9/11: The Gold and The Minders

by Jon Rappoport

September 16, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Searching through the archive of my past articles, I’ve come up with two 9/11 stories that have been largely ignored—left to gather dust as they fade from memory. Here they are:


Flashback: 9/11 and the gold in the NY Federal Reserve

January 30, 2014

With reports that Germany can’t get back much of its gold stored in the NY Federal Reserve, I remembered what I was writing just after 9/11.

Here are a few quotes. Most are from my posts on 9/11 and 9/12, 2001:

“Still no word on the condition of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, which is 2.5 blocks away from the destroyed WTC. This bank, underground, holds $75 billion in gold from [about five] dozen countries.”

“CNN has a large map posted today, which shows the condition of a number of buildings by name in the area, but, curiously, the NY Fed Reserve is not one of them.”

“And now that workers are going down underneath the remains of the WTC, where $100 million in gold is admittedly stored (Reuters), we have no word on the condition of that gold, either.”

“Yesterday, I brought up the issue of the gigantic fed gold reserve stashed underground 2.5 blocks from the WTC. And mentioned that no press accounts were covering damage to nearby buildings. Which I find odd.”

“Here is an account from [a reader] on the ground in NYC, as of an hour ago. ‘It seems like we are getting the same limited [TV] shot on all networks…kind of a tight angle shot of damage of the base of the towers…no shots of damage to nearby buildings, including the gold reserve building. No one knows anything because the whole island [of Manhattan] has been shut down below 14th St. Camera crews not allowed to wander. If you live below 14th St. and you leave your apartment you need identification in order to get back in.’”

“The WTC took up several blocks in lower Manhattan. From the Liberty Street side, it is about 2 blocks to the Fed Reserve Bank of NY, at 33 Liberty St. Under the Bank, 5 levels down, in bedrock, is the $75 billion in gold.”

“The NY Federal Reserve keeps a facility for storing gold in NYC. It handles the gold reserves of about five dozen countries. $75 billion in a vault. About 1/4 of the world’s gold supply. At least, that’s the Fed Reserve press release on this, from 1999. This vault is located close to the WTC, where the towers fell. Is it [the vault] buried? Is the vault open? Anyone see Die Hard 3? A gigantic terrorist ‘diversion’ leading to the theft of all the gold in the vault.”

In the days following 9/11, I also wrote that there were no reports or video of troops guarding the NY Federal Reserve building. This was very curious. 75 billion in gold and no troops present? Nor have I found any video from that time, later posted on YouTube, showing troops around the Fed Reserve.

There is debate about whether a tunnel existed connecting the basement of the old WTC and the basement of the Federal Reserve. A 2010 piece at Cryptome indicates (with photos) that, during the post-9/11 WTC cleanup, an old railroad tunnel between the WTC and Fed Reserve basements was uncovered. (Diehard 3 featured such a tunnel and track.)

Was the Fed Reserve gold taken away after 9/11?

Or had it been taken before 9/11? Perhaps long before.

Clearly, in the immediate wake of 9/11, there was a concerted press effort to omit or limit mention of the Federal Reserve building.

On March 2, 2013, Tyler Durden, writing at zerohedge.com, in Why Is JPMorgan’s Gold Vault, The Largest In The World, Located Next To The New York Fed’s?, reported his finding that “the de facto largest private gold vault in the world [is] located across the street [from the NY Federal Reserve building] 90 feet below 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza.”

This private vault, at the same level as the NY Fed Reserve vault, could front right up against it.

The private vault belongs to JP Morgan Chase. It is larger than a football field.

Under circumstances deemed “essential,” it would appear to be easy to transfer an enormous amount of gold from the Fed Reserve to JP Morgan Chase.

Silverdoctors.com reports that a US Treasury Dept. audit of all US gold reserves inadvertently exposed a total figure of 466 tons, far less than previous claims of 8,133 tons.

Anyone trusting that US-held gold reserves are safe and sound needs to examine his own head.


HERE IS THE SECOND STORY—

Intimidation of 9/11 Commission witnesses: the “minders”

September 15, 2017

Let’s say you work for a large corporation, which is undertaking an internal investigation of possible corruption and fraud within the company.

