew anything about nutrition or workout regimens.

Medical societies, their propagandists, and their press colleagues know they’re operating a major con. They can parlay a cast on a broken arm, an operation to correct a deformity, and a benign cyst removal into a sales job about an outbreak of a new virus on the other side of the world.

The only common denominator? All the pros are wearing white coats and have a diploma hanging on the wall.

“Well, if you put it that way…”

I do put it that way, because that’s the way it is.

The Church of Pandemic Theology and Mystical Discovery of New Viruses, run by holy initiates schooled in the arcane arts of molecular biology, are not the same breed as old Doc Brown who stiches up a cut after a fall, or a guy who has done a thousand kidney-stone laser surgeries, or an orthopedist who hands out a walking boot to a child who suffered a broken toe on a tennis court.

A moth is not a pelican.

But there are people all over the world who have been treated for one thing and another by doctors, and for most of those patients, all doctors are the same.

And then, when, lo and behold, the clouds part, and a public health expert steps up to the podium, to speak at a televised White House press conference on the pandemic, why he must be a doctor’s doctor, a ranking cardinal in the church, a man with knowledge so advanced, it stuns the mind to imagine it. He can put a bandage on a wound AND isolate and purify a never before seen infectious particle, in the lab.

“Listen, when I was twelve years old, I had a cut on my leg, and a doctor with a long needle punched me in the ass with a shot of penicillin, so I KNOW the SARS-CoV-2 virus has the potential to kill a hundred million people.”

Right. Sure. Impeccable logic. Case closed.

Once in a while, if you’re lucky, things can break the other way. I was lucky, when I was 11. My parents took me to an Ortho because I had a minor back problem after a baseball game, and he gave me a cloth vest to wear. It had buckles and straps, and I was supposed to put it on every morning and cinch it up tight and keep it on all day long. Many battles ensued between my parents and me. One day, for a reason I can’t remember, I was taken to our family doctor. He had served as a surgeon in World War Two. Good man. Tough guy. I took off my shirt and he saw the vest, and he said, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? My mother explained, and he shook his head and said THERE’S NO REASON TO WEAR THAT DAMN THING, TAKE IT OFF. He instantly had a friend for life. This was a medical opinion I could understand. I’m sure if he’d lived to the ripe old age of 120, and watched Fauci deliver one of his ex-cathedra pandemic pronouncements on television, he’d say, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS, WHO IS THAT DOPE? GET OUT IN THE OPEN AIR AND LIVE, PEOPLE, FORGET ALL THE STUPID ADVICE.

Even within the medical fraternity, there is a great deal of misplaced faith. An internist from Boston trusts molecular biologists in California who are confirming the sequence of a new virus. Why? Because they’re all serious professionals and brothers in arms. An insult to one is an insult to all.

Preposterous.

When it comes to the delicate inner-sanctum discovery of a new virus, there must be no doubt about veracity. The ayes have it. After all, these high priests in their lab deploy a SYSTEM. They proceed step by step. They couldn’t possibly be wrong. If they were, the whole system would be discredited and it would fail, and THAT is not possible. Not conceivable. Not permissible. Because the stakes are so high, the results are automatically correct.

And yet, they aren’t. Not by a long shot.

But untold numbers of people believe those results, based on zero knowledge, because once upon a time, a doctor felt their pulse, put a stethoscope on their back and told them to breathe, wrote a prescription, peered in their ears, tested their reflexes, examined a wart, operated on a relative, prescribed plenty of rest, put a splint on a finger, suggested avoiding fatty foods, and referred them to a specialist.

Which is like saying a guy changing the oil in your car inspires your confidence in reports that there are rocket races in outer space from Saturn to Mars every Thursday.

This is why, after I write an article about the failure to do a large electron microscope studies, in order to confirm the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a reader will write, “I told my doctor about your piece and he said it’s very clear the virus WAS isolated…”

Yes. Of course. Performing an appendectomy proves there is a man in the moon eating a green cheese sandwich. Slam dunk.

Misplaced transferred leaps of faith are provoked by the medical cartel on a continuing basis. They’re in that business.


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.

When will hysterical defenders of “science” face up to the destruction the US medical system is causing?

by Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Millions of masked people, who border on hysteria, believe they know COVID science.

On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump. These elements are not exactly what Galileo had in mind when he challenged the Roman Church on the issue of the Earth revolving around the sun.

Of the millions who believe in Fauci television science, there are many who will say science is “studies.” They are quite sure these studies back up what Fauci and Redfield are spouting, and any contradictory studies would be artifacts dreamed up by secret minions of Trump. This sort of argument is not exactly what Galileo had in mind, either.

I recently analyzed COVID-19 from the point of view of false data.

COVID case numbers and death numbers are being fraudulently inflated to the skies. That’s an enormous crime, because the lockdowns and the economic devastation have been based on these data.

Now I want to apply that same direct analysis to the entire US medical system. In this instance…

True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.

What data? Actual numbers of deaths and maiming CAUSED by medical treatment.

When you see the dimensions of this crime and this mass human tragedy, you’ll also see further implications—titanic insurance fraud, tax fraud, and, indeed, millions upon millions of work-hours irretrievably lost to the nation’s economy.

Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars for medical treatment that is destructive, not helpful.

Insurance companies are also paying billions in death benefits as a result of doctors, not diseases, killing people.

And all this medical destruction is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

No one has calculated the $$ cost. No one can calculate the tragic human cost.

Now here is the analysis. Understand that the vital data in these mainstream reports have been briefly revealed, then hidden.

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 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.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

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.”

Medical crimes.

Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.

No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.

But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.

You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.

Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…

Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…

Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.

Indeed, here is a stunning quote from a woman who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any 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.”

Sure, Tony, sure.

Now put on your mask and get lost.


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.

Infant mortality down; number of vaccinations down

by Jon Rappoport

June 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The reference here is an analysis of mortality data by Mark Blaxill and Amy Becker, “Lessons from the Lockdown,” posted at Children’s Health Defense on June 18:

“But the pandemic experience has brought on a surprising effect on this expected death rate among children. Starting in early March, expected deaths began a sharp decline, from an expected level of around 700 deaths per week to well under 500 by mid‐April and throughout May.”

“As untimely deaths spiked among the elderly in Manhattan nursing homes and in similar settings all over the country, something mysterious was saving the lives of children. As springtime in America came along with massive disruptions in family life amid near universal lockdowns, roughly 30% fewer children died.”

“Virtually the entire change came from infants. Somehow, the changing pattern of American life during the lockdowns has been saving the lives of hundreds of infants, over 200 per week.”

“One very clear change that has received publicity is that public health officials are bemoaning the sharp decline in infant vaccinations as parents are not taking their infants into pediatric offices for their regular well‐baby checks. In the May 15 issue of the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a group of authors from the CDC and Kaiser Permanente reported a sharp decline in provider orders for vaccines as well as a decline in pediatric vaccine doses administered. These declines began in early March, around the time infant deaths began declining.”

Mustn’t report that on the nightly news. A leak of truth might turn into a river.

The very thought that vaccines are harmful enough to cause death, and withholding them would align with the Hippocratic Oath?

“Say Bob, here’s an interesting item we could run on the broadcast tonight. Deaths of infants are down during the pandemic, and so are vaccinations.”

“I see. So you want to end up announcing Frisbee contests during picnics in the park? And I’ll be producing free YouTube videos featuring cats doing somersaults? You’re drinking again, right?”

For those who can’t bring themselves to even stick a toe in the waters of the evidence against vaccines, because their cult of science forbids it on pain of death…and who, likewise, salute all public health directives concerning the “pandemic,” like good little boys and girls, here is a backgrounder I call…

To the “educated” potato heads: science is not a political hierarchy

Remember the science bloggers living in mommy’s basement? Now we have the new COVID version.

