Category Archives: Press Fraud

Mainstream fake-news: the devious limited hangout

Mainstream fake-news: the devious limited hangout

by Jon Rappoport

June 4, 2018

Big media attacks “fake news.” Independent reporters rightly point the finger at big media as the predominant purveyor of fake news.

Here I want to comment on one of the most devious forms of MSM fake news: the limited hangout.

When necessary, news outlets will do a PARTIAL EXPOSURE of a hidden crime. The assumption is, once the story is published and broadcast, everyone will shake their heads and say, “That’s terrible,” and move on. The whole thing will be forgotten in a matter of days, as if the whole truth has been revealed. Limited hangout.

From media’s point of view, a limited hangout means: “We won’t do any further digging. We’ll shut down further investigation.” Vital questions won’t be asked:

Why did the criminals do what they did? Why are they still at large? Who is refusing to press charges and make arrests? What deeper crimes are still secret?

The mainstream press could set their hounds loose and build a story into a huge wave. Over time, they could bring hidden players out into the open and expose them and wring confessions out of them. They could get some of these players to roll over and point to higher-level criminals. The story could achieve tsunami status, at which point the government would have to make arrests and lay on trials in open courtrooms.

But that doesn’t happen. Limited hangout rules the day.

I’m going to present a story about a crime now. It’s big. Very big. It was covered, to a degree, by the mainstream press. The coverage seemed to be significant. But it was a limited hangout.

As you read on, imagine what might have happened if the press had decided to go in with guns blazing and investigate all the way, over a period of months, releasing new revelations as they discovered them. Imagine the repercussions. Imagine the public outcry. Instead of a limited hangout, we would have seen…well, I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

In 1975, the US signed on to an international treaty banning the production, use, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Ditto for chemical weapons, in 1993. Another treaty.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Post (9/4/13, “When the US looked the other way on chemical weapons”): “…The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items…including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…”

Between 1985 and 1989, a US 501C3 firm, American Type Culture Collection, sent Iraq up to 70 shipments of various biowar agents, including 21 strains of anthrax.

Between 1984 and 1989, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control!) sent Iraq at least 80 different biowar agents, including botulinum toxoid, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody.

This information on the American Type Culture Collection and the CDC comes from a report, “Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” prepared by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).

Then we have a comprehensive article by William Blum (one of the good investigators in this whole story) in the April 1998 Progressive called “Anthrax for Export.” Blum cites a 1994 Senate report confirming that, in this 1985-1989 time period, US shipments of anthrax and other biowar agents to Iraq were licensed by…drum roll, cymbal crash…the US Dept. of Commerce.

Blum quotes from the Senate report: “These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”

This 1994 Senate report also indicates that the US exported to Iraq the precursors for chemwar agents, actual plans for chemical and biowar production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. The exports continued until at least November 28, 1989.

Blum lists a few other biowar agents the US shipped to Iraq. Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Clostridium tetani—as well as E. coli, various genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA.

Blum also points out that a 1994 Pentagon report dismissed any connection between all these biowar agents and Gulf War Illness. But the researcher who headed up that study, Joshua Lederberg, was actually a director of the US firm that had provided the most biowar material to Iraq in the 1980s: the American Type Culture Collection.

Newsday revealed that the CEO of the American Type Culture Collection was a member of the US Dept. of Commerce’s Technical Advisory Committee. See, the Dept. of Commerce had to license and approve all those exports of biowar agents carried out by the American Type Culture Collection. Get the picture?

Now, as to other US companies which dealt biowar or chemwar agents to Iraq—all such sales having been approved by the US government—the names of these companies are contained in records of the 1992 Senate hearings, “United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait,” Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992):

Mouse Master (Georgia), Sullaire Corp (Charlotte, North Carolina), Pure Aire (Charlotte, North Carolina), Posi Seal (Conn.), Union Carbide (Conn.), Evapco (Maryland), BDM Corp (Virginia), Spectra Physics (Calif.).

There are about a dozen more.

This also from the Blum article: “A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program’s secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated [Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA — among others].”

