Category Archives: Press Fraud

Network: the last great film about The News

by Jon Rappoport

January 27, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

The film proceeds from these premises.

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

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

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

Diana becomes the network’s new executive star.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of, the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen.

A basic premise of New Age thinking is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching film or video flow.

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

A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image.

Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has imparted that sensation to them.

Therefore: a short circuit occurs in the reasoning mind.

When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is gained.

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

“Really? How did they show that?”

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

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

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

Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual analysis. And lines of reasoning? To the extent they exist, they’re wrapped around and inside the image and the narration.

Paddy Chayefsky made his pen a sword, because he was writing a movie about television, against television. He was pitting Word against Image as the primary form of knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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 the FDA should be charged with murder

by Jon Rappoport

January 25, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

If you worked for a federal agency that was killing people at the rate of 100,000 a year, every year, like clockwork, and if you knew it, wouldn’t you feel compelled to say or do something about it?

At the FDA, which is, in fact, killing Americans at that rate, no one has ever felt the need to step forward and speak up.

Let’s shift the venue and ask the same question. If you were a medical reporter for a major media outlet in the US, and you knew the above fact, wouldn’t you make it a priority to say something, write something, do something?

I’m talking about people like Sanjay Gupta (CNN, CBS), Gina Kolata (NY Times), Tim Johnson (ABC News), and Thomas Maugh II (LA Times).

And with that, let’s go to the smoking guns. The citation is: BMJ June 7, 2012, Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis, (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.

Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the report] 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.”

And here is the final dagger. 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.

And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year. Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.

Since the Department of Homeland Security is working its way into every nook and corner of American life, hyper-extending its mandate to protect all of us from everything, why shouldn’t the DHS investigate the FDA as a terrorist organization?

How many smoking guns do we need before a sitting president shuts down the FDA buildings, fumigates the place, and prosecutes very large numbers of FDA employees?

Do we need 100,000 smoking guns every year? Do we need relatives of the people who’ve all died in the span of merely a year, from the poisonous effects of FDA-approved medical drugs, to bring their corpses to the doors of FDA headquarters?

And let me ask another question. If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the 100,000 deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be lining up and hovering outside every health-food store and nutritional supplement manufacturer in America.

All those fake stories in the press, reported dutifully by so-called medical reporters? The stories about maybe-could-be-possible-miracle breakthroughs just over the horizon of state-of-the-art medical research? Those stories are there to obscure the very, very hard facts of medically-caused death on the ground.

The buck stops at the FDA.

Except in the real world, it doesn’t. Which tells you something about the so-called real world and how much of it is composed of propaganda.

No medical drug in the US can be released for public use unless and until the FDA says it is safe and effective. That’s the rule. The FDA is spitting out drug approvals month after month and year after year, and the drugs are routinely killing 100,000 people a year and maiming two million more, which adds up to a million deaths per decade and 20 million maimings per decade. The FDA and the federal government are doing nothing about it, even though they know what’s going on. This is mass murder. Not accidental death. Murder. A holocaust.

Do you want another citation?

Here are a few horrific quotes. I’ll discuss the source afterwards:

“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.”

“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.”

“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”

In other words, the 330,000 deaths per year, the 6.6 million hospitalizations per year, and the 80 million “medically minor” problems per year…all of this stems from CORRECTLY PRESCRIBED medicines.

The quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.

Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He 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 and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

It’s been my policy to quote medical analysts who have mainstream credentials, when it comes to adding up the results of medical-drug destruction.

I do this to show that, in refusing to fix the holocaust, the federal government, medical schools, and pharmaceutical companies can’t claim their critics and detractors are “fringe researchers.”

Believe me, the officials who should have been fixing the enormous tragedy for at least the past 15 years are intent on hiding it.

When you stop and think about the meaning of these medical numbers, one of the things you realize is: this massive destruction of life envelops whole countries.

It not only maims and kills, it brings emotional turmoil and loss to the families, friends, co-workers, and colleagues of those who are killed and maimed: the 330,000 who are killed and the 6.6 million who are hospitalized and the 80 million whose productivity is hobbled or whose ability to care for others is significantly diminished.

If you consciously set out to bring a nation to its knees;

to kill it;

to make it unable to function at any reasonable level;

you would be hard pressed to find a more effective long-term method than exposing the population to the US/European medical-drug cartel.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

The rise and fall of television news: no more father figures

The rise and fall of television news: no more father figures

by Jon Rappoport

January 24, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News for and by a fictional collective.

Disney news.

A caricature of a simulacrum of an imitation.

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

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

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

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

The networks are losing it.

It’s a sight to behold.

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

Meanwhile, independent online news comes on like a storm.

Turns out it fills a need that has been there since the beginning of television.

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but between those two extremes, there are millions and millions of people who recognize the so-called real news has been fake for a long time.

They’ve left that bubble.

The artfulness of network news has disintegrated and failed.

Pop goes the weasel.

Major media long ago built their wall. The wall protects everyone from bloated corrupt government institutions, mega-corporate partners of government, and major banks, to street thugs. Now, as these media fail to magnetize minds as in days of yore, the wall is crumbing. Therefore, what is behind it is being exposed.

More importantly, people are coming to see their thoughts and constructions of reality are imports, not their own. The tonnage of pictures fed to them, along with voiceover, were forgeries.

WHAT IS, was the business of the news. That business has lost its traction.

To some, this amounts to bubbling confusion. To others, it is a fresh clean breeze blowing through an empty house, which imagination can remake in more bracing forms.

The future is open, unscripted.

A new day, if we recognize 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.

The rise and fall of CNN: the most busted name in news

by Jon Rappoport

January 20, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

“CNN is still licking their wounds after a rather disastrous couple of weeks, where a shoddy Russia-Trump story led to three staffers resigning, a Project Veritas investigation exposed that the network’s producers peddled the Russia story for ratings, and what came off as a wholly inappropriate veiled threat against an anonymous Reddit user who created a Trump WWE video, which the president tweeted before the Fourth of July Holiday. The video shows Trump beating up WWE’s Vince McMahon, whose face has been superimposed with the CNN logo. The media went apoplectic as an attack against the press; it wasn’t. This spurred the network’s reporters to find the user and pretty much threaten to dox him if he continues to post things CNN doesn’t like.” (Townhall, Matt Vespa, 7/7/17)

If you create a giant, you gain extraordinary visibility, and if the giant develops an unsightly and grotesque case of fungal disease, that’s a problem.