“Who’s a Communist?” “I’m a Communist.” “Who’s a Communist?” “I’m a Communist.” It’s fun. It’s a new toy to play with. Capitalism is out. Old–fashioned.

“Mao killed 60 million of his own people.” “Who’s Mao?”

So far, I’ve written about 150 articles on the preposterous COVID fakery (archive here). In this piece, I’m going to discuss political hierarchy.

Which is how Tony Fauci got to where he is. It has nothing to do with knowledge or skill in handling purported “outbreaks.” And if it weren’t Fauci, it would be someone else. Another person on television standing next to the president. Because that is the structure, the pecking order. There are slots to fill. And there must be a central mouthpiece.

“Wanted. Spokesperson to represent The Word.”

Whose word?

Do you really believe that, at the beginning of this whole COVID operation…Fauci is sinking himself deep in collaborative meetings with scientists to come up with a plan? There is back and forth? Opinions are challenged? Data are examined? Objections are made? Fauci listens to a representative from Sweden, where the government is taking a different path? He listens to a pro like Dr. Scott Atlas? Economic advisors are in the room, making calculations on the devastating effects of a three-month national lockdown? Fact-checkers, not bullshitters, look into the past track record of that abject failure, Neil Ferguson, who is predicting on his worn-out computer that two million people in America will die—which is the whole rationale for ordering lockdowns? Someone who is actually intelligent and honest, who works for a US intelligence agency, steps in and questions the event that kicked off all the false hysteria—the Chinese Regime, an overt enemy of the US, locking down 50 million people overnight for no medical reason and sending a fake signal to the WHO and CDC that this is the new model for control? Do you think any of this happens in a room?

Do you think your college education and what you think you know has the slightest connection to this situation, because you took a biology course and a chemistry course and can find your way around a computer?

Do you have any idea how much counter-information which contradicts your gnome-hero, Fauci, has been piling up in the past three months, and how much of it has been coming from people with all sorts of credentials you would otherwise admire? Do you? Do you know how much of this information has been suppressed by the press? No, you don’t. You’re a potato head.

The discovery of a new virus has been challenged. The PCR and antibody tests have been discredited as a legitimate avenue of diagnosis; along with widespread eyeball diagnosis, and coding patients as COVID who really have other unrelated conditions, and counting non-COVID deaths as COVID, this means all the case numbers are meaningless. The overwhelming number of people dying of the “pandemic” are the elderly, who have years of serious health problems, who have been treated with many toxic drugs, who are then terrified by receiving a false COVID diagnosis, who are isolated from family and friends, and die. Many old people in these straits are put on ventilators, heavily sedated, and die from the treatment.

But none of this information that challenges the official picture is shoved in the face of public health officials, with a government demand that they respond openly, and in detail. Why? Because the political hierarchy is geared to close out dissent. This has nothing to do with science.

Science involves questions and rebuttals and counter-opinion, and studies that test other options and views. Science is about confirming or denying official positions through analysis and experiment. It isn’t about who has wormed his way to the top of the food chain. It isn’t about who is secretly backing the Mouthpiece. Aka Bill Gates.

Some potato heads look at things this way: whatever Trump is saying is a lie. The person who opposes Trump must be right. That person appears to be Fauci. Therefore, Fauci is stating SCIENCE. End of story.

Very few, if any potato heads are aware of the following statement, from a woman who has scrutinized more medical studies than at least 99.9 percent of the doctors on the planet:

“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.” —Marcia Angell, MD (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Very few, if any potato heads are aware of the review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 26, 2000, by the revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Dr. Barbara Starfield. Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. (Review: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Those are two examples of what we could call counter-science. They take the mainstream to task. They deliver blows to official positions. THIS is what “Fauci-science” should have been subjected to, from the get-go. And this is what “vaccine science”—the holy of holies—should be subjected to.

Very few, if any, potato heads are aware of the case-number game, through which a locale which is coming out of lockdown and opening up the economy is punished. It’s simple. Expand worthless testing. New case numbers will automatically rise. The News will report these scary numbers. Of course, when new case numbers are expanded, the death rate automatically goes down. So the News omits that fact.

Potato heads tend to admire censorship, never having learned how deep the Bill of Rights actually goes. Truth should win out over dissent, as far as the potato heads are concerned. Whose truth? Theirs, naturally.

Those potato heads who claim to favor socialism (aka Communism) have no idea that the US government is following the lockdown model of a Chinese regime that secured its grip on power, under Mao, by killing 40-65 million of its own people.

Rule: a political hierarchy depends on the support of potato heads.

The federal agencies that stand behind the US “coronavirus task force” ARE a chunk of the political hierarchy. Their basic agenda is CONTROL.

Potato heads don’t worry about control. They think they’re above it all and compliant. An odd mix, but it works for them. “How can I be at fault if I go along with the directives?” Hundred of millions of Chinese people ran that question through their minds until it was too late.

“Who’s a potato head?” “I’m a potato head.” “Who’s a potato head?” “I’m a potato head.”

What the major media are giving us these days is wartime messaging; it always comes in the form of an appeal for unity. But in this case, the war is being fought by the government against the domestic population.

So we’re being asked to work together against ourselves. Anyone who recognizes this is labeled an outlier.

By the potato heads.

The political hierarchy which they adore, which they call science, has them in the crosshairs, along with everyone else.

This is the hierarchy which we must dismantle and take down and expose. The leaders, along with their freeloader bureaucracies, are a putrid mix of unknowing and evil fascists.

In America, the National Institutes of Health and the CDC could disappear tomorrow and nothing untoward would happen. In fact, automatically, improvements would occur. Subconsciously, the population of the country would breathe a sigh of relief.

“Finally. Good news. No potatoes today.”

For many potato heads, the presence of Dr. Fauci making pronouncements to the nation is a no-brainer, in every possible sense of that term. It’s as if there is a lab where official items are produced: ideas, statements, positions, and even people. Fauci was one of those items. A lab made him, he was and is official, and that’s the end of that.

But it isn’t, it’s just the beginning.

The Official is being taken apart.


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.

Elite television news rescued by COVID

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Yet another consequence of the fake pandemic is the propping up of that doddering old fool, elite television news.

The COVID story doesn’t need Walter Cronkite. It only needs wall to wall. From 5AM to midnight, pandemic updates (mixed now with riot coverage), and the network ratings get well. The ratings jump out of the dumpster and rumble on the studio set and do cartwheels.

I’ve written a number of articles about network television news. Here are excerpts—


NEWS ABOUT THE NEWS.

The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.

The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.

The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.

The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.

On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.

This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.

Essentially, the television anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”

All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. In recent times, it was Brian Williams—until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced, and he was exiled to the wasteland of MSNBC.

The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.

The cable news networks don’t have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.

There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”

Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re a responsible charity.


From the early days of television, there has been a parade of anchors/actors with know-how—intonation, edge of authority, parental feel, the ability to execute seamless blends from one piece of deception to the next:

John Daly, Douglas Edwards, Ed Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Harry Reasoner, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and more recently, second-stringers—Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley.

They’re all gone.

Now we have Lester Holt, David Muir, and the newly appointed Norah O’Donnell. They couldn’t sell water in the desert.

Lester Holt is a cadaverous presence on-air, whose major journalistic achievement thus far is interrupting Donald Trump 41 times during a presidential debate; David Muir has the gravitas of a Sears underwear model; Norah O’Donnell, long-term, will have the energy needed to illuminate a miniature Xmas-tree light bulb.