You’re sitting in a room, and an employee of the company is interviewing you.

But next to you sits your boss. He hears all the questions, and he hears your answers. He takes notes on the interview. He answers questions you are supposed to answer. He is your “minder.”

Getting the picture?

On October 2, 2003, during the 9/11 Commission investigation into what happened on September 11, 2001, a memo was sent to two Commission attorneys, Daniel Marcus and Steven Dunne. It was ominously titled:

“Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses.”

The memo was written by members of the 9/11 Commission’s Team 2: Kevin Scheid, Lorry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman. There is no indication that any official subsequently acted on their highly serious charges:

“When we have asked witnesses [in interviews] about certain roles and responsibilities within the intelligence community, minders [in the room] have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal policies and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the intelligence community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”

“[M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, [falsely] conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”

“[Minders now and then] answer questions directed at witnesses.”

“[Minders write] verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements [which] conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.”

“[Minders making notes] facilitates [government] agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”

“[T]he net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”

This key memo defines the term “cover-up.”

Take it even further. This Commission “minder procedure” would be analogous to you sitting in the witness box at a criminal trial of a mob boss. You’re testifying for the prosecution against the boss. But in the box, next to you, sits a mob assassin.

So you say: “I may have implied I was there on the night the defendant was planning…whatever it was. But I didn’t really say that. I was misinterpreted. I don’t recall being there. I’ve never met the defendant. I’m a retired investor living on a pension. I’m receiving treatment for early-onset dementia…”

Granted, the 9/11 Commission interviewers were certainly asking superficial questions of witnesses from the get-go. But if a government witness by chance saw something or heard something or knew something that would have exploded the official 9/11 story, with his minder there he was in a straitjacket.

And he’ll stay in a straitjacket.


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.

Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

September 10, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

But no chain of evidence supporting THAT claim has been presented to the public, either. Even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? Big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, of course, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob, the reporter, bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing his source of trying to knock out independent news competitors? Of course not. Bob plays along.

Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine, by covering up the vaccine’s connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker AND what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

You can find examples of government actors spying on Trump—in these instances, the press decides to focus on the WHAT, the content gained from spying; and downplays the WHO, the people who green-lighted the surveillance.

There is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. The WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

The NSA, with its gargantuan reach into the lives of the population (including government officials), has enough content to keep the press busy for the next 50 years reporting NSA leaks; but the NSA decides when, and for what reasons, to hold back what it knows. Or to leak bits and pieces through cut-outs.

The leaks-game is played over and over, and the rules of the game are shifted, depending on unrevealed agendas. Who do we want to expose this time? Who do we want to come out looking like a winner? Who are our friends at the CIA supporting?

Editors are there to keep reporters in line and correct oversights. Not in so many words, an editor would let a reporter know: “You picked the wrong source this time, Bob. Your guy is telling a story we don’t want to promote. Find a different source with a better take, in line with our agenda to attack (fill in a name).”

That’s what the editor means. But he might simply say: “Bob, that source of yours…I don’t trust him anymore. I’ve been hearing odd things about him. Don’t use him for this piece.” The reporter gets the message.

This technique of casual ad hominem criticism and rumor even extends to the realm of science. In 1987, a prestigious molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, “leaked” what many virologists privately knew: the evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS was full of gaping holes. Duesberg published a paper in the journal, Cancer Research, exposing the con.

Overnight, a whisper-campaign against Duesberg spread through the research community—and into the press. “We always knew Duesberg was an odd duck. He likes publicity. He hates authority. He runs his mouth off. He doesn’t care about evidence. He’ll take a contrary position just to stand out.”

The game of leaks, sources, and fake news takes many shapes.

Welcome to mainstream 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.

Psychiatry in charge of gun control: utter disaster

by Jon Rappoport

September 5, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other studies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Other items could be added.

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

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

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

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


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.

Scuzzball Twitter Inc.

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Apparently, Mitch McConnell doesn’t support more restrictive gun control. Therefore, protests…

Earlier this month, The Washington Post and other outlets reported that Twitter has locked Senator Mitch McConnell’s re-election Twitter account, until he deletes a video showing protesters outside his house shouting threats.