CNN was born in 1980. At the time, it was the first television network offering 24/7 news, and it was the first network offering nothing but news in the US.

In 1991, CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War reached a billion viewers worldwide.

Today, CNN International reaches 200 countries.

That’s a giant.

But from the beginning, back in 1980, there was a major question: how was CNN going to fill up all that time every day with news? Face it, television networks, without bells and whistles, could boil down their coverage of a day’s events in four minutes. That’s because their analysis is so thin. It’s all surface.

When you assiduously avoid looking into WHO REALLY RUNS THINGS, the well runs dry quickly. When you avoid detailing the role of mega-banks and mega-corporations and groups like the Trilateral Commission and CFR and Bilderberg, and when you never define Globalism and reveal its true agenda; when you discover nothing of value about the CIA; when you never broach the subject of American Empire; when you refuse to examine the horrendous effects of the medical system; when you fail to expose the ongoing collaboration between establishment Democrats and Republicans, and the influence of lobbyists (e.g., Israeli fronts); when you intentionally remain blind to the destruction of the American Republic and the Constitution; when you ultimately side with National Security and the Surveillance State; when you manage to sidestep actual ongoing environmental pollution flowing poisonously from a number of sources; when you refuse to reveal the full effects of open borders; when you never connect the dots and instead rely on limited hangouts;

What are you left with? What do you do, for 24 hours of every single day?

Mainly, you wait for “big events,” and then you launch wall to wall coverage for as long as your viewers can stand it. The Gulf War; the first black president; the worst president and the worst human being in history (Trump).

You develop bloated panel shows, during which pundits babble across each other like meth addicts in a rubber room.

You call “the news” The Situation Room, as if you’re breaking vital stories every 30 seconds.

You plow the same ground over and over, until not even weeds can grow in the soil.

You fill your basket with the eggs of the “progressive agenda.” You go all in.

You fake stories.

You do a bizarre version of affirmative action with your on-air talent, as if this will result in “fairer” coverage.

And day by day, the public realizes you’re crazy.

You can’t hide, because you aren’t just laying on three fake newscasts a day; you’re ON all the time.

You’re hoping against hope for a new terror attack or a natural disaster, so you can flood the airwaves with live reports, but in the meantime, you’ll stick with 24/7 Trump, because he’s “the most interesting man in the world.” He’s creating your ratings, such as they are. You’re the tabloid at the checkout counter in the supermarket, and he’s always on the cover. You love him. You need him. It doesn’t matter whether he’s done what you say he’s done. That’s never been the issue. Without his presence, you’d be raking leaves outside a nursing home. You’re the self-appointed Pope, and he’s Satan, and that means dollars.

As a bonus, you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, on behalf of Globalism and the “interdependent world.” The risk of Trump speaking words of Nationalism against Globalism (whether or not he meant them) is too great to go unchallenged. The international system (aka technocracy) that has been under construction since the dawn of the 20th century must not be derailed.

So whether it’s the way Trump sips water from a bottle, or scratches his nose, or treats one of your so-called reporters, you’re the National Enquirer blowing it up into a scandal of the moment. You’re leaking leaks from pipes that don’t even exist. Maybe he has a love child; look into that. Maybe he has another wife he never divorced. Maybe he’s an alien from Venus.

Keep those ad revenues flowing, no matter what. Face it, you’ve got nothing else going for you. Connect Trump to the latest news from Tibet if you have to. Or Madagascar. Or Tierra del Fuego. He caused the cold snap across America, because he didn’t sign the Paris Climate Accords.

You’re CNN, “the most trusted name in news.”

Ride that horse all the way to the end of the road.

If you end up shithole broke, somebody will bail you out. Warts and all, you’re too big to fail. Not just because of your work against Trump, but because The News, as the public knows it, must survive.

Otherwise, the people will find out what’s really going on in this world and who runs things. And that must never happen.

That’s the prime situation in The Situation Room.

Who could have guessed, say, 15 years ago, that the following exchange would occur on CNN, in March of 2014?

As reported by New York Magazine, CNN host Don Lemon, discussing the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, said: “People are saying to me, why aren’t you talking about the possibility — and I’m just putting it out there — that something odd happened to this plane, something beyond our understanding? What if it was something fully that we don’t really understand? A lot of people have been asking about that, about black holes and on, and on, and on, and all of these conspiracy theories…That’s what people are saying. I know it’s preposterous — but is it preposterous, you think, Mary?”

To which, Mary Schiavo, ex-Department of Transportation inspector general, replied: “Well, it is. A small black hole would suck in our entire universe so we know it’s not that.”

Maybe it WAS a black hole, and we all disappeared, and resurfaced in an alternate universe, where we got the CNN we know today.

Let’s look at Jeff Zucker, CNN’s boss.

In April 2017, Zucker baldly told the New York Times, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.” The “it” was certainly the 2016 presidential campaign.

Zucker always has understood political news in this corrupt fashion—and in the process, he helped elect a US president and a California governor.

Zucker was the man who launched The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, at NBC, in 2004.

In other words, Zucker happened to play a major role in electing Donald Trump. There is no getting around it.

Washington Post, October 2, 2016: “Looking for someone specific to hold responsible for the improbable rise of Donald Trump?”

“Although there are many options, you could do worse than to take a hard look at Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide.”

“It was Zucker, after all, who as the new head of NBC Entertainment gave Trump his start in reality TV with ‘The Apprentice’ and then milked the real estate developer’s uncanny knack for success for all it was worth in ratings and profits.”

“And it succeeded wildly — boosting the network’s ratings, as well as Zucker’s [and Trump’s] meteoric career. In turn, under Zucker, the show gave rise to ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ another Trump extravaganza. And, in turn, Zucker became the head of NBC overall.”

“The show [The Apprentice] was built as a virtually nonstop advertisement for the Trump empire and lifestyle…”

“The executive [Jeff Zucker] rode the Trump steed hard. When the reality-TV star was preparing to marry Melania Knauss in 2005, Zucker wanted to broadcast the wedding live. (Trump, uncharacteristically, declined.)”