The networks have no authoritative anchor-fathers waiting in the wings. They don’t breed them and bring them up through the minor leagues anymore.

Instead, armies of little Globalists, and ideologues who don’t realize they’re working for Globalists, have been infiltrating the news business. At best, they’re incompetent.

Thus, news-production techniques that enable an ongoing illusion of oceanic authority collapse like magnetic fields that have been suddenly switched off.

The selective mood lighting, the restful blue colors on the set, the inter-cutting of graphics and B-roll footage, the flawless shifts to reporters in far-flung places…it’s as if all these supporting features have suddenly been overcome by actors in a stage play who are abruptly stepping out of character. The spell is broken.

Elite mainstream news, in a fatuous attempt to save itself, is trying a democratic approach. Anchors are sharing more on-air minutes with gaggles of other reporters. But this is counter-productive in the extreme. The News has always meant one face and one authority and one voice and one tying-together of all broadcast elements. It’s as if, in a hypnotherapist’s office, the therapist decides to bring in colleagues to help render the patient into an alpha-state.

If by some miracle, the news bosses could raise Walter Cronkite, “the father of our country,” from the dead and put him back in the chair… but too many years have gone by; years of unaccomplished anchors. The horse is out of the barn, the cat is out of the bag.

This is why major news outlets have been appealing to social media/big tech for help, AKA censorship of independent voices.

One veteran news director told me several years ago, “We don’t have the stars [elite anchors] anymore. The star system is dead. You could comb all the local news outlets in America, and you wouldn’t find one face and voice who could really carry the freight. They’ve vanished. The up and coming people are lame. We’ve made them that way. It’s some cockeyed standard of equality we’ve internalized. And now we’re paying the price.”


The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it.

Imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the viewer’s mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.

First, we have the studio image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as easily be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. We want the government to get something done, but they won’t.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “Good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words and pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words give meaning to pictures.

Staged news.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

For “intelligent” viewers, there is a sober mainstream choice in America, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reports on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Syria, PBS will give you four minutes.

PBS experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.


When network television news was created in the late 1940s, no one in charge knew how to do it. It was a new creature.

Sponsors? Yes. A studio with a desk and an anchor? Yes. A list of top stories? Yes. Important information for the public? Yes.

Of course, “important information” could have several definitions—and the CIA already had a few claws into news, so there would be boundaries and fake stories within those boundaries.

The producers knew the anchor was the main event; his voice, his manner, his face. He was the actor in a one-man show. But what should he project to the audience at home?

The first few anchors were dry sandpaper. John Cameron Swayze at NBC, and Douglas Edwards at CBS. But Swayze, also a quiz show host, broke out of the mold and imparted a bit of “cheery” to his broadcasts. A no-no. So he was eventually dumped.

In came a duo. Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. NBC co-anchors from 1956 to 1970. Chet was the heavy, with a somber baritone, and David was “twinkly,” as he was called by network insiders. He lightened the mood with a touch of sarcasm and an occasional grin. It worked. Ratings climbed. Television news as show biz started to take off. At the end of every broadcast, there was: “Good night, Chet.” “Good night, David.” The audience ate it up. They loved that tag.

However, rival CBS wasn’t standing still. They offloaded their anchor, Douglas Edwards, a bland egg, and brought in Walter Cronkite, who would go on to do 19 years in the chair (1962-1981). Walter was Chet Huntley with a difference. As he grew older, he emerged as a father, a favorite uncle, with an authoritative hills-and-valleys baritone that created instant trust. Magic. A news god was born.

Despite many efforts at the three major networks, no anchor over the past 40 years has been able to pull off the full Cronkite effect.

The closest recent competitor—until he was fired for lying and exiled to the waste dump at MSNBC—was Brian Williams. Williams artfully executed a reversal of tradition. He portrayed the youthful prodigy, a gradually maturing version of a newsboy who once bicycled along country roads, threw folded up papers on front porches, and knew all his customers by name. A good boy. A local boy. Your neighbor under the maple trees of an idyllic town. Cue the memories.

By the time Williams took over the helm at NBC, television news was decidedly a team operation. There were reporters in the field. The technology enabled the anchor to go live to these bit players, who tried to exude the impression they were actually running down leads and interviewing key sources on the spot—when in fact they could just as easily be doing their stand-ups from a hot dog cart outside 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the home studio of the network—because most of their information was really coming from inside that studio.

Nevertheless, the team was everything. The anchor was a manager, and his job was to impart an authentic feel to every look-in, from the White House to Paris to Berlin to Jerusalem to Beijing to a polar bear on an iceberg.

And local television news was blowing up to gargantuan proportions. Every city and town and village and hamlet seemed to have its own gaggle of hearty faces delivering vital info of interest to the citizenry. Branding and shaping this local phenomenon evolved into: FAMILY. Yes, that was the ticket. These bubbly, blown-dry, enthused, manic news and weather and sports hawks were really “part of the community.” Local News was no longer shoveled high and deep with an air of objectivity. “Aloof” was out. Share and care was in. What that had to do with actual news was anyone’s guess, but there it was. “Hi, we’re your team at KX6, and we feel what you feel and we live here with you and we know when the roads are icy and the wrecks pile up on the I-15 and the cops arrest someone for cocaine possession and when the charity bake sale is coming up to pay for [toxic] meds for seniors and when your cousin Judy passes away we mourn as you do…”

News for and by a fictional collective.

Disney news.

A caricature of a simulacrum of an imitation.

The discovery was: the viewing audience wanted news as a cartoon.

The problem is: this model deteriorates. The descending IQ of the news producers and anchors and reporters undergoes a grotesque revolution. Year by year, broadcasts make less sense. Even on the national scene, NBC hands its prime anchor spot to Lester Holt, who plays the old Addams Family living corpse, Lurch.

ABC, always looking for a new face, goes all in with David Muir, a Sears underwear-model type.

CBS counters with a youngish cipher, Jeff Glor, after ridding itself of Scott Pelley, who, true to his on-camera persona, might show up on The Young and the Restless as a lunatic surgeon doing operations without anesthetic.

The networks are losing it.

It’s a sight to behold.

Cable news is even worse. The longest surviving anchor is Wolf Blitzer at CNN. Wolf’s energy level tops out as a man in a tattered bathrobe, in his kitchen, chatting with his cousin while they play checkers.


When professionals broadcast one absurdity after another, they begin to see the effects are actually strengthening their own position of authority.

It’s a revelation. It’s also a continuation of the tradition of the Trickster archetype. For example, with just a few minor adjustments, Brian Williams can be seen as the sly Reynard the Fox…

From the viewpoint of elite television news, controlling the minds of its audience depends on what’s politely called “cognitive dissonance”:

As the anchor recites a news story, the viewer sees an obvious hole through which he could drive a truck.

The story makes no sense, yet it’s being presented as bland fact. The trusted anchor clearly has no problem with it.

What’s the viewer to do? He experiences a contradiction, a “dissonance.”

For example, this year’s flu vaccine. The US government has admitted the vaccine is geared to a flu virus that isn’t circulating in the population. Therefore, even by conventional standards, the vaccine is useless. But the kicker is, the CDC says people should take the vaccine anyway.

The anchor relays all this information—and never seriously questions the situation, never torpedoes the government for recommending the vaccine.

The average viewer feels a tug, a pulse of discomfort, a push-pull. The vaccine story is idiocy (side one), but the trusted anchor accepts it (side two).

Dissonance.

The top chiefs of news—and top propaganda operatives—anticipate cognitive dissonance. In a real sense, they want it to happen. They make it happen. Over and over.

Why?