(Update: After politcal pressure from Mitch’s campaign and some of his supporters, Twitter has since unlocked the account and restored the tweet. “It shouldn’t have taken an avalanche of outrage from across the country to stop Silicon Valley from launching an effort to silence conservatives like the majority leader of the United States Senate in the first place,” said Kevin Golden, Mitch’s campaign manager in a statement.)

One of those protesters was identified, by the Courier Journal, as a Black Lives Matter member, Chanelle Helm, who shouted, “Just stab the mothefucker [McConnell] in the heart, please.”

Twitter, which makes no attempt to curtail the phrase “massacre Mitch” on its platform, had wanted the McConnell video taken down because it “violated our violent threats policy, specifically threats involving physical safety…”

How much bullshit does Twitter think it can get away with? Apparently, a mountain of it.

The “violent threats policy” is aimed at individuals or groups that promote their attacks as a way of gaining advocates and publicizing their actions. THIS video was posted by McConnell, who was the TARGET of a violent threat. Anyone who fails to see the difference should redo their education, starting with the first grade.

Let’s see. Suppose a hundred people gathered outside the headquarters of the FBI and shouted violent threats against the Bureau? And suppose the Bureau posted a tweet about it with video? Do you think Twitter would lock the FBI’s account?

Suppose a few people stood outside a building where Barack Obama was giving a speech and shouted violent threats at him, and suppose a Twitter user posted video of THAT? Do you think Twitter would suspend his account?

Twitter’s initial ruling in the McConnell situation implied that any posted video urging violent action anywhere in the world in any context should be deleted. Such video couldn’t possibly be news. It couldn’t possibly be a response from a target of violent threats. No. Such video is a “violation of standards.”

Actually, Twitter Inc. is violating a standard that any reasonable person would advocate: DON’T DEFEND YOUR BIAS WITH HALF-COCKED LIES. DON’T CONTRIBUTE TO DESTROYING THE 1ST AMENDMENT.


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.

Lone shooters, terrorism, and semantics

by Jon Rappoport

August 15, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

This is a big one. It’s so big, in fact, that many people will want to turn their backs on it and pretend it doesn’t and couldn’t exist. But it’s real. It does exist.

No killing of innocent people can be called a “negligible statistic.” But what label do you apply when an entire government stands by and does nothing, while millions of people die?

A supposed lone shooter motivated by political ideology kills 20 people, and this is called a terrorist act. But what category do you apply when a government enables a monopoly that destroys millions of lives?

Don’t bother seeking answers from the mainstream press. They play dumb. They pretend to be clueless. They avoid these millions of deaths, as if they’re not worthy of news coverage.

Doesn’t that sound strange? The press, which constantly sniffs the air for stories that will rouse public interest, ignores a force that is routinely killing millions of people. Why? Because that very force pays huge sums of money to the press.

So let’s start here, with one of the most shocking mainstream reviews ever published in a medical journal. The date is July 26, 2000. The journal is the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Impeccable mainstream credentials up and down the line. Starfield’s review is titled, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” She concludes:

The US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. 106,000 deaths from FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 deaths as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

Extrapolate those numbers out to a decade: that’s 2.25 MILLION deaths.

In an email interview I did with Dr. Starfield about a year before she died, I asked her whether the US government had undertaken any overall program to remedy this ongoing catastrophe, and whether anyone from the federal government had contacted her to consult on such a program. To both questions, she answered: NO.

Keep in mind that the US federal government, through agencies like the FDA, the CDC, and their parent agency, Health and Human Services, has extensive power over the US medical system. In fact, the FDA, through its routine manipulations and regulations, assures that the conventional mainstream medical system in America remains top dog; and competition from what has been called alternative or natural health is reduced as much as possible. It might interest you to know that, when a pharmaceutical company wants the FDA to review a new drug and certify it as safe and effective for public use, the pharmaceutical company pays a fee to the FDA. Dr. Starfield pointed this out to me. Therefore, in a real sense, the FDA works FOR drug companies.