Hewlett Packard said that the recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was some sort of school in Iraq. But in 1990, the Wall St. Journal stated that Saad 16 was a “heavily fortified, state-of-the-art [Iraqi] complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research.”

If you review and think about all these WMD shipments from the US to Iraq, you understand there were many US officials and corporate employees who knew about them. Knew about them then, in the 1980s, and knew about them later, during 2 US wars in Iraq, when American soldiers were sent to Iraq, and could have been exposed to the bio/chem weapons.

And these officials and employees said nothing.

Officials at the CDC and the Dept. of Commerce said nothing. People at the American Type Culture Collection said nothing. People at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA said nothing. Presidents said nothing. Employees of the corporations who supplied germs and chemicals said nothing.

power outside the matrix

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

—Now imagine the NY Times and the Washington Post releasing their hounds to dig deeper into this boggling story. Interviews with the players. Investigations into the role of the CDC. The cover-ups. After a year of relentless probing and publishing, this would have built into an unstoppable tidal wave. The whole country (and the world) would have been agog. Prosecutions would have followed.

But it didn’t happen.

Instead, the story dissolved and went away.

The history that could have been made…

Wasn’t made.

This is fake news at its finest; by omission. By limited hangout.

Jon Rappoport

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

Media won’t investigate medically caused death numbers

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

Imagine a Congressional hearing held before media cameras, with reporters all over the US and Europe ready with shocking articles about one of the leading causes of death—

SENATOR: Sir, I have the numbers in front of me. How can you keep this secret from the public?

FDA COMMISSIONER: It’s not a secret, sir. Many experts know about it.

SENATOR: I’m looking through the trillion-dollar federal budget. I’m looking for the money allocated to fix this horrible situation. Where are those funds?

FDA COMMISSIONER: Nowhere.

I know major media won’t investigate medically-caused death numbers, because I’ve published reports for years, and I’ve contacted news people with the facts; and nothing happens.

So we begin with a few citations.

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 a 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, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding no to both questions.

Here is another citation: “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis,” 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.

Here is another citation: The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and is 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)

The statistics I’m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe.

Why won’t major media report these facts?

The obvious reason: their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes.

But there are other reasons.

Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train, to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe, is sitting on the time bomb I have described above.

This is a key, key fact. If this bomb were widely recognized, who would continue to believe these professional pundits? Who would accept anything they say? How could they possibly sustain their credibility?

“Well, the system I represent kills 2.25 million people per decade, and maims between 20 and 40 million more people per decade, but I want to assure you this vaccine presents no problems at all. It’s incredibly safe.”

Every single pronouncement, on any subject, issued via the medical cartel’s Ministry of Truth would fall on disbelieving ears, and only increase general outrage.

Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would undermine a basic institution of society.

The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures. That’s why they’re called “major” instead of “minor.”

When hard rains fall, the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society’s head. To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected.

“Defending the Crown” is another way to put it. The King may make mistakes, he may commit heinous offenses, but he is the King, and therefore his position must remain secure.

Young journalists learn this point quickly. If in their zeal, they cross the threshold and attempt to expose a central myth, fairy tale, legend, they’re put back in their place. They absorb the message. Journalism has limits. Certain truths are silent truths.

Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior.

The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge.

When you peel the veneer away, they are enablers, persons of interest, co-conspirators.

There is nothing quite like a high-minded, socially-positioned, card-carrying member of the King’s circle of protectors. The arrogance is titanic. Because what is being hidden is so explosive.

225,000 deaths a year at the hands of modern medicine. Two to four million maimings. 2.25 million deaths per decade. The Crown is responsible.

And yet it is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved.

No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press.

He has them.

But their monopoly is breaking down.

We’re at the beginning of a new breakout level of truth. It’s called independent media.

Stay tuned.

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.

Two huge vaccine scandals the press is ignoring

by Jon Rappoport

May 15, 2018

Some lies are so big, many people can’t accept the fact that they’re lies. Their minds are boggled. “No,” they say, “that couldn’t be.” But yes, that could be, and is.

Two giant vaccine scandals are in progress at the moment.

The mainstream press is mentioning them, here and there, but without any intent to raise alarms, dig in, investigate, and get down to the core of the problem.