Because it throws the viewer into a tailspin. And in that mental state, in his effort to resolve the contradiction, he will normally choose to…give in. Surrender. Believe in the anchor. It’s the easier path.

The viewer will even doubt his own perception. “I see no good reason for Building 7 to collapse, but the news doesn’t bring that up, so…it must be me.”

This is the power of the news. It presents absurdities and then moves right along, as if nothing has happened.

The introduction of contradiction, dissonance, and absurdity parading as ordinary reality is an intentional feature of brainwashing.

On the nightly news, the anchor reports that US government debt has risen by another three trillion dollars. He then cuts to a statement from a Federal Reserve spokesman: the new debt level isn’t a problem; in fact, it’s sound monetary policy; it strengthens the economy.

The viewer, caught up in this absurdity, tries to make sense of it, then gives up and passively accepts it. Brainwashing.

Smoothly transitioning from this story, the anchor relays information from the CDC: vaccination rates must achieve 90% in the population, in order to protect people from dangerous viruses. The viewer thinks, “Well, my daughter is already vaccinated, so if she comes into contact with a child who isn’t vaccinated, why would there be a problem? Why does 90% of the population have to be vaccinated to keep her safe? She’s already vaccinated.”

The viewer wrestles with this craziness for a moment, then gives in and accepts what the CDC and the anchor are saying. More passivity. More brainwashing.

The anchor moves right along to the next story: “The US is experiencing one of the coldest winters in history, further evidence of the effects of global warming, according to scientists at the United Nations.”

The viewer shakes his head, tries to deal with this dissonance, surrenders, and accepts what he is hearing. Deeper passivity is the result. Deeper brainwashing.

On and on it goes, day after day, month after month, year after year, on the news.

Contradiction, absurdity, dissonance; acceptance, surrender, passivity.

The same general formula is used in interrogations and formal mind control. It adds up to disorientation of the target.

Most disoriented people opt for the lowest- common-denominator solution: give in; accept the power of the person of authority.

Among the many supporters of conventional news is the education system. Most teachers never learn logic, and they don’t teach it. The result? Their students never gain the ability or the courage to reject the news and its dissonances.

What little these students gain from 12 or 16 years of schooling they eventually sacrifice on the altar of consensus reality—as broadcast every night on the screen before them.


Salvador Dali, surrealist, was one of the most reviled painters of the 20th century.

He disturbed Conventional Folk who just wanted to see an apple in a bowl on a table.

Dali’s apples and bowls were executed with a technical skill few artists could match—except the apples were coming out of a woman’s nose while she was ironing the back of a giraffe, who was on fire.

“It doesn’t go together! It doesn’t make sense! He’s Satan!”

Yet, these same Folk sit in front of the television screen every night and watch the entirely surreal network news. Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product-recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s paid to be seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

The elite anchor should have a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding.

Scott Pelley (CBS) was careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency was to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick. Pelley was a high-IQ android who was training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wandered into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exuded sympathetic syrup, as if she’d had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affected a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams was head and shoulders above his two competitors. You had to look and listen hard to spot a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knew how to believe his act was real. He could also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

Segues, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding weirdness of story every night.


And NOW, we have COVID, and we have riots. The current stories— the lies are egregious and relentless, the editorializing is cheesy. The omissions are Grand Canyons.

Surreal, cognitively dissonant, smoothly blended, outrageous:

The News Business. As Usual.

But with the junior varsity anchors, and their lack of skill, the networks need overwhelming stories to sell their act. They need COVID and riots. They have to have government manufacturing chaos and destruction and tighter control, in order to keep viewers coming back night after night.

You’ve got elite Globalists and elite government on one edge, and elite news on the other edge. They feed into each other. They bolster each other.

So why must they spend so much time censoring dissent?

Because freedom exists.

Because, no matter what, it always will.

And underestimating its power, time and time again, has proven to be a colossal mistake.


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.

Let’s fact-check Reuters: they say DNA vaccines don’t change your genetic makeup—true or false?

by Jon Rappoport

June 23, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve been reporting on new types of technology that could be used in a coming COVID-19 vaccine—and warning about the consequences.

One such technology is: DNA vaccines. They would alter recipients’ genetic makeup permanently.

But Reuters has seen fit to claim: “A future COVID-19 [DNA] vaccine will not genetically modify humans.” This comes from their “fact-check team” — May 18, 2020: “False claim: A COVID-19 vaccine will genetically modify humans.”

To reach this conclusion, Reuters cites two people: “Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University’s Alliance for Science group”, and “Dr. Paul McCray, Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology, and Internal Medicine at the University of Iowa.”

I have cited the New York Times, March 10, 2015, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” Here are quotes from the Times article:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

[Here is the punch line] “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

So it’s a battle of the experts. The two men Reuters cited, versus the Times’ David Baltimore.

I don’t hold up the scientific work of any of these men for great acclaim. I’m only interested in which man knows whether a DNA vaccine would permanently alter the genetic makeup of every recipient’s DNA.

David Baltimore is a Nobel Laureate (1975, in Physiology/Medicine), and the past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1997-2006). He’s one of the most famous scientists in the world.

I’m betting Reuters would happily trade their unknown experts for Baltimore, if he would side with their claim. Perhaps they’ll now approach him, and perhaps he’ll change his mind. But the NY Times has him on the record, in 2015, admitting that DNA vaccines do alter genetic makeup.

World famous mainstream experts don’t readily admit this sort of thing out in the open, unless they’re stating the obvious.

The verdict on the Reuters fact-check team? Fact-checkers checked the wrong box.

Final point for the moment: Researchers are fond of saying their genetic technologies are quite safe. This a bald-faced lie. Claiming, for example, that a DNA COVID vaccine would alter humans’ genetic makeup in entirely predictable and harmless ways is like saying a car without brakes, doing a hundred miles an hour, set loose on a highway during rush hour, would create no damage whatsoever.

SOURCES:

reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-19-vaccine-modify/false-claim-a-covid-19-vaccine-will-genetically-modify-humans-idUSKBN22U2BZ

nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/protection-without-a-vaccine.html

blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/dna/


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.

Violence across America: the world is watching

The Media…

by Jon Rappoport

June 2, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The following monologue would never happen. This is a news producer talking. He isn’t smart enough to see the big picture. But I’m giving him that ability to know the real op. Of course he’s a pitch man, and he’s thinking about his reputation, and how to play the audience, which is his job. His job is the con. How to achieve it.

Major television network, quiet conference room. Producer meets with his director.

Producer: “Look, Fred, I’ve got a laundry list of details for the two-hour special on the riots tonight. First of all, I know you’re a burning building guy. You love those blazes. But you’re getting sloppy. Last night, in the middle of the Minneapolis report, I could see two palm fronds and part of the big Hollywood sign on the left of the shot. I mean, come on. If you have to substitute Philly for Minneapolis, okay, but don’t go nuts, all right? What are you, some kind of pyromaniac? Next, about our anchor on the scene, Paul. He’s black and he’s wearing a black medical mask. First of all, I can’t hear what he’s saying. And people out on the street think he’s Antifa. I know Paul loves that, but his father’s a neurosurgeon in Boston, and Paul went to prep school and Harvard, so tell him to lose the attitude and the mask. Now, Jenine—we told her we’d warn her if rioters showed up anywhere near her, but she keeps looking over her shoulder when she’s on air. It’s developing into a twitch. She pretends she’s tossing her hair out of her face, but she’s stealing little glances behind her. Tell her to knock it off. On our remotes from the West Coast, we have to use Herb Chen. It tells our audience we’re not buying into Trump’s China virus thing. But Herb is basically a weather guy. He thinks he’s doing hurricane stand-ups in the middle of a flood with branches flying and fifty-mile-an-hour winds. He shouts, so he can be heard above the storm noise. It’s incongruous. Fix him. We want a nice steady tone. And look, no mention of COVID on the show. Once or twice is okay, but we don’t want mixed messages. Some of our talent think they’re aiming for Pulitzers. If it were up to them, they’d be going live from ORs, over the shoulders of surgeons cutting into the chests of gunshot victims. Keep the reports from cities short and fast-moving. This has to look like a total national tragedy. We have to justify fewer commercial breaks. We can’t stop every six minutes and run those crazy-ass Geico spots and diarrhea medicine ads. It has to be dignified. Get it?”