“But make no mistake: There would be no Trump-the-politician without Trump-the-TV-star. One begot the other.”

POLITICS IS TELEVISION, AND TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

If you’re looking for a person who embodies that fake version of reality most purely, you need look no further than Jeff Zucker.

Despite his network’s present hatred of Trump, Zucker would give Trump his own show right now if he wanted one.

For ratings and ad revenues.

Consider another event, one which I’ve analyzed in great detail. It took place on NBC in 2003, when Zucker was the head of the network’s entertainment division. The Tonight Show, with Jeno Leno, was a prime piece of that division then. What Leno pulled off in 2003 had to have the OK from Zucker, because it was a highly unusual move, a distinctly unethical move.

An actor wanted to launch a political career and become a governor. The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.

This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.

The Arnold interview was a global event. It was pre-hyped to the sky, and after three red hot six-minute segments, with a studio audience screaming in approval, the election was virtually over.

POLITICS IS TELEVISION. TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

Here are a few of CNN’s “black-hole” gaffes, just refresh your memory—

Because Trump was attacking CNN and other media as fake, CNN claimed THAT was making life more physically dangerous for journalists in war zones and at home. Wow. I guess the takeaway is: don’t criticize mainstream news, keep your mouth shut and stay hypnotized…

Independent journalist, James O’Keefe, released two undercover sting videos which revealed CNN medical producer, John Bonifield, remarking that the whole Trump-Russia scandal is “mostly bullshit right now, like, we don’t have any giant proof”; and Van Jones, CNN political commentator, stating that “the Russia thing is just a big nothing burger.” Of course, CNN relentlessly pursues the Trump-Russia story as if God and a choir of angels have certified it as the truest, most important event of our time.

June 2017: CNN dumped Reza Aslan, the host of their network documentary series called Believer. Why? Because Aslan tweeted, “This piece of shit [Donald Trump] is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

October 2016: CNN contributor Donna Brazile was dumped, because she passed along questions that would be asked in an upcoming presidential debate, sponsored by CNN. Brazile passed those questions to the Hillary Clinton camp.

CNN reporter-dunce Chris Cuomo, during the 2016 election campaign, preposterously told the viewing audience that accessing Wikileaks’ treasure trove of John Podesta emails was a crime—for any member of the public. Only “the media” were permitted to perform that delicate operation and then decide what to report. Put a picture of Cuomo on your wall and pray to it every night.

On June 13, 2015, CNN host Fredricka Whitfield talked about the attack on the Dallas police headquarters. She said the shooter, James Boulware, was “courageous and brave, if not crazy.” Who’s crazy, Fredricka?

The 2016 Milwaukee riots. CNN aired a woman named Sherelle Smith telling the rioters, “Don’t bring that violence here.” She was calling for peace. Well, not exactly. The network failed to broadcast the rest of Smith’s advice: “Burning down shit ain’t going to help nobody! Y’all burning down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs! Burn that shit down!”

CNN: the most trusted name in 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.

Massive flu outbreak? Here’s the real story the media won’t touch.

The lies, the hoax, the scandal.

I covered part of the scandal the other day, but here I’ll give you much more.

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

In case you haven’t been following the uproar over the flu outbreak, you’ve missed the fact that…

Health authorities admit this year’s flu vaccine is only 10% effective.

But of course, they urge you to take the vaccine anyway.

Why is this year’s vaccine ineffective? Because it’s made using chicken eggs, and researchers have discovered that the flu virus—which is placed in the vaccine—mutates in chicken eggs.

Therefore, by the time a person takes the flu shot, he’s not being protected against this year’s seasonal flu virus. He’s being protected against a mutated virus that isn’t causing the flu this year.

This is the conventional explanation. If you think it’s the whole story, I have condos for sale on the moon.

You see, vaccines have been made using chicken eggs—not just this year—but for the past 70 years.

Oops.

That would mean the flu vaccine has been ineffective for decades.

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

But wait. There’s more. Much more. I’ll break it down into several scandals.

SCANDAL ONE: (I covered this the other day): Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

The basic flu symptoms—cough, fever, chills, sore throat, muscle aches, weakness—can be caused by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with a flu virus.

SCANDAL TWO: In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published another shocking Peter Doshi report, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the old parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we used to say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, all we can prove is about 20 deaths. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

SCANDAL THREE: The so-called Swine Flu pandemic of 2009. This one is a real eye-opener. The CDC was caught with its pants down.

Swine Flu 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 a very dirty secret.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on the 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 2014 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—

I’ll add a few details. 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 now…when health officials begin waving red flags and raising alarms about a current viral flu outbreak, it would be more than reasonable to demand they answer questions about their past lies and deceptions.

Unless you just want to take them at their word.

If so, good luck.

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.

Medical research using animals—a scandal exposed

Medical research using animals—a scandal exposed

A TB vaccine-booster ineffective…and the vaccine raises the risk of getting TB

by Jon Rappoport

January 15, 2018

—Don’t expect major media to cover this story with any fervor. Don’t expect mainstream reporters to dig down below the surface of the story. If they did, a huge pillar of the medical cartel would crack and collapse—

In the 1990s, I met several researchers who opened my eyes to the fallacies involved in animal research.

This wasn’t only about the intense cruelty against lab animals. It was about fake science. It was about wrongly assuming studies on animals could be translated to humans.

Now, the edges of a scandal are coming to light.

From medpagetoday.com: “An investigative report, published late Wednesday in The BMJ, raises new concerns about the overall quality of animal research and the misrepresentation of findings from animal studies.”

“The investigation focused on animal studies which led to the 2009 phase IIB clinical trial of the tuberculosis vaccine booster MVA85A.”

“Nearly 2,800 infants in South Africa got the booster, which failed to increase the effectiveness of the conventional anti-TB Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine.”

“Tuberculosis experts told The BMJ’s Deborah Cohen that the researchers who conducted the infant trial, from Oxford University, cherry-picked results from their MVA85A animal studies to gain approvals and funding, and downplayed negative results from a small trial in rhesus macaque monkeys which suggested that the booster actually reduced the effectiveness of the BCG vaccine.”