So I’ll get to the core.

The first scandal revolves around the flu vaccine for the current year. The CDC and other “experts” have admitted the vaccine has a very low effectiveness rate.

Why is it a dud?

Because the vaccine is produced using chicken eggs, and in that medium, the flu virus—which is intentionally placed in the eggs—mutates. Therefore, it isn’t the same virus which is causing flu this year. Therefore, no protection against the flu.

FiercePharma reports: “Based on data from Australia, which already had its flu season, scientists warn that this season’s flu shot might be only 10% effective. And the reason for such a low level of protection might lie in the method by which the majority of flu vaccines are made: in eggs.”

Ten percent effectiveness. Now that’s ridiculous. And it’s assuming you accept the whole model of how vaccines work—that they actually do protect (safely) against disease, rather than, at best, repressing the visible symptoms of the disease.

Amidst their spotty coverage of this scandal, here is what the press is failing to mention: the problem with the flu vaccine isn’t just a 2017-2018 flaw.

It would be the same problem ever since chicken eggs have been used to manufacture the vaccine.

Are you ready?

Healthline.com: “The majority of flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, a method of vaccine development that’s been used for 70 years.”

Hello? Anyone home?

Seventy years. The same problem.

The same “low effectiveness” problem.

That’s a page-one story with a giant headline. That’s the lead item on the nightly news. That’s a pounding investigative series about the lunatic promotion of a massively ineffective—but universally promoted—vaccine going back decades and decades.

But it isn’t a giant headline. It isn’t an investigation. It’s a here-today-gone-tomorrow piece. That’s all.

The second scandal keeps unfolding in the Philippines, where drug giant Sanofi’s Dengvaxia, given to prevent Dengue Fever, is facing enormous pushback from government officials, who stopped the national vaccination campaign, after thousands of children already received the shot.

The issue? Safety.

FiercePharma: “The Philippines stopped vaccinations shortly after the company warned that Dengvaxia can cause more serious infections in those who previously hadn’t had exposure to the virus. The country also kicked off a probe and plans legal action, according to health secretary Francisco Duque.”

Did you get that? The company (Sanofi) itself warned that vaccine might not be safe.

FiercePharma: “…the [Philippine] Department of Health didn’t heed warnings from an advisory group of doctors and pharmacologists, who concluded early last year that the vaccine’s safety and efficacy were unproven.”

My, my.

But let’s dig even deeper. Sanofi saying is saying the vaccine might be dangerous for those who haven’t been exposed to the Dengue virus before getting the shot. What on Earth does that mean?

It means a child who had naturally come in contact with the virus would have developed his own antibodies to it. And later, those antibodies would protect him against the Dengue virus IN THE VACCINE. Otherwise, the virus in the vaccine could give him a case of Dengue or cause some other form of damage.

This is saying, “If a child is ALREADY immune to Dengue Fever, because his immune system has successfully dealt with the virus, then the vaccine won’t damage him.”

And THAT is saying, “If the child has naturally developed an immunity to Dengue, then the vaccine, WHICH HE DOESN’T NEED, won’t harm him.”

Of course, the press isn’t getting the picture. If any reporters are seeing the light, they’re keeping their mouths shut. The scandal is too big and too crazy.

Between the lines, a vaccine company is admitting their vaccine is only safe for children who don’t need it.

A tree just fell in the forest. Who heard it?

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

My interview with former CBS star reporter

My interview with former CBS star reporter

by Jon Rappoport

May 14, 2018

I’m reprinting an excerpt from an interview I did, several years ago, with former CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson.

It’s a reminder about the difference between fake and real news, and about who the major purveyors of fake news are.

It also reveals a familiar strategy major news outlets deploy, when they happen to publish a true story and then realize its explosive implications: they shut down all further investigation. They close the book.

Here is my piece in full:

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re aware that a film, Vaxxed, has been showing in theaters across America and overseas—and audiences are stunned by its revelations.

Vaxxed exposes a huge scandal at the CDC, where a long-time researcher, William Thompson, confessed (2014) that he and colleagues committed gross fraud in a study of the MMR vaccine.