“And look, Fred, give us a good lead-in, okay? Solid and short. With numbers. ‘Protests and riots are exploding in 140 US cities. 21 states have called in the National Guard. Curfews have been imposed in 40 metropolitan areas. Military units are on standby for deployment. What is happening in America?’ That kind of thing.”

“Go back and forth between expressing support for the protestors, support for the police, support for social justice, support for America, support for our own ratings. That last is a little joke, Fred. At least show teeth. Stop thinking about how you’re going to highlight as many burning edifices as possible.”

“Look, just between you and me, the violence is a planned operation. It comes when the damn lockdowns are loosening up and the economy is reopening. It’s another attack on the economy. It’s throwing cold water on the protests against the lockdowns. One set of protests kills the other set.”

“Law-enforcement is using contact tracing to ID riot-leaders coming into cities from out of state. Can you believe it? We’ve already got a Surveillance State. Now we need what? Protestors with special apps on their cells so the authorities can track them?”

“And Fred, again just between you and me, this whole op isn’t just Antifa. It isn’t just the radical left.”

“COVIS-19—what I call another season of flu—is the bridge to ‘the new normal’.”

“Top-down technocracy, Fred. 5G, Internet of Things, smart cities, surveillance of every fucking square inch of the planet in real time, with thousands of satellites, social credit score, currency reset, borderless planet organized at the top like a mega-corporation, energy quotas ladled out for every citizen. Rockefeller Globalists, technocracy.”

“Order from chaos. So, during the last few days, produce the chaos in the streets; and then bring in the order.”

“Regular citizens caught in the squeeze play. Regardless of what they say, when the chaos comes to their door, they want order. They want the controllers to restore the peace by any goddamn means necessary. Which of course is the IDEA.”

“’We’ll save you. Don’t worry. Just salute and follow our orders from now on’.”

“I’ll tell you something I learned while I was still at the CIA, before I came to the network, Fred. Simple 101 type-thing. Every op has a cover story. In this case, it’s racism. A cover has to have some reality. In America, not hard to find racist reality.”

“Another cover story. Political left vs. political right. That’s real, too, but it only scratches the surface. Orwell’s ‘boot stamping on a face’ isn’t Republican or Democrat.”

“Speaking of which, those heavy riots and the cops at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago? What idiot decided to stage the anti-Vietnam war protests against the Democrats? Some invisible ops case officer guided THAT choice. It swung the balance against the Democrats, and Richard Nixon strolled into the Oval. If there was a shred of hope of ending the war by putting a Democrat in the White House, it went down the drain in Chicago, when the country watched the city explode in violence, on television. That’s us, Fred. Television. That’s the kind of shit we pull off.”

“But for the ops planners, it was a victory. They produced chaos, and they brought in Nixon, a law and order man; and when the time came, the planners blew him out of office—more chaos—and brought in the bland-egg duo of so-called peacemakers, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Carter was a complete nobody, plucked from a peanut farm by David Rockefeller. Carter became an agent for Rockefeller’s gang, the Trilateral Commission.”

“Democrat? Republican? To the ops controllers, these are “lower organisms” to manipulate. That’s all.”

“Now Fred, the word has come down that we need to play up the social justice angle during the special tonight. Weave it in as history. Anti-Vietnam war protests as a comparison, the long tradition of resistance to oppression, all that stuff. But not heavy-handed. We’re not FOR these current riots. Not overtly. We UNDERSTAND them. Get clips of old union strikes against Henry Ford, MLK marches in the South. Quick hitters. Voiceover tying it all together. But then—‘no one is for violence.’ Play that other side. Most cops are honest. Good people. Serving the public. Risking their lives. I want a stand-up on the street with an articulate cop. Sympathetic. Give me a peaceful protestor, too. You know, a common-sense person. Thoughtful. Back and forth, back and forth. Ultimately, shave the whole thing on the side of order. But hit the right note: ‘we need to restore some semblance of normalcy before we can have truly meaningful dialogue.’ Be careful there. No sheriff-coming-to-town-with-six-guns stuff. We want four main reporters on location. Two white, two people of color. For music, we’ll need a bit of…mournful. Sense of tragedy.”

“We’re conducting an orchestra, Fred. We’re modulating and riffing on the racial cover story. We keep that cover front and center. That’s why we’re here.”

“But I’ll tell you a secret, Fred. Like Martin Luther King, I have a dream, too. I know could end these riots, this violence. If I had the power to do what I wanted to. Yeah, everybody thinks that. But I know how. Communication. That’s what we do, right? Every night, in prime time, I’d put the same black man and the same white man across a table from each other. Bare room. No set. A transparent plexi shield between them, so they can’t kill each other. One, a real smart cracker from the South who has guns at home, and two, a real smart Black Panther type, who also has guns at home. Turn on the black man’s mic for five minutes. He says anything he wants to, to the cracker. Then turn his mic off. The white man’s mic goes on for five minutes and he says anything he wants to, to the black man. And they go back and forth for two hours that way. No fucking ads. The ratings would go through the roof. And the next night, they come back and do it all over again. They come back every night, and they go at it. Every damn night for two hours in prime time. For a week, two weeks, a month, two months, six months. I don’t care how long it takes. And little by little, things would happen. Don’t ask me what. I don’t know. But it would happen. This is what I’ve learned, Fred, in the stupid racket we’re in. I’ve learned it by negative example, because what do we do? What do we really do? We shut stories down before they ever play out. That’s our miserable fucking job. So in this case, these two men face off and there’s no time limit. And the world watches. Watches something real on television for the first time in their lives. No presidents, no pols, no talking heads, no corporate front men, no experts, no paid bullshitters. Just these two smart guys. Little by little. And when you think it’s over, because they’re showing something new, it’s just getting started. The audience, the world audience would travel through their own nervous systems, by osmosis. Victory, defeat, exhaustion, depression, hate, disgust, the sacred and the profane, my friend. The whole gamut. Night after night. Can’t stay away. No exit. No short cuts. Can’t fake an ending. Cannot fake a fucking ending with some cooked-up resolution; no smiles and handshakes and phony happiness. No host with his plastic hair and plastic teeth grinning like a loon. No liberal asshole or conservative corporate asshole to intervene with stupid signals to their mindless supporters. No panels, no votes, no winners and losers. The drama’s real, for once, and the audience gets a whole lot more than they bargained for. Can you see it? Can you see it, Fred?”

Fred finally talks: “It would never work. First of all, their hate for each other is bottomless. And two, they would run out of things to say.”

Producer: “Wrong on both counts, Fred. The hate looks bottomless, only because time is always restricted. We don’t restrict anything. These two men can play out that bottomless-hate all the way, a hundred times if necessary. It doesn’t matter. When they’re bored with it, something else will emerge. Like I say, I don’t know what. But there’s always more. There’s no pattern. They’re not following a script. Even if it seems they are, because of their conditioning, it wears out. I don’t like admitting this…but I have faith. Faith in people if you give them enough time. You know how I got to that point, Fred? By becoming more and more cynical. Eventually, a glint came through. When I was nothing more than a perfect son of a bitch who knew the world would never ever make it, I caught a glint. I was you, Fred, only worse. I was sure I would despise people forever.”