“A 2015 independent systematic review of eight MVA85A animal studies published from 2003 to 2010 concluded that the data did not provide evidence to support MVA85A’s efficacy as a BCG booster.”

“Paul Garner of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who was a co-author of the systematic review, told Cohen that the macaque study gave a strong signal that the MVA85A vaccine was hastening development of TB in the animals.”

Here’s the capper: “In an editorial published with the BMJ report, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, The Netherlands, noted that the translational success rate from animal to human studies has been shown to be low, with the non-reproducibility of preclinical studies ranging from 51% to 89% in one review.”

Animal studies don’t translate to the same results in humans, 51% to 89% of the time.

Of course, conventional researchers attribute this massive failure to “poor design” of animal studies, rather than the obvious differences between animals and humans.

Admitting the latter reason would send a missile into the multi-billion-dollar research industry.

Here is another review, from the medical journal Nature (2013): “A statistical analysis of more than 4,000 data sets from animal studies of neurological diseases has found that almost 40% of studies reported statistically significant results — nearly twice as many as would be expected on the basis of the number of animal subjects. The results suggest that the published work — some of which was used to justify human clinical trials — is biased towards reporting positive results.”

“This bias could partly explain why a therapy that does well in preclinical [animal] studies so rarely predicts success in human patients, says John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology at Stanford University in California…’The results are too good to be true,’ he says.”

Keep in mind that every new drug a pharmaceutical company hopes to market is first tested on animals. If it fails there, the research dead ends. So every effort is made to achieve success with animals.

Two consequences follow: animal studies are faked; and the general lack of transferability of animal research to humans is ignored.

Research on animals isn’t limited to drugs and vaccines. It also includes attempts to discover causes of disease. For example, at the US National Institutes of Health, several decades ago, a major project was launched to prove that a class of viruses called retroviruses caused cancer. It was an abject failure. In the (grotesque) process, lab animals were first tuned up by injecting them with a variety of toxic chemicals and germs from other species, in order to weaken their immune systems—thus making them more vulnerable to injections of retroviruses. And even then, researchers had to skew the results to show a vague possible connection to cancer; a connection that, under rigorous observation, didn’t exist at all.

The medical cartel at work.

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.

Sex criminals revealed on a large scale

Sex criminals revealed on a large scale

But the press will only go so far. Then the curtain drops.

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2018

We are seeing some exposure of sexual predators. But there are very large cases already out in the open.

And the press carries out its prime directive: cover the issue BUT don’t follow up, don’t reveal the stunning implications.

Here are just three examples of many—

LA Times, 10/27/11: “The addresses for more than 1,000 state-licensed care facilities for vulnerable people in California matched addresses on the state sex offender registry, according to a newly released audit.”

What?? How were 1000 registered sex offenders allowed to attach themselves to care facilities, or even worse, organize the facilities? And are we supposed to believe these 1000 occurrences were independent of each other? Or were they the result of an overall plan? No press follow-up.

“State Auditor Elaine M. Howle said the California Department of Social Services failed to check the sex offender registry even after her office advised it to do so in 2008.”

“The facilities matching the registry of sex offenders included foster homes, group homes and day-care facilities for children, as well as facilities for adults with special needs and the elderly.”

“Investigations are now complete and the state said eight licenses have been revoked or suspended and regulators issued 31 orders barring individuals from licensed facilities.”

What?? A thousand registered sex offenders are connected to care-facilities, but only 39 actions have been taken? Again, no press follow-up.

CBS News, May 5, 2014: “The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has defrocked 848 priests who raped or molested children and sanctioned another 2,572 with lesser penalties, providing the first ever breakdown of how it handled the more than 3,400 cases of abuse reported to the Holy See since 2004.”

“The Vatican’s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, released the figures during a second day of grilling by a U.N. committee monitoring implementation of the U.N. treaty against torture.”

“Only in 2010 did the Vatican explicitly tell bishops and superiors to also report credible cases to police where local reporting laws require them to.”

What?? “Where reporting laws REQUIRE THEM to”? In other words, as far as the Vatican is concerned, if there is no explicit law, HIDE THE CRIMES. This in itself is not a major press story? Where is the deep follow-up?

“The figures, however, only cover cases handled directly by the Holy See, not those handled by local diocesan tribunals, meaning the total number of sanctioned priests is likely far higher.”

“The latest spike began in 2010, when 464 cases were reported, more than twice the amount in 2009. Starting in that same year, the Vatican began resorting more and more to the lesser penalty of sentencing accused priests to a lifetime of penance and prayer rather than defrocking them. The Vatican often metes out such sentences for elderly or infirm priests, since defrocking them would essentially render them destitute in their final years.”

What?? As more cases were reported, the Vatican took LIGHTER ACTIONS against the sex-criminal priests. That’s another major press investigation that never happened.

France 24, Dec. 15, 2017: “The [Australian] government ordered the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2012 after a decade of pressure to investigate widespread allegations across the country.”

“The commission was contacted by more than 15,000 survivors who detailed claims of child abuse involving churches, orphanages, sporting clubs, youth groups and schools, often dating back decades.”

“It heard horrific stories during often confronting and emotionally exhausting public and private hearings.”

“In total, more than 4,000 institutions were accused of abuse, with many of them Catholic-managed facilities.”

“’Tens of thousands of children have been sexually abused in many Australian institutions. We will never know the true number,’ the final report said, making hundreds of recommendations to improve children’s safety and make it harder for paedophiles to operate unpunished.”

“’Whatever the number, it is a national tragedy, perpetrated over generations within many of our most trusted institutions’.”

“During its hearings, the commission heard that seven percent of Catholic priests were accused of abuse in Australia between 1950 and 2010, but the allegations were never investigated, with children ignored and even punished when they came forward.”

“There were more than 1,800 alleged perpetrators, with the average age of the victims at the time 10 for girls and 11 for boys. The St John of God Brothers religious order was the worst, with just over 40 percent of members accused.”

“The inquiry embroiled Australia’s most senior Catholic cleric George Pell, now the Vatican’s finance chief, who was questioned over his dealings with paedophile priests in Victoria state in the 1970s.”

“Pell is currently accused of multiple historical sexual offences, with a committal hearing in March due to decide if there is enough evidence from the prosecution for the case against him to go to trial.”