Thompson admitted the evidence showed the vaccine led to a higher risk of autism in children—but that finding was intentionally buried, and the vaccine was given a free pass.

Of course, mainstream reporters have been mercilessly attacking Vaxxed, and a segment of the population finds it impossible to believe that the CDC would ever commit this kind of fraud.

So, as a mind-changer, let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness—while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

Understand that the CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers.

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?

Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it [after it was published on the CBS News website] and, in the end, no [CBS television news] broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

—end of interview excerpt—

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.

But it gets even worse.

Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response: “Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents — the CDC’s best guess is 22 million — came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.

So…the premise that the CDC would never lie about important matters like, oh, a vaccine increasing the risk of autism…you can lay that one to rest.

The CDC will lie about anything it wants to. It will boldly go where no person interested in real science will go.

It will completely ignore its mandate to care about human health, and it will get away with it.

And CBS will conveniently forget how it aided and abetted the CDC, by censoring real news, and instead opted for egregious and titanic fake 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.

Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

May 4, 2018

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.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But 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.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

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 who contradict official reality? 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 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.

A seasoned reporter, who obtains a leak from a trusted source, doesn’t ask pressing questions about exactly who the source is fronting for.

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. “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.

Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

Deep State? What about elite television news anchors?

The elite news anchor is the eunuch: “trusted everywhere”

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2018

It’s not only the content of news that is embraced, it’s the style, the manner of presentation—and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.

The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion—all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.

Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.

That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.

The elite anchors, from John Daly in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams (until he was exposed) and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.

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.

The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.

The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.

From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.

But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”

This is the great propaganda arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.

The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.

With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.

The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.

The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.

Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.

What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?

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 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.

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 really 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: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is—another contradiction, swallowed).

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 like a responsible charity.

The anchor poses the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?

The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.

The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.

At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.

It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.

These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.

By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.

In fact, it would fall to the Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).

Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.

If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope—the Program is working.

And the news is spread to the people…

But the true viruses are the anchors. They spread the illnesses.

Through their style. The style of the eunuch.

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.

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

Facebook censorship: the grotesque mainstream solution

by Jon Rappoport

April 11, 2018

The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

That was a mistake.

The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defense of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

Some lawyers and scholars are trying to “correct” Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media “more responsible” about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate “more fake news.” This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.

Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as “public square, town hall, news media”—but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want “reasonable” content, to protect “robust debate in a democracy.” This is pure baloney.

We’re also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We’re witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as “more than private companies,” but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it’s not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it’s controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece: “’You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,’ says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law. ‘And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time’.”

Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open: The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous “noise” on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way. They protect democracy.

To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of “adjusting and updating it.”

Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the “progressive culture” on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

“Free speech” is replaced by “better speech.”

“I don’t like what you say” is replaced by “you have no right to say it.”

The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship: “…giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: ‘The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community’.”

I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from “responsible journalism” so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

Yes, that must be it.

As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore—heaven forbid—was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.” (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Censor Jefferson! He’s contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He’s unsafe to the community. He’s a corrosive influence. He’s obstructing democracy. He’s a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn’t protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.

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 US government colludes in Mass Deaths by Opioids

Get the truth out and spread it

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

The major pipeline for trafficking opioid drugs starts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are intentionally distributing opioids far beyond any legitimate need.

2 MILLION OPIOID ADDICTS IN THE US.

300,000 DEATHS SINCE THE YEAR 2000 IN THE US.

A significant percentage of this human carnage results from illegal distribution of opioids.

Here is the open secret:

A 2016 LAW SIGNED BY OBAMA SHACKLED THE DEA (DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION) IN ITS EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON BIG PHARMA TRAFFICKERS.

That law is the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on 4/9/16.

And that is the federal government’s role in perpetuating and expanding the opioid crisis.

Honest agents inside the complacent DEA want to have the right to march into a pharmaceutical company headquarters and say, “We know you’re shipping millions of opioid pills to little pharmacies and clinics that, in turn, are selling the pills to street dealers. We’re going to freeze those shipments now, and we’re going to arrest key executives.”