Fred: “Then why are you producing this show tonight?”

“Because I’m still a sad case. Because I’m still afraid to walk away. So tonight, we’ll serve our usual turds on a silver platter to the audience. You’ll get your fires, and I’ll get my ratings, such as they are. But I just wanted somebody to know that I know. I could produce something very different. Once in a while, making it happen feels almost within reach. I can almost touch it. Before I think about the business we’re in.”

Fred: “A black man and a white man talking to each other, on television, in prime time.”

Producer: “It’s never happened. Not the way I’m putting it there. These two men talking. If necessary, FOREVER. That’s a long time. That’s my dream. And see, most of the audience is thinking, like you, it’ll never work, it’s ridiculous. But they’re watching. Every night. And for the first month, they keep thinking, this’ll never work, these two men’ll never make it happen. Other people in the audience are hoping for a phony pop psychology ending, a Doctor Phil resolution. They want cute. They want a few tears and a confession and a bullshit hug. To resolve all of America’s problems. But of course that’s not happening, either. These two men are the image of each other’s nightmare. There they are, face to face, across the table. The audience gets a whiff that this is no melodrama. It’s not staged. It’s not cooked. That’s when the fear sets in. ‘You mean…this is REAL?’ Jesus Christ, we can’t have THAT. Where are the censors? Where are the cops? We have to stop this. We have to stop it now. The censor in everybody comes out. ‘I want fake, I want phony, I want bullshit. That’s why I pay my cable bill. That’s why I eat my dinner in front of the TV every night.’ But it’s too late, pal. You’re hooked. You’re hooked on the genuine thing. Every cell in your body screams NO. But it ain’t stopping. The train to hell and heaven and all towns in between has left the station. We’re going the distance, whatever it takes. Buy the fucking ticket, take the ride. In prime time, on television. This isn’t flag waving and America First, and it isn’t looting and burning. It’s two men talking with no interrupters. No drug ads about how your balls might fall off if you take this medicine, no car ads, no insurance commercials, no hustlers with sheets and pillows. It’s two men who keep going. Snow, sleet, hail, tornados, earthquakes, they keep going. They chew each other up and spit each other out a thousand times. Will they go crazy? OF COURSE they’ll go crazy. After who knows how long, the white man’ll think he’s black and the black man’ll think he’s white. Every cliché and slogan and accusation that’s ever been thought up will wear out. There’ll be times when they’re laughing so hard they’ll be shitting and going blind at the same moment. And when the tears run, they’ll be terrifying and repulsive and somewhat beautiful. Talk-show ‘honest’ will have disappeared long ago in the wind. The whole of television will turn inside out and explode. Every atom of fake television will return to the cosmos. This is how we’ll destroy television which is the show business hernia of the soul that keeps people bending over as they shuffle along with stupid grins on their faces under the eyes of God…”

Fred: “You’re drunk, right?”

Producer: “Sober as a judge, my friend. Sober as a judge.”

And somewhere in an office in a city—“Doctor, as you know I’ve always tried my best to be a normal person. That’s my North Star. Being normal, no matter what. I feel VERY uncomfortable when I’m not normal, even for a minute. But you see, I have this one dream, over and over. There are two people in the dream. They’re vile. I don’t like them at all. They’re extreme in opposite ways. I wish they would go away. I wish the government would make them go away. They’re in the afterlife. They’ve been sentenced to sit down and talk to each other FOREVER. I’m there, running the camera. Somehow, it’s a test of my faith.”

Doctor: “What do you think it means?”

“I don’t know. I imagine watching these two people go at each other like lions in a cage fighting over a piece of meat. I hate it. I want to turn away. But I have this strange feeling. Sometimes there’s another part of the dream. I’m sitting in the sky at night. And then it seems as if I’m sitting in a theater. I’m watching a play. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before. I don’t understand it. I don’t WANT to understand it. But little by little, messages are coming through…one man up on the stage says to the other one, ‘a fire just burned out.’ And the other man says, ‘two more just shut down, they’re watching us on television’…”


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.

Television wartime messaging: for the love of unity

by Jon Rappoport

May 20, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In today’s episode of COVID fakery on rye and hold the apocalypse, we begin with a bevy of quotes from Edward Bernays (1891-1995), the acknowledged father of modern public relations, aka propaganda. I include his statements as a warm-up backgrounder—

“This is an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas.” (1928)

“The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.” (1947)

“It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.” (date unknown)

“When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And ‘propaganda’ got to be a bad word because of the Germans using it, so what I did was to try and find some other words. So we found the words ‘counsel on public relations’.” (date unknown)

“When Napoleon said, ‘Circumstance? I make circumstance‚’ he expressed very nearly the spirit of the public relations counsel’s work.” (1923)

“Domination to-day is not a product of armies or navies or wealth or policies. It is a domination based on the one hand upon accomplished unity, and on the other hand upon the fact that opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity.” (1923)

“The public relations counsel, therefore, is a creator of news for whatever medium he chooses to transmit ideas. It is his duty to create news no matter what the medium which broadcasts this news.” (1923)

“The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda.” (1923)

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.” (1928)

“Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” (1928)

“If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway. But men do not need to be actually gathered together in a public meeting or in a street riot, to be subject to the influences of mass psychology. Because man is by nature gregarious he feels himself to be member of a herd, even when he is alone in his room with the curtains drawn. His mind retains the patterns which have been stamped on it by the group influences.” (1928)

The news heads and the talk show heads and the sports heads and the advertisers and bureaucrats and politicians and public health flacks and celebrities are assuring television viewers, with no shame: We’re all in this together. Over and over. Night and day. On every channel.

This was the strategy during older wars. No time for disagreement or dissent; there must be a unified response and effort; otherwise, we could lose.

We’re all in this together means: fall in line.

If that’s share and care and love, it’s robot love.

Advertisers, despite their studies and their sophistication and their wall-to-wall profiling of consumers, still believe in the first principle of propaganda: repetition.

Get the name of your product and company out there and don’t stop. Do it a thousand times, a million times. As long as you have money to pay for ads, do it.

Look at the insurance company commercials. Progressive, State Farm, Liberty, Geico. The little vignettes they lay on are really the occasion for pasting their company name on the screen. Make these 30-second stories friendly and funny and crazy, but the money shot is the company name.

Pandemic ads and messages follow the same rule. In this case, it’s TOGETHERNESS. UNITY. Pounded on and on.

Why? If cooperation and love and togetherness are basic human impulses, why do people need to be reminded of that 24 hours a day, on television?

Does a husband who loves his wife need to see his face and his wife’s face on a screen, on every channel, without let-up, along with a message urging him to adore her?

On the other hand, a person who’s been thrown out of a job, who can’t find work, who sees his government checks fading down to zero…he needs pacification. That’s a tough sell. That sell-job requires a whole lot of repetition…

…In order to produce SHAME in him, if he feels cheated and exiled and screwed. The repetition of togetherness and fake love informs him that the collective citizenry isn’t on his side. It tells him his righteous anger has no place in the relentlessly upbeat messaging of “unity.” It keeps him feeling isolated.

Now we’re getting down to it. Don’t let the people who are economically devastated believe they can find each other. Shut them out. Pump them full of television public service ads that paint an “uplifting” picture from which they’re excluded.

They may be devastated, but television tells them they aren’t on the team if they give their own concerns first priority. If they do, they’re non-persons.