I mention all this to make sure you understand that the federal government could, if it wanted to, undertake a sweeping investigation of the US medical system, from top to bottom, and face up to the ongoing of tragedy of millions of lives lost. The federal government could come down mightily on the medical system and do everything possible to eradicate this holocaust.

But the government doesn’t. It doesn’t do that. It stands by while millions die. Year after year after year.

I could cite other findings that back up Dr. Starfield’s published analysis, and I have, in other articles. Here, I’ll keep it simple. The government is entirely culpable.

Occasionally, I receive an email from a reader that goes this way: “I showed a friend your article and he said, what about all the lives the medical system saves? Why doesn’t Rappoport factor those in?”

To which I offer this. Suppose you created an invention—let’s call it X—which, for the sake of argument, we’ll assume saves many lives. But you also notice it kills many people—2.25 million people per decade. Would you simply stand back and assert that, on balance, you’re doing a fine job? Would you? Or would you do your very best to eliminate all those deaths, which are occurring as a result of your X? To put it another way, would you seek to be humane, or would you be a vast criminal?

As I started out, above, no killing of an innocent person is a negligible statistic, whether you call it an act of terrorism or something else. But what do you call it when the awesome power of an entire government is silent and passive, for decades, while the very monopoly it is enabling destroys millions of lives?

Depraved indifference? Negligent homicide? Manslaughter?

I call it mass murder.


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 news anchors are gone

The ship is going down

by Jon Rappoport

July 1, 2019

There are many reasons why viewers are deserting mainstream news. This article is about one vital reason that has been overlooked…

Elite television news anchors are absolutely essential to the hypnotic delivery of fake news. They have always been a mainstay of the mind control operation.

From the early days of television, there has been a parade of anchors/actors with know-how—the right intonation, the right edge of authority, the 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, Water 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 timid 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 one miniature Xmas-tree light bulb.

The network news trance is falling apart.

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

This is one reason why mainstream news has been imploding.

When gross liars don’t have hypnotic effect, they don’t have anything.

And lately, things have gotten even worse for the mainstream. Their ceaseless attacks on Trump are backfiring. More members of the public are seeing through the puerile throw-ANYTHING-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach; and more important, the style of these attacks is breaking the time-honored rhythms and pace of traditional news presentation, and thus are failing to put the viewing audience into passive brain-states.

Fundamental and tested means for trance-induction are going out the window. When you add in rude and contentious interviews and thinly disguised editorializing by “news reporters” who have no business being within a mile of a broadcast studio, who spout random shots of venom, the 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.

Humpty-Dumpty is off the wall and lying in pieces on the floor.

Elite mainstream news is committing suicide. And in a fatuous attempt to save themselves, they are 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.

Network news executives are clueless. News directors are clueless. The whole lot of them are too young and too foolish to remember what once made news dominate the public mind.

Plus they are swimming in shark-infested waters. The sharks are independent media.

Bottom-line?

This is a cause for celebration.

The movie called fake reality is packaged rolls of footage in the back of a very large truck moving slowly toward a graveyard.

The elite standard has always been: can we pacify the viewing audience and maintain them in a helpless condition? Now the answer is leaning further toward NO on both counts.

As I say, information mind control, as delivered by elite television news, depends entirely on the elite anchor. His modulated voice and presence and delivery are the glue that holds the illusion together. 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, they might have an outside chance of re-establishing their dominance. 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. But this desperate attempt is failing, too.

It is crashing on the rocks of vast, uneven, open decentralization of information.

One veteran news director told me several years ago, “We don’t have the stars [elite anchors] anymore. The star system is dead. The same thing happened to Hollywood. Now it’s happening to us. 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 and weak. We’ve made them that way. It’s some cockeyed standard of equality we’ve internalized. And now we’re paying the price.”

Yes, indeed.

They’ve punched holes in their own ship.


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.

Using “alternate realities” as a form of analysis

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

When I finished putting together my collection, The Matrix Revealed, I wrote several prefaces to it. Here is one:

—Start here: if things weren’t the way they are, if they were quite different in specific ways…

What implications would follow?

This can be a very instructive question.

Most people automatically reject alternate realities on the basis of: “Well, they don’t exist, they’re fantasies, so who cares?”