Priests would certainly share victims—which means pedophile networks. This is not being explored by the press, and I see no evidence that law-enforcement is pursuing the obvious implication, either. Exposing the truth would indict the Vatican in far more than a series of scandals:

Instead—a centuries-old organized sex-crime operation that protects its members and uses a religious cover story to hide itself.

In the three cases I cite in this article, the press has failed to follow up in several huge ways. Realize that editors and publishers have actually hamstrung their reporters—“don’t go further.” This is no accident. The crimes below the crimes must not see the light of day.

This straitjacket is applied to reporters on an ongoing basis.

The press outlets—despite their denials—have the time, money, and resources to do deep investigations. (Such probes would actually pay off in larger audiences and increased ad rates.)

The reason to curtail investigations is political.

Major media owners and major crime figures share memberships in the same “clubs.” When their interests collide, the media will only go so far.

Then STOP signs appear.

This blocking strategy, deployed for decades, has a deleterious effect on the public. Readers and viewers think, during hundreds of news reports, “Why didn’t that reporter ask the next obvious question?” But eventually, the consumer of mainstream news decides, “It must be me. I’m the one who doesn’t understand. Those reporters aren’t pursuing leads for good reasons, whatever those reasons are.”

So the IQ of the public keeps dropping.

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.

A UFO encounter for the ages (don’t worry, nothing happened, go back to sleep)

by Jon Rappoport

January 3, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(UFO archive, here)

In my work as a reporter over the past 35 years, I’ve studied how major media cover stories. One of their consistent blunders:

Failure to follow up.

But it isn’t really a blunder.

There is a boundary, and reporters aren’t allowed to cross it.

Therefore, it looks like these reporters are inherently stupid. They don’t ask the right questions. They back away from a story just when it becomes vital.

Well, many of them are stupid—but it’s often a trained response. Over time, they learn to act as if they’re clueless; and then, after years, they are.

What is this boundary? It’s the line beyond which “important people” would be damaged and exposed, if the reporter followed his instincts and pressed forward.

Important people, important institutions are like giants standing on slippery mud. Give them a push, and they fall. Start digging around in the mud, and they fall.

Official reality falls.

The underlying dictum of the press is: Official reality must never fall.

Here is a stunning example of a day when it did—a UFO encounter for the ages.

On March 18, 2001, Jeff Rense (rense.com) published an article by Frank Altomonte, headlined: “SIX ‘SAUCER-SHAPED’ UFOS AND FACE-TO-FACE ET CONTACT IN LA IN 1957.”

Altomonte dug up a November 6, 1957, article from the LA Times. Not just any article. Page one, under a huge black banner headline at the top of the page: MYSTERY AIR OBJECTS SEEN IN SKY OVER LA.

Read these 1957 quotes, and remember, this is the LA Times, the most important newspaper in Los Angeles, and one of the leading papers in the US—during a time when print journalism was still the main source of information for the public.

“They (USAF personnel) spotted six ‘saucer shaped flying objects’ at an altitude of about 7000 feet at the base of a cloud bank about 3:50 p.m.”

“Those unidentified flying objects first reported over Texas and Gulf of Mexico arrived over Southern California yesterday.”

“Personnel at Los Alamitos Naval Air Station reported unidentified objects in sight almost continuously between 6:05 and 7:25 p.m.”

“Lt. Richard Spencer, a flying officer, saw the object from the ground. ‘It was not a star and it was not an airplane’, he said. He admitted, however, that it appeared to be ‘starlike,’ and added that it glowed in varying colors, changing from bright to dim and back again.”

“Airport Tower Operator Louis D. Mitchell and a sentry on duty, Hospitalman Charles Kreiger, also observed the object. Almost all observers were agreed that the object moved slowly — almost imperceptibly, across the sky. Most were agreed that the direction of travel was north or northwest.”

“Lending credence to the reports was the fact that…Air Force weather observers, including the commanding officer of the unit, acknowledged sighting unidentified phenomena over Long Beach Municipal Airport.”

“They spotted six ‘saucer shaped flying objects’ at an altitude of about 7000 feet at the base of a cloud bank about 3:50 p.m.”

“Maj. Louis F. Baker, commanding officer of the weather observation post, who sighted the objects with his assistants Airmen Joseph Abramavage and William Nieland said: ‘They were circular and shiny like spun aluminum changing course instantaneously without loss of speed like planes in a dogfight,’ Maj. Baker said. He said the objects were larger than a twin engine C-46 aircraft and were in sight for about a minute and a half.”

“The objects also were observed by 10 military personnel waiting to board an airplane at the airport, the spotters reported. Maj. Baker said he rejected the theory that the objects were sheet ice in a cumulonimbus cloud because of their regular circular shape.”

“An electronics executive, Merlin G. Perkins, 1102 N. Wright St., Santa Ana, said he observed an object though binoculars for almost a half hour as it moved slowly overhead finally fading away into the reflected light above the Santa Ana business district. It appeared to be round and it winked slowly from dim to bright, with a reddish glow, Perkins said.”

The November 6, 1957, LA Times also ran a short piece from the Associated Press, dated a day earlier. AP is, of course, one of the two or three largest news wire services in the world.

“New Orleans, Nov 5 (AP) — The Coast Guard cutter Sebago sighted an unidentified flying object over the Gulf of Mexico at 5:21 a.m. today. The object, seen for about three seconds, resembled a brilliant planet moving at tremendous speed.”

There is much more to Altomonte’s article, but you’re getting the picture.

As far as the LA Times was concerned, back in 1957, what happened next? What did they do?

Nothing.

No follow-up.

One of the most significant events in modern times occurs over the skies of Los Angeles, with multiple professional observers (and private citizens also quoted), so you would assume an EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION would be launched.

“OK, boys, this is when you earn your paychecks. You’re supposed to be relentless reporters. I’m your boss, and this is when I earn my paycheck, too. I’m setting you loose. I don’t care how long it takes. Find out what the hell this is. Break down doors. Go up against the Pentagon and the CIA. The Times will back you up. Is it people from another planet? Is it our own secret craft, with onboard technology no one has ever heard of? Is it Nazis, Russians? We’re going to chase this until the cows come home. And by cows, I mean you. Come home with the true story. We’re not going to let go. You’ll never cover another story like this in your lives…”

But no.