After all, when they sit at home watching TV, do they see a cropped video of another unemployed worker sitting in a dark room saying, “THIS IS CRAZY. I WANT TO WORK. I NEED FOOD. MY BOSS CLOSED HIS COMPANY. HE’S BANKRUPT. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?”

Are they offered that kind of unity? Togetherness?

“Hi. I’m an NFL cornerback. I’ve made thirty million during my career. Here I am at home with my kids. We’re playing games on the floor. I’m enjoying my family. We’ll get through this. All of us. Stay safe. Use the time to bring your family closer together.”

Major news outlets are under strict orders to keep “disturbing human interest stories” off the front page and away from their broadcasts. This is also part and parcel of the wartime effort.

It would have to be, since economic devastation is what this fake pandemic is actually all about. No one in the mainstream will let that cat out of the bag. It would be more than a mistake. It would be a confession. It would be suicide.

How about these headlines? VACCINE KINGS WANT TO SOFTEN UP POPULATIONS FOR A NEEDLE IN THE ARM. A RUINED POPULACE IS READY TO BE LED INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER.

Propagandists know that a one-two punch of fear and then assurance works. Scare them with the virus, comfort them with togetherness.

But still, it’s a tough sell. It has legs for a while, but then the natives become restless, especially in the hinterlands. People who aren’t jammed together in big cities, who live in open spaces, tend to develop immunity to lies. Coiffed press hookers on television dispensing so-called news carry less punch. Farmers know if they can’t plant their crops on time, with workers side by side, they’ll go broke.

Generally speaking, people who don’t see other people who are sick, and don’t hear ambulance sirens, start wondering what’s happening.

Protests begin. Protests expand.

The fake night of obedience turns into the real day of rebellion.

It turns out that a story about an invisible virus isn’t quite the same as a line of enemy tanks approaching. All promoted wars are not equal.

Fauci knows this. Birx knows this. Bill Gates knows this. Mayors and governors know this. The CDC and WHO know this. They don’t really care whether you survive, but they know you care. So, for them, it’s a race against time. How long can they keep the lid on? How long can their preposterous messaging work?

Stage magic is an odd game. The performer has to run his tricks quickly, so people don’t have the luxury of sitting back and thinking about how he is fooling them. However, the public health magicians and the politician magicians and the news magicians are hemmed in—they’re basically one-trick ponies. Virus, virus, virus=together, together, together.

It looks good, but it wears out.

It’s wearing out now.

I’ll close this piece with a few more gems from Edward Bernays—to urge you to keep your eye on the ball. The real ball.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?” (1928)

“A single factory, potentially capable of supplying a whole continent with its particular product, cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda, with the vast public in order to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable. This entails a vastly more complex system of distribution than formerly.” (1928)

“No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.” (1928)

“Propaganda is of no use to the politician unless he has something to say which the public, consciously or unconsciously, wants to hear.” (1928)


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 war on media comes home

by Jon Rappoport

January 13, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Instead of scurrying into a corner and wailing about what media are doing to us, one should charge straight ahead and kick them in the electrodes.” Marshall McLuhan, 1960.

For the past 35 years, I’ve been pointing out “flaws” in major media presentations of the news. Specific lies, specific omissions, specific strategies intended to keep the public from knowing the truth about a variety of life and death matters.

The word “media” comes from the Latin, meaning “middle.” And “middle” suggests there are two ends. The media are between two ends. What are they?

Well, when you back up a few steps from The News, you see that elite anchors and their colleagues are interposed between EVENTS and THE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THESE EVENTS. The anchors and reporters are the eyes, ears, and mouths for the population. This, at best, is a highly precarious set-up.

Why would anyone in his right mind place blind faith in these newspeople? The answer is simple. No one who gives that faith is in his right mind. He has surrendered his mind.

Surrendered it to the need for authority. “You have to trust somebody.” This is the rube and yokel factor. “The man behind the news desk looks good. He speaks well. He seems sure of himself. He represents a large successful organization. Therefore, he wouldn’t lie. Truth is his job description. If he’s lying, then what else about reality might be a lie? I’m not looking for a sinkhole to fall into. I want to keep my balance. The anchor helps me do that. I have to maintain a basic trust in my fellow man. It’s part of my religion…”

Then there is a psychological need for The One. More-than-one takes a person into a realm of uncertainty, and who wants that? “You mean I have to choose? I have to make distinctions? Forget it. Give me Lester Holt. Give me the anchor who looks the cleanest. Give me the one friend above all others. I have the one God, so I want the one anchor.”

But here’s the trick. No one who places his blind faith in the one anchor wants to admit that this is what he’s doing.

Instead, he might say, “Well, of course Lester is giving me the facts. What else would he be up to? Stop doubting. Stop all this conspiracy nonsense.”

In other words, there are only two supposed territories. The first is bland neutral surety. It almost sounds like science. Then there is crazy Loonsville, where insane fantasies are floated. The correct choice is obvious. “Congratulations, you just made the right selection. You get a gold star in the sky.”

In the second half of the 19th century, Western philosophers made a sharp turn. Instead of trying to describe ultimate reality (more and more, a losing proposition), they focused on the term “epistemology.” The study of knowing. How do people know what they know? This led to all sorts of hypotheses about the brain, the eye, the five senses, and so on. The philosophers, as it emerged, missed the boat. How do people know? Through The News. That’s how. Through substituting someone else for themselves. Voila.

And then the question became: who is that someone else going to be? Aha. Yes. The news networks were very interested in the question and the answer. “What will make the public choose our man? What does he need to look like? How does he need to speak? What can we do to make our man into a star?”

An effective series of strategies along that line, resulting in high ratings, opened yet another door: “Now that we have our one anchor, and now that the public has surrendered their minds to him, how can he present the news with thin surface and short circuits and tricks and lies and omissions, in order to serve our basic agenda?”

Because, face it, opting for truth, no matter where it led, no matter how deep it went, no matter who it EXPOSED, would leave the news networks naked, out in the rain, bereft of sponsors and begging for pennies on the street. It would cut them off from government and corporate sources of information. The networks weren’t looking to EXPOSE, they were looking to COLLUDE.

COLLUDE gives you power, it gives you important allies, it gives you money, it gives you uninterrupted access, it gives you a giant leg up on your enemies, it gives you the opportunity to fashion and simulate reality. That last factor creates a natural alliance with the intelligence community, because they simulate reality all day long, every day. And they have hills and mountains of interesting information they can pass along to you. They can guide you on what to broadcast and what to hold back. They can, in fact, hand you ready-made packages of false realities. They’re your best friends.

News becomes, by its very nature and essence, FAKE.

What else would you expect?

At that point, all the networks needed was a raft of executives and work-a-day drones who wouldn’t bother to think about how, for example, intentionally misreporting the vital details of a war would result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands or millions of people. And what do you know? Such employees were readily available. Pump them up with a little bullshit about the Mission of journalism, wind them up, and release them. They’ll carry out their functions.

You have a news network. Actually, you have a major corporation. And the overriding success of a corporation is in peddling product.

As long as the public keeps trusting. Blindly.

Should I continue for a bit? Why not? I’ll offer the example I’ve most often cited in these pages over the past 20 years: the Starfield Revelation. It’s based on my strategy of exposing facts FROM the mainstream in order to ACCUSE AND INDICT the mainstream. No woo-woo, no fringe, no aimless speculation.

On June 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review by Dr. Barbara Starfield, who was a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Impeccable MAINSTREAM credentials, all the way up and down the line. The review was titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Starfield stated that the death toll in the US, in a given year, directly CAUSED by medical treatment, was 225,000. (106,000 as a result of correctly prescribed medical drugs and 119,000 as result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals)

With a few seconds of extrapolation, you would arrive at a figure of 2.25 MILLION deaths caused by the US medical system, over the course of a decade.