That reaction speaks to a paucity of imagination and little else. It’s a profoundly low-IQ response.

I’ll flesh out an example of an alternate reality and trace the implications. You’ll see it illuminates “things as they are” in an interesting way. This example is based on my experience writing, reading, and watching news for over 30 years. It’s also based on numerous off-the-record conversations I’ve had with mainstream reporters.

Suppose the NY Times, which is drowning in red ink, which re-finances its debt to stay afloat, which is losing its reputation as the paper of record faster than a rowboat full of holes sinks in a lake, changed its whole method of finding and presenting news.

Suppose the Times latched on to major scandals beyond its corporate mandate with the extreme ferocity of an attack dog. Suppose, for instance, it went after the deadly impact of medical drugs on the population. Suppose it began with the July 26, 2000, review, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” (see also here), authored by Dr. Barbara Starfield, of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, in which Starfield concludes that, every year, FDA-approved medicines — correctly prescribed — kill 106,000 Americans?

Extrapolating that number out to a decade, the death toll comes to over a million. A million Americans killed every decade by medical drugs.

Suppose the Times made this its number-one story, not just for a day, but for a year or more? It lets the hounds loose on the FDA, who approves the drugs as safe, it sends the hounds to the offices of medical journals, which routinely publish fraudulent studies praising the drugs that kill people. So far we’re talking about nothing less than RICO felonies—continuing organized-criminal acts. Suppose the Times’ hounds probe medical schools, where students are taught to believe in the killer drugs, where Pharma money funds the teaching programs.

There are so many nooks and crannies where Times reporters can extract confessions from medical players: “I knew about the horrific death toll years ago, but my superiors ordered me to shut up.”

“Which superior was that? You may as well tell me. I’m going to find out anyway…”

The Times reporters move in on the Dept. of Justice, which has never lifted a finger to prosecute these ongoing crimes, despite knowing exactly what’s been going on.

Day after day, as new confessions and facts emerge, the Times puts its searing stories on page one of the paper.

The size of the headlines increases.

The public is wakened. The public, as it turns out, is unable to turn away.

The Times puts out two print editions a day and the papers fly off the newsstands.

Under intense pressure, Congressional hearings are laid on. New liars come to the fore, and under oath some of them crack and reveal how medical murder has survived in the shadows all these years. It’s a grisly tale.

The Times’ profits soar. The public is on fire.

And then, just when the whole story seems to have lost a bit of its force, new revelations explode. Major medical reporters for many press outlets—including the Times—have been sitting on this story for more than a decade. They’re instrumental in the cover-up. Mass firings occur.

At the same time, it becomes apparent that several blockbuster global trade deals have been engineered, behind the scenes, to further engorge Pharma profits. Those deals go down the drain and are canceled.

I could go on. This story would have more legs than a phalanx of centipedes.

But of course, neither the Times nor any other major press outlet would ever pick up or cover this story. These media operations are locked in partnership with Pharma. They’re on the same side.

Yet, understanding how the story could play and evolve and explode in an “alternate universe” gives you clues. For example, the public is asleep because the news keeps it asleep.

The public could wake up.

And if it did, there would be hell to pay.

In a universe of true news, the entire society would be different because the people would be different. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re brain-damaged. They wouldn’t be acting as if they’re goggled-eyed glazed-over New Agers. They wouldn’t be afraid to speak out and speak up. They would be alert and active and forceful. A great deal of delusional scum would be scraped off the top of consciousness. Vague generalities would no longer suffice. Empty words would no longer suffice. Business as usual would no longer suffice.

In this highly instructive “alternate universe” metaphor, the public would learn that nothing is too big to fail—a valuable lesson. Big Pharma, exposed to its roots as a crime mob, toppled from all its pillars of trust, would not, by its fate, doom society. Far from it. Society would be cleansed.

People would look around and wonder how they had slept for so long. The purveyors of fake news, with their touted experts, would experience a level of (justifiable) paranoia they’d never imagined. Not just in their coverage of the medical arena, but in every sphere where lying and cover-up and diversion have been the order of the day.

The overarching position of “Elite News Anchor” would drown in its own corrupt juices. The networks would scramble like rats to survive a ratings crash beyond their wildest nightmares.