That didn’t happen.

The massive follow-up that should have launched from the Times, like rockets, was squelched.

Looking at the LA Times archives, for the day AFTER the boggling UFO story, I find two major headlines. The first is above the masthead: “Halimi beats Macias for Title.” The second: “Rocket Artillery Unveiled by Russ[ians].”

Here today, gone tomorrow.

Ten years later, many people in Los Angeles would barely remember the UFO encounter. Well, the LA Times hadn’t kept the story alive.

“Say Bob, do you recall that thing where a whole lot of UFOs flew over the city? Did it really happen? Maybe I just had a dream about it. Strange…”

And thus, official reality is preserved.

A hole ISN’T punched in the literal and figurative sky. Instead, citizens go about their business and their lives.

“Hi, I’m an amnesiac.”

“Me too.”

Collective reality is often maintained through omission. A shocking event occurs, an event which, if pursued and investigated, would change the course of history. The press is forced to cover the event…which then sinks below the waves. By design.

If you assembled, say, a hundred such shocking occurrences end to end, and you watched them bob in the water and then disappear from view, the residue—what is left over—would be official reality.

The event I cite most often in these pages occurred on July 26, 2000. That was the day the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, published a review by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The review was titled: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Dr. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. In a follow-up interview I did with her, she said this was a conservative estimate.

Extrapolate: Every decade, the US medical system (through FDA approved, correctly prescribed medicines, and mistreatment in hospitals) kills 2.25 MILLION Americans. Let that sink in.

When Dr. Starfield’s review was published in the year 2000, a flurry of mainstream press articles appeared. Then: nothing.

No follow-up. No investigation. No relentless probing by the mainstream press. The story died.

As if it never happened. The “it” being Dr. Starfield’s report and the fact of 2.25 million medically caused deaths per decade.

Gone.

Archived in a never-never undersea library of vague memories.

Indeed, I once spoke with a physician about the Starfield Report and he said, “Was that a real review? Was it actually published? I think I heard something about it.”

I said, “You mean it might have been a dream you had? Just a dream?”

You’ve heard the term “alternative reality?” Well, that’s the one eight billion people on Earth are living in. Now.

The actual reality has been submerged by the eyes, ears, and mouth of the public: the major media 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.

UFO Disclosure: the insider game of “reliable sources”

UFO disclosure: the insider game of “reliable sources”

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2018

(UFO archive, here)

In the current wave of UFO disclosures, the press (in particular, the New York Times) has decided to use Luis Elizondo, a career intelligence case officer, as its main source.

This choice reveals a time-honored strategy of elite news operations: cherry-pick who is reliable and who isn’t.

Of course, the press presents its case as flowing FROM the source. But that’s not true, because reporters and editors could have used other “reliable sources” to tell a different, or even contradictory, story.

Everything depends on who, at the moment, is pumped up and ushered on to center stage, and tagged as “reliable.”

I’m not saying Mr. Elizondo is telling lies from wall to wall. But, for example, where was the Times when reports began to emerge of UFOs appearing at a missile base in Montana (1967) and shutting down launch-capability? There were a number of professional military observers at the time. They could have been deemed “reliable sources,” but they weren’t. For decades, this event has been suppressed or downplayed by the mainstream press.

“Well, we did look into it, but we concluded there just wasn’t enough there. We didn’t go with the piece because the confirmation was thin.” That’s a frequent excuse. Often, it doesn’t hold water. It reflects an arbitrary decision to ignore a valid account.

This is how the game is played.

“Reliable source” can be managed, on a case by case basis.

“Let’s see. We can imply the steep rise in autism is the result of more careful monitoring of cases, or a genetic problem, or the rapid expansion of the CDC vaccination schedule. Let’s do a piece on genetics. Who can we tap for comments? Round up the usual list of expert sources and get quotes. ‘New research suggests a stronger link to genes than previously supposed.’ That’ll work…”

When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century, in 1987, I decided to look into the widely promoted notion that HIV had spread to humans, in Africa, through contact with green monkeys. When the US press wants to promote a “new disease,” they inevitably go to far-off places around the globe for their “origin story.” The last time I looked, no new epidemic has ever begun in Brooklyn. I called a prominent AIDS researcher at Harvard. Without pause, he told me the green monkey theory had no evidence to support it. Well, obviously, the press hadn’t used him as a “reliable source.” They might use him to comment on other matters, but not this one—because “green monkey” was the preferred scenario for the moment.

On the UFO front, the Times could have jumped with both feet into Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project years ago (twitter). Greer had scores of military and intelligence officers who were testifying to all sorts of UFO contact. But back then, the story was verboten. So the sources were ignored.

Sometimes, the graduation from nonsense-story to breaking news isn’t the decision of a major press outlet. The newspaper or broadcast network takes its cue from a “higher authority.” The CIA or the Pentagon, for example. Or from an anonymous heavy hitter who will never be revealed. Depending on the topic of the story, the heavy hitter could exist within the core of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Vatican, the upper reaches of the “banking community” (a Rothschild front man), etc.

This is the “green light” phenomenon. What was once a studiously ignored piece suddenly turns into an imperative to publish. The chosen news outlets jump into action.

The green light can also click through indirect means. Consider the name, Jim Semivan. He is on Tom DeLonge’s team at the newly formed To the Stars Academy, the group which includes Mr. Elizondo, mentioned above. Here is a thumbnail bio of Mr. Semivan from Simon & Schuster publishers: “Jim retired in 2007 after a 25-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Clandestine Service. At the time of his retirement he was a member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service. Jim served multiple overseas and domestic tours along with senior management positions in CIA headquarters. He is the recipient of the Agency’s Career Intelligence Medal.”

Semivan’s emergence in UFO disclosure activities would alert the New York Times that it should pay attention to any information coming out of To the Stars Academy. Semivan is more than a witness or a researcher. He’s a high-level man connected to the intelligence community. If he backs up a story, it’s “official.”