Now, I can’t force anyone to register in their minds what that means. I can’t force them to think. I can’t force them to experience a shock to their system. But the facts speak for themselves. The US medical system kills 2.25 million people per decade.

Nine years after Dr. Starfield published her findings, I interviewed her. She told me the US government had never contacted her to consult on a plan to stop all this killing, and the US government had never put together a plan to stop all this killing.

What about the news media? Well, after the publication of Starfield’s review, there were stories in the press. For a little while. Then they disappeared. None of those stories expressed great shock or indicated that deep journalistic investigations were on the way.

In other words, the press did a limited hangout. That’s a term that comes straight out of the intelligence agencies, and it means you expose a piece of a story, not the whole sordid tale, and you move on, assuming that the (blind and trusting) public will be satisfied. And incurious.

Because, as you, the reader, can no doubt realize, mainstream news execs COULD HAVE rolled up their sleeves and said, “This is one of the biggest scandals we’ve ever seen. It’s horrendous. The cost of human lives is on the level of a war. But it’s happening in the HEALING profession, and no one in government has been doing anything to stop the war. We’re going to put our most relentless people on it. They’re going to wave the Starfield report in front of the noses of every person on Capitol Hill. They’re going to go to the White House. They’re going to interview doctors and medical school presidents and journal editors and the families of people who have died in this healing war. They’re going to invade the FDA and find out why that agency has seen nothing and done nothing. They’re going to go to the pharmaceutical companies and pound on doors until those people start to talk. There are MANY GUILTY PARTIES here, and we’re going to find out and prove who they are. We’re going to force it. We’re going to get people to roll over on each other, come hell or high water, and we’re going to keep climbing up on the ladder of influence and control and CRIME. We’re going to publish an ongoing chronicle of our findings, week in and week out, for as long as it takes. We’re going to launch a shit storm…”

You get the idea.

That’s called journalism. It’s the kind of journalism you can do when you have large resources and dedicated personnel.

But those elite news anchors—you know, the ones who are in the middle, between events and the public awareness of events—they don’t have the air time or the inclination or the courage to challenge the basic structure of their news organizations, which exist as a result of COLLUSION.

Neither do their editors and other bosses have the inclination.

On just one of a number of levels—it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what would happen to the pile of money derived from pharma advertising, if a major mainstream news network decided to pursue this story into the gates of hell.

At any rate, when I see how much time mainstream media outlets are clocking, in their crusade to call thousands of “alternative people” fake news, I register ZERO degree of wonderment or surprise. I understand their game. I know how it’s played and where it comes from. I know the character of the people who are playing it. After all, I named my website NoMoreFakeNews.com 19 years ago. I wasn’t buying their act then, and I’m not buying it now.

You want to see a real and genuine and serious and profound and criminal mental disorder, as opposed to the disorders cooked up by committees of psychiatrists who may as well be meeting in the offices of drug companies who are waiting for the latest categories, so they can start manufacturing toxic meds as treatments? You want to see the real thing?

Put on a helmet and a hazmat suit and turn on the news.


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.

Does the push for mass vaccination point toward a staged bioterror event?

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Here’s a piece I wrote two years ago. Worth re-posting.

We’ve seen the signs. I’ve been highlighting them. The infamous childhood mandatory vaccination law in California. Other states that are considering similar bills. The lunatic push in Australia to outlaw medical exemptions from vaccination. The all-out campaign in the press, in various countries, to stigmatize people who defect from official “truth” about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

On a larger stage, over the past 20 years, we’ve seen the promotion of fake “pandemics” demanding universal vaccination to ward off “millions of deaths”: SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, smallpox, etc. All duds.

Now we have the boggling case of the University of Massachusetts, where two supposed instances of meningitis have triggered an immediate campaign (video 1, video 2) to vaccinate all 20,000 students against meningococcal B meningitis.

It’s clear that the logistics of carrying out such an extensive program have been in place for some time. The University just needed an occasion for a test launch of the system. Now they have it.

Yet USA Today reports: “Sarah Van Orman, a physician and executive director of University Health Services at UW-Madison, said… the new [meningitis] B vaccine… may not be as effective as the routinely given vaccine against the four other major bacteria strains.”

“In a study of 499 Princeton University students who received the new B vaccine during an outbreak there, up to a third did not show a good immune response eight weeks after the second dose, Van Orman said.”

“Some research suggests the vaccine also may provide immunity only for six to 12 months, she said.”

But it’s full steam ahead for the U of Massachusetts. Other colleges have long been making preparations. For example, the University of Rochester, according to its Newscenter (September 19, 2014): “On Thursday, Oct. 30, University Health Service (UHS) staff will attempt to vaccinate 5,000 students, faculty and staff against this year’s flu virus [in one day]. The effort will doubly serve as a test of emergency preparedness to practice delivering mass quantities of vaccine or drug in response to an urgent public health concern. The effort is being coordinated by UHS, RC/MERT (University of Rochester River Campus Medical Emergency Response Team), University Environmental Health & Safety and the Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness…’We will have to give about 600 vaccinations an hour to meet our goal,’ said Ralph Manchester, MD, vice provost and UHS director.”

Understand: this was a test of a system, an emergency system. That was the primary goal of the operation.

Piece by piece, in the US—and undoubtedly in other countries—the groundwork is being laid for huge networks that can, at a moment’s notice, go live and mass-vaccinate extraordinary numbers of people.

And they would do exactly that—upon the announcement of a “new deadly pandemic that threatens the population.”

How would the “pandemic” occur—or rather, how could it be staged?

Obviously, the vaccine itself could be a carrier, since all sorts of new toxins could be covertly inserted, in addition to the more familiar toxic substances already present in vaccines.

But beyond that?

Here is backgrounder I wrote on the subject: How to Stage a Bioterror Event:

The germ is the cover story for chemical destruction.

In general, the primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems are at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that far less than 1% of people exposed get sick.

Therefore: use a chemical and claim it is a germ.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was the spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DoD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy, horror, and the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities get to obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

—Mass vaccination clinics emerge from the shadows, all over the nation. They are ready to go. The system is in place. Everyone must get the vaccine now.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctors’ offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world.” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu (H5N1), Swine Flu (H1N1), and MERS, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Exacerbated; and prepared, for the “next one.”

…Until eventually—a chemical attack would be called a germ attack.

A staged reality.


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.

Monsanto: science and fraud are the same thing

Especially when the media agree

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Lately I’ve been posting articles on fraudulent science. Here, I’m reaching back several years for a piece I wrote about Monsanto, before the company was swallowed up by Bayer, and while TV news anchor Brian Williams was still the golden boy at NBC.

The underlying theme: most people automatically buy official pronouncements about science as true science. It never occurs to them that a political agenda is the real punch line.


Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

ONE: Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

TWO: From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

No real science. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto approval scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread and INSERT from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole. Drift makes non-GMO crops into GMO crops.

Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who had moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and then became the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings.

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

It isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

For an overarching view of the main Globalist operation, here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is a technocratic arm of that plan.


Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story—“GMO crops are approved as safe and effective”—with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions. “Some people claim GMO crops are a danger, others say they’re perfectly safe. Period. Bye bye. What’s next?”

Monsanto’s lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of Monsanto stories. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 3? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more felonies? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access to other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: “When I was in the game, I looked at the news as a big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don’t piss on your shoes. That meant: don’t cover a story that’s considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those stories, he’d look me up and down and say, ‘Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here.’”


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.