And yet, again, society would not be doomed.

Many, many, many more individuals would wake up.

Information, the neutral god of the technocratic secular church, would suddenly be colored with purpose. It would reveal. It would expose. It would take on muscle. It would range along dynamic lines of force and unseat criminals in the highest of places, with no restraint.

The population would develop a new appetite. Instead of alpha-wave hypnotic trance, people would insist on the demise of false idols. And lawful application of justice would finally mean something.

All this…this is what the mainstream news could deliver. In an alternate universe.

In the “real” universe where we live, the task falls to independent investigators. But the aim is the same: rousing the people from their slumber.

When you can envision the implications of a preferable “other-universe,” all the way across the board, you can understand what your work is here and now.

You can summon the energy to go all-out. You can throw off insubstantial roles. You can create your own engine, shove it into gear, and move up to high velocity.

The imagining of alternate universes creates energy.


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.

AI and genetic cures of disease: where’s the evidence?

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Isn’t it wonderful? Disease is genetic, and we can alter gene function. We’re winning…”

Much trumpeting of genetic cures is on the propaganda agenda these days—but where is the evidence?

In order to rank as a cure, manipulation of DNA would have to heal a well-defined disease across the board, in a vast majority of cases. No such victories are occurring at present.

But in order to raise huge money for continuing research, you don’t say, “Well, we hope the minor triumphs so far will expand in the future, so please write us a check for five hundred million dollars.” Instead, you tell lies, you exaggerate, you avoid stark facts.

Reliable DNA cures are, right now, far beyond the reach of modern research. This means claiming the basic CAUSE of a given disease is gene-based is highly questionable, because the proof is in the pudding. If you can’t produce a real cure across the board, utilizing the purported DNA-cause, you can’t really claim you know the cause. Get it? “Well, we know what’s causing Disease X, it’s a particular gene, which we’ve isolated, but, ahem, we can’t cure Disease X.” No. That doesn’t fly.

Then we have the so-called AI component. It goes this way; “In order to achieve genetic cures, we need to do an enormous amount of DNA sorting, which would take humans years and years. But with computers, we can accomplish the work in manageable time. This in itself is a miracle of modern science…” Yes, it might be, if, again, cures were really available, but they’re not. Therefore, the invocation of AI is piece of misdirection.

All the propaganda focusing on genes rests on the pop-science notion, first floated decades ago, that the functioning of the human body is directed by genetic information, which contains complex commands. This, too, is an unproven assertion—particularly the related idea that every disease is created by a single gene. That assumption hasn’t panned out. In this regard, the holy grail would consist of the ability to cure a grave disease which is obviously clustering in a given population because of environmental toxins. “You see, it doesn’t matter how much pollution our corporations cause. We can go in and change genetic programming, so humans are invulnerable to the poisons.”

That is yet one more unproven assertion. It should be classified as a fairy tale until further notice.

I’m not saying absolutely NOTHING useful has been learned from doing genetic research. I’m saying what has been learned has been massaged, exaggerated, and lied about, to a vast degree.

I’ve described, above, the basic lies. We’re talking about pop culture notions and comic book characterizations being put in place, replacing sober truth.


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.

Why I write

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Clarity emerges from the fog; it comes last. The writer finds out why he is doing what he does.

For me, it started with poetry/fiction. At age 11, I read Ray Bradbury’s book of short stories, Martian Chronicles. I was stunned by the poetic nature of the work.

At age 44, I began a career as a journalist. I discovered that facts (and how they connected) were fascinating. What began as a lark turned into full-blown dedication. In particular, little known medical truths and crimes attracted my interest.

Still, I felt that poetry/fiction was my deeper calling. Eventually, I saw that my tree had several basic branches. Journalism was one of them. I kept coming back to an exploration of propaganda, cover stories, and false realities.

Propaganda was the invention of worlds for profit, control, and domination. Poetry was the invention of worlds for joy and satisfaction of the untamed creative urge, which has no boundaries. In this civilization, children are trained to grow up contributing to the overall acceptance of deceptive narratives. The creative urge, which would lead to the revelation that Self is infinite, goes begging, and is viewed as an unnecessary risk and dead-end. In other words, everything is backwards.