I’ll give you a name: Richard Dolan. Dolan is the author of books on UFOs, and he is a publisher in the same field. A highly intelligent observer, when he makes inferences from data he explains his reasons. He possesses a formidable knowledge of UFO incidents over the course of decades. Major media outlets could go to him as a direct source for articles, or as a guide who could point them to credible stories. But that doesn’t happen.

Why? Because Mr. Dolan could unleash “too much information.” He could open up too many cans of worms. And he doesn’t have an official position in government or corporate circles.

He is reliable, but not in the media sense of the word. He could give, say, the reporters at the New York Times far more help than their editors could—but that doesn’t matter.

What matters to the Times and other mainstream outlets is the agenda of the moment. And who will bolster that agenda.

Why isn’t long-time UFO researcher Grant Cameron writing op-ed pieces for the Times? He has a very interesting take on how various UFO spokespeople have been used by the military-intelligence complex. Alas, Cameron makes too much sense. He goes too deep. So instead, a Times reporter writes a human-interest story about his father. The father was a veteran UFO watcher, who sadly died before the US government “admitted UFOs exist,” a couple of weeks ago.

At any time over the past 40 years, the Times could have assigned a couple of reporters the job of assembling a history of bullet-proof UFO-encounter stories. For a major article. An article that would have settled the issue once and for all: UFOs, whatever they are, exist, and they exhibit extraordinary capabilities.

But “it wasn’t time.”

Now, it is.

The green light is on. But it is only glowing for certain people, and for chosen news companies.

The Reliable Ones.

Therefore, when the Times, or a comparable media operation, discloses UFO revelations, the stories—accurate or not—reflect a purpose that is hidden.

That purpose is never the unvarnished and complete truth.

Over the past 35 years, working as a reporter, I’ve spoken off-the-record with a number of mainstream journalists. They readily admit to making “partial disclosures,” otherwise known as limited hangouts. They explain this as “sticking to the facts at hand.” But that’s not true. They also admit their editors keep them from digging deeper on a story.

Digging deeper would, of course, expose unpleasant scandals the public shouldn’t be aware of. And in the process, people who are deemed unreliable sources would be vindicated. If THAT happened, the whole proprietary media egg would crack.

The public would understand, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that big media cherry-pick their sources, and mainstream news is a stage play.

An acid test: If the New York Times gave the first five pages of their paper to a few independent UFO reporters for a week, those reporters could write a slew of hard-hitting factual pieces that would shake the foundations of knowledge about UFOs. Sales of the paper would skyrocket, and names like Luis Elizondo and Jim Semivan would fade far into the background. The public would realize that verified sightings of UFOs go back at least 50 years. And that would be just the beginning of actual Disclosure.

“Reliable source” is a pliable term. In the media landscape, it implies that editors and publishers are in charge of defining it, at any given moment, to suit their agenda.

If tomorrow, for example, the Times decided that the famous Lockheed Skunkworks, located in the desert (Palmdale, California), was their primary target, as in—what have they been building out there for years?—a whole new raft of reliable sources would come into play overnight. Setting their hounds loose, with no restrictive deadline, the Times might experience what it’s like to operate as an actual news outlet.

They would eventually penetrate many cover stories. What would they discover?

The former director of the elite Skunkworks, Ben Rich, before his death, is reported to have said (UCLA School of Engineering speech, March 23, 1993): “We now know how to travel to the stars…There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day.”

Now there’s a potential source—an insider’s insider. Did Ben Rich say that? Is it true? If it’s true, how did Lockheed develop/obtain the technology?

Why not pursue that lead and run it down?

“Well, we don’t like to rely on dead sources, especially when they make bizarre claims.”

Who says the claim is bizarre? The CIA? The Pentagon? Lockheed?

They’re automatically listed as reliable?

Is “hard to believe, hard to fathom” an unimpeachable standard for barring investigations without further thought?

Wasn’t, for instance, the whole CIA MKULTRA mind control program bizarre and hard to believe, before it was exposed?

Thousands of events and programs are impossible, before they turn out to have happened.

The idea that the New York Times, the number one media outlet in the world, isn’t devoted to the truth—that idea would be very hard for many people to believe; until it’s shown to be factual.

“Hi, I’m major media. I depend on reliable sources. I decide who is reliable and who isn’t, on any given day of the week. I use these sources to construct and shape Reality for the masses. That’s my job. I spend gargantuan amounts of money in this effort. After all, inventing Reality is an awesome mandate. You can’t fool around with that. You must be convincing. If I tried and failed, the consequences would be devastating. A few billion people would see holes in Reality Itself. This is not permitted to happen.”

Ah, but it is happening. Deepest apologies.

The Reality Manufacturing Company is at DEFCON 1, red lights are blinking, and systems are going down.

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.

What about the UFO metal no one can analyze?

Robert Bigelow, the “metal man” for UFO disclosure

by Jon Rappoport

December 24, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

(UFO archive, here)

This is a story out of a 1950s pulp science fiction novel. A story that purports to be quite real, now.

Las Vegas billionaire, Robert Bigelow, has been identified as a major player in the secret Pentagon UFO research group (2007-2012), exposed in the New York Times a few days ago.

Here are press reports about Bigelow, just to give you a few facts about the man, and the exotic flavor of this incredible tale—

Gizmodo (12/16/17): “The Pentagon quietly ran a $22 million program to study unidentified flying objects from 2008 to 2012 at the behest of former Senator Harry Reid, the New York Times reported on Saturday…”

“The unclassified but secretive Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was funded $22 million from 2008 to 2011, with the vast majority of the funding going to Bigelow Airspace. That’s a company conveniently owned by one of Reid’s friends and donors, Robert Bigelow…That $22 million enabled contractors to build a low-key Nevada warehouse for what they claimed was unidentified artifacts obtained from UFOs, as well as compile witness accounts…”

New York Times: “Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, the company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo [who headed up the secret Pentagon UFO program] and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena…”

Bigelow made his fortune in commercial and residential real estate. He’s a pal of Senator Harry Reid. And he gets to store the most important materials ever discovered in his warehouse. No problem.

We aren’t told whether the UFO materials were analyzed under Bigelow’s direction (no one has been able to discover what these metals are, what they’re made of), but if most or all of the $22 million Pentagon program went to him, it’s possible this real estate tycoon was permitted to supervise, or sub-contract, the analysis of the UFO metals.