But that 2016 law raises the bar so high on what the DEA can do, the whole law-enforcement effort is hamstrung, throttled, and loaded down with legal complications.

In essence, the US Congress gave drug companies a free pass.

And no one in the Congress is admitting it or talking about it.

The Washington Post, October 15, 2017, “The Drug Industry’s Triumph Over the DEA”: “In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription [opioid] narcotics onto the nation’s streets.”

“A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’…”

“The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled [opioid] narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress [to pass the 2016 law], pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.”

“For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.”

“The new [2016] law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool [freezing opioid shipments] had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.”

“Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.”

“Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither [the Department of] Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.”

BUT SINCE EVERYONE IS NOW AWARE OF THE LAW’S HORRENDOUS IMPACT, WHY DOESN’T THE CONGRESS REPEAL IT?

The fact that no one is stepping up to the plate with a fast repeal is proof that multiple parts of the federal government are, in fact, tacitly supporting the opioid crisis and its devastating impacts on human life.

“We didn’t know what we were voting on” is, at best, a temporary excuse, until the truth comes to light.

After that, failure to act swiftly amounts to collusion in Death by Opioids.

Former President Obama, the Congress, and officials within the Justice Department and the DEA are all guilty.

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.

Fake news and the programmed viewer

Fake news and the programmed viewer

by Jon Rappoport

April 5, 2018

Every television newscast: staged reality.

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

If you want to visualize this, 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.

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well—until recently.

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 well 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. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they aren’t. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

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 it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? 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: “That would be 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.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

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.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another 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.

There are various forms of mind control. The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind.

That’s quite a trick.

But now, on the national evening news, something has changed. The quality of the elite anchors has plummeted. These mind-control pros are less and less capable of delivering: the voice of authority.

In the old days, you had Water Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Chet Huntley, Tom Brokaw, and (before he crashed and burned) Dan Rather. Big-time fakers.

Eventually, this devolved into a B-team of bench players: Dianne Sawyer, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley. Less believable—but still fairly effective.

However, now, at the three major networks, it’s androids on parade. Two pretty boys, David Muir and Jeff Glor, and the NBC cadaver, Lester Holt.

The ship is sinking.

Instead of trying to label their competition Fake News, the networks should look to themselves and try to figure out why they can’t find father figures to deliver their no-context broadcasts.

The audience is wising up. The correct notes on the scale of mind control aren’t being struck.

The system is falling apart.

When I named this site No More Fake News 17 years ago, I could see a fatigue factor setting in—not only in the mainstream news audience, but in the networks themselves. They were playing out the string, hoping to coast on their prior reputations. They weren’t just putting their viewers to sleep (their covert goal), they were slowly falling asleep themselves.

In the following years, the situation grew worse. The networks were moving on auto-pilot.

And now, they’re reaching the end of the line. They’re focusing on the only story that can deliver them ratings: Trump.

They fear him, they hate him—and they love him, because he gives them the numbers that justify their advertising rates.

It’s always problematical when the only thing maintaining your survival is your enemy. Especially an enemy whose whole method of attack is to accuse you of subverting your basic mission.

Since the dawn of time on this planet, news has been controlled, for good reason. The people who own the news are able to paint an overall surface of reality for the masses. Which has been their intent.

In a last-ditch attempt to save themselves now, the major networks are enlisting the help of big social media, in order to censor independent media. But even here, there is a problem. Millions and millions of people know where independent news sites are. They don’t have to go through Facebook and Twitter and You Tube (or Google) to find them.

Efforts at censorship strengthen the rebellion against major news outlets.

There are signs that social media are reaching the point of exhaustion. Their users are becoming fed up with the debilitating effects of playing the game. Accumulating followers and likes hasn’t turned out to be the key to happiness.

If these behemoths fall, what is left?

Two options: stay asleep and keep crawling over the fake surface mainstream news creates;

Or wake up.

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.

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

Firefight breaks out over gene-editing dangers

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2018

We have claims that a recent study highlighting gene-editing dangers was sloppily done, incompetent, and wrong.