What I, as a writer, was showing was: here are the details of stories which are sold to the many as truths, when they are actually crimes; and here are stories which are offered as pure inventions, and are liberating to the soul. Here is freedom; and here is slavery.

Over decades of work, I realized how deep the crimes went, and how high and unbounded the creative force could soar. Both branches of the tree were vital.

For the past 19 years, at NoMoreFakeNews, I’ve presented and fleshed out both vectors in many ways.

I want to thank those who sent condolences on the recent passing of my beloved wife, Laura Thompson. Your words mean a great deal to me.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The deeper reason for drug ads on television

by Jon Rappoport

February 14, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

Television viewers are inundated with drug ads from Big Pharma. It’s a flood.

Have you ever heard of these drugs? Otezla, Xeljanz, Namzaric, Keytruda, Breo, Cosentyz? Not likely. If you have, do you know what conditions they treat? Highly unlikely. But there they are, splashed in commercials.

Why? Who is going to remember to ask their doctor whether these and other obscure meds are right for them?

What’s going on here?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DRUGS ARE BEING ADVERTISED.

If Pharma can pay enough TOTAL money for ads, for ALL drugs, and dominate the allotted TV time for commercials, it can control the news—and that is exactly what it wants to do.

Pharmaceutical scandals are everywhere. Reporting on them, wall to wall, isn’t good for the drug business. However, as an industry ponying up billions of dollars for TV ads, Pharma can limit exposure and negative publicity. It can (and does) say to television networks: If you give us a hard time on the news, we’ll take our ad money and go somewhere else. Boom. End of problem.

Face it, the billions of dollars Pharma is paying for TV ads are a drop in the bucket, compared with its profits gained from selling the drugs. The ads are a good investment. As a bribe.

Control the news.

There is another reason for the insane flood of TV drug ads:

By their sheer number, they convince viewers that medical drugs (no matter what they are) are absolutely necessary.

Hour by hour, viewers numbly watch drug commercial after commercial. The overall message is: To keep illness from your door, to cure illness, to alleviate illness, you must take these medicines. THIS IS LIFE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. You’re all sick, and you need help, and this is the ONLY kind of help there is.

The drug companies could invent names of fake drugs that don’t even exist, advertise them in a cascade on television, with the same intent. DRUGS ARE AS VITAL TO LIFE AS WATER OR AIR.

But what about all those dire warnings of side effects from the drugs? By law, the companies must include them in their commercials. Well, the companies have calculated that, on balance, the stark, front-line, unending message of DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS will outweigh the warnings in viewers’ minds.

If the television audience is nailed with the idea that they can’t escape; that their health always hangs in the balance; that dire illnesses are always waiting in the shadows to strike; that the slightest ache or pain could be a precursor to a crippling or fatal disease; and drugs are the only solution and protection—they’re going to overlook the warnings about side effects.

ALL IN ALL, DRUG ADS ARE NEWS.

That’s the approach. Pharma is blasting out 24/7 news asserting modern medicine’s central and commanding role in the life of every human.

It’s a gigantic and stupendous piece of mind control, but when did that ever stop tyrants from inventing reality for the masses?

Implicit in “ask your doctor if drug X is right for you,” is the message: “go to your doctor.” That’s the key. If the ads can put a viewer into the system, he will be diagnosed with something, and he’ll be given a drug for it.

So the drug ads are also promotions for doctors, who are the arbiters and the decision makers. Some kind of medical need (drugs) always exists—and the doctor will tell you what it is. And all patients should OBEY. Even if, in the process, they go broke.

Take the case of Opdivo, a drug that treats squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Cost? $12,500 a month. Patients on Medicare will pay $2500 a month out of their own pockets. And the result?

Wall St, Journal: “In the clinical study on which the Opdivo ad bases its claims, the drug extended median patient survival to 9.2 months from the start of treatment…”

The cancer patient pays $22,500 for nine months of survival, during which the suffering continues, and then he dies.

The ad isn’t mentioning THAT.

The ad relies on the doctor to convince the patient to go along with this lunatic program.


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.