Really?

The UK Express is rightly blown away: “METAL and other materials allegedly recovered from UFOs was stored in converted buildings in Las Vegas under a US Government-funded program, it has astonishingly been claimed.”

“The material, that was said to be ‘unknown to science’ following tests, was stored in buildings modified by a private aerospace company [Bigelow] which was paid huge amounts of money by the US Department of Defense to research the phenomenon and look after the ‘metal alloys’, according to reports.”

“However, no images have surfaced of the alleged material, nor have any details of where it was found, or any reports of tests carried out on it.”

“In May Mr Bigelow stunned the world by declaring during an interview with primetime CBS current affairs show 60 Minutes, that believes that intelligent aliens are secretly living on Earth, and the government knows about it.” [A convenient interview, preparing the public for shocking UFO disclosures that were to come six months later.]

“It is now claimed that under his [Bigelow’s] direction buildings at the company headquarters were ‘modified’ to allow the storage of the materials [from UFOs].”

“No further details have been released at this stage about where they [the UFO materials] were found, how many there are, or what happened to them.”

“It also does not appear any official reports on the materials have been released, but it is claimed that research was also carried out on people who came into contact with the material to see if there were any effects on them.”

“Express.co.uk has approached Mr Bigelow through Bigelow aerospace to try to find out what happened to the material, if he still has it, and whether it can be photographed, or any reports on studies on it can be released.”

“We have also contacted Mr Reid, and Mr Elizondo through To The Stars Academy, asking if they know what became of the materials.”

“We await responses from all three.”

Las Vegas Review Journal: “The [NY] Times’ investigation unearthed contracts showing the [Pentagon UFO] program received $22 million in federal funding between 2008 and 2011. The money went to Bigelow Aerospace, the North Las Vegas-based company founded in 1999 by Robert Bigelow, owner of the Budget Suites of America hotel chain and one of Reid’s longtime friends and campaign contributors.”

“Bigelow’s company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials reportedly recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena, the Times said.”

OK, those are a few of the press reports.

Question: Should we really believe metals from UFOs have been recovered, analyzed, and stored at Bigelow’s warehouse—rather than at a super-secret military lab in a bunker?

Should we believe these materials actually come from UFOs? How were they obtained? A pilot in a US fighter jet operated a robot arm that reached out into space and scraped off a few samples from a streaking or hovering alien craft? A UFO crashed, and military personnel rushed to the scene, confiscated the craft wreckage, transported it to Area 51…and years later, a few soldiers drove metal samples to Bigelow’s warehouse and dropped them off for safe-keeping?

Bigelow’s low-profile warehouse has the kind of security that could protect the most important materials ever discovered by humans?

Well, there is a story. The story has been told. It’s been fed to the mainstream press, and the press has run with it—including the New York Times. The man who headed up the 2007-2012 secret Pentagon program, Luis Elizondo, is agreeing with the story.

One lesson: When you own and control the narrative, and when the press is bending over backwards to give you access, you can sell almost anything. In this case, based on no physical evidence, you can say UFO metals have been recovered and no one can figure out what they are, and a rich pal of a US senator has been storing them in his warehouse. No problem. And the man who confirms the story, Mr. Elizondo, who worked for the Pentagon, is now a media point man for something called To the Stars Academy, founded by a rock musician who has a commitment to discovering “the truth about UFOs.” Wow.

I’ve got condos on the dark side of the moon. Cash only for interested buyers.

Here is my backgrounder on a few vital basics of propaganda, which means information control, which means mind control. This is the game in the Information Age. This is how it’s done.

Who owns the UFO narrative?

ONE: 1947-2017 (seven long decades)—“WHAT ARE THE CIA AND THE PENTAGON HIDING ABOUT UFOs? WE DEMAND THEY COME CLEAN AND OPEN THEIR FILES AND TELL THE TRUTH AND REVEAL THE SECRETS! STOP LYING AND STALLING.”

TWO: 2017—“HI, WE’RE THE PENTAGON. HERE ARE SECRETS ABOUT UFOs AND THE PROGRAM NO ONE KNEW ABOUT. NO PROBLEM. IN FACT, WE’RE IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES.”

Hmm. What’s that smell?

Sudden Pentagon revelations about UFOs and recovered metal pieces of UFOs: an unknown ship in the sky executing maneuvers and operating at speeds beyond the reach of human technology; the failure to discover what a UFO is made of. These stories are coming right out of the Department of Defense. Officially. They’re not unauthorized leaks. And the moment the stories were handed to the NY Times, they became THE narrative.

The Pentagon owns the narrative, and so does the Times.

This is a necessary condition for big-time propaganda.

For decades, independent UFO researchers have been trying to force the government to admit what it knows—but now, when suddenly that magical moment arrives, the result is not what was hoped for, because the Pentagon and the Times can stake an overriding claim to the overall UFO story.

To consent to this new state of affairs requires blind faith in institutions which have a well-deserved reputation for lying.

It’s as if the Pentagon is saying, “We’ve been willing to go to war anywhere for any reason, based on false pretexts, but now we want you to believe exactly what we’re telling you about UFOs.”

More importantly, the Pentagon can now sell this: “For a long time, you’ve been listening to independent UFO researchers, but now we will take over the narrative, because we can provide truly authoritative information on the subject, and we can push rumor and speculation [independent research] to the side.”

Since 1987, investigating in the medical arena, I’ve been pointing out the horrendous consequences of allowing government agencies to own narratives. Horrendous, in terms of human damage incurred from medical drugs.

I’ll extend the parallel. During the height of the Health Freedom movement in America, in the 1990s, the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest medical research operation on the planet, suddenly announced they were forming a department to study unorthodox, formerly scorned “alternative treatments.” Papers would be written, research grants would be doled out, holistic practitioners would be brought into the fold. Voila. The “medical Pentagon” was opening its gates wide. Predictably, this effort turned out to be a con. There was no intention to allow a significant role for alternative medicine. The plan was to co-opt alternatives and let them die a slow death. But behind that con was another move: NIH was attempting to take over the “alternative” narrative.

NIH would now tell that story and own it and control it and decide who was in and who was out. Fortunately, the ploy has largely failed