Lovers of the revolutionary gene-editing tool, CRISPR, are crowing over a “victory,” but as usual the verdict is far from in.

The other day, I highlighted a 2017 study and quoted from a phys.org article, as follows:

“…a new study published in Nature Methods has found that the gene-editing technology can introduce hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome.”

“The researchers determined that CRISPR had successfully corrected a gene that causes blindness, but Kellie Schaefer, a PhD student in the lab of Vinit Mahajan, MD, PhD, associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University, and co-author of the study, found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients [mice] HAD SUSTAINED MORE THAN 1500 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE MUTATIONS AND MORE THAN 100 LARGER [GENE] DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by computer algorithms that are widely used by researchers to look for off-target effects.” (Emphasis is mine.)

Now, just in yesterday (March 29, 2018), Gizmodo reports: “Now, the authors [of that study] have published a preprint paper with some very different results: In a new mouse experiment, the authors did not find an excess of unintended genetic mutations, as they had in their initial work.”

“[The authors of the study state]: ‘Our previous publication suggested CRISPR-Cas9 editing at the zygotic stage might unexpectedly introduce a multitude of subtle but unintended mutations, an interpretation that not surprisingly raised numerous questions’…[But now we say] These whole-genome-sequencing-level results support the idea that in specific cases, CRISPR-Cas9 editing can precisely edit the genome at the organismal level and may not introduce numerous, unintended, off-target mutations’.”

Sounds like a partial, carefully worded mea culpa. On the other hand, perhaps the authors were leaned on and told to retract their work.

The point is, this conflict over CRISPR gene-editing is not going away. In my previous article on the subject, I also pointed out a quote from technologynetworks.com (“CRISPR: Emerging applications for genome editing technology”):

“CRISPR-Cas9 systems, tools and basic methodology are very accessible as ready to go toolkits that anyone with lab space and an idea can pick up and start working with…In response to a growing need, companies such as Desktop Genetics have developed open access software to accelerate CRISPR experimentation and analysis.”

That’s good to know. “Anyone with lab space and an idea” can jump on board and have at it.

Yes, indeed. Scientists of various calibers with various motives—to say nothing of groups determined to wreak biological havoc—have access to the gene-editing tech—and if you think this is a good idea, you should think again.

Then we have a cautionary statement from one of the key researchers who helped discover CRISPR, Jennifer Doudna:

“I guess I worry about a couple of things. I think there’s sort of the potential for unintended consequences of gene editing in people for clinical use. How would you ever do the kinds of experiments that you might want to do to ensure safety? And then there’s another application of gene editing called gene drive that involves moving a genetic trait very quickly through a population. And there’s been discussion about this in the media around the use of gene drives in insects like mosquitoes to control the spread of disease. On one hand, that sounds like a desirable thing, and on the other hand, I think one, again, has to think about potential for unintended consequences of releasing a system like that into an environmental setting where you can’t predict what might happen.”

Lovers of CRISPR want to believe the controversy is all over. They’re so, so wrong.

There’s more. The study which has provoked a firestorm is not the only one which reports “unintended consequences” from the use of CRISPR. Here is another one, published in Nature Communications on May 31, 2017, titled, “CRISPR/Cas9 targeting events cause complex deletions and insertions at 17 sites in the mouse genome.” As the title indicates, researchers found genetic “deletions and insertions” in the genome of mice as a result of CRISPR.

And how about this study? It was published in Genome Biology on June 14, 2017, and is titled, “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing induces exon skipping by alternative splicing or exon deletion.” An exon is “a segment of a DNA or RNA molecule containing information coding for a protein or peptide sequence.” So you can see that exon skipping or deletion might not be a good idea.

But perhaps corporations involved in monetizing CRISPR would like to see these studies retracted, as well as the study I described at the beginning of this article.

Let’s apply a NEWS version of CRISPR and delete all negative reporting on gene-editing. Then we can learn to accept what we’re told by the mainstream and poof, there will be no unintended consequences.

Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so? However, after 35 years of working as a reporter, I can tell you that editing out dissent has a way of coming around to bite the Ministry of Truth.

Quite painfully.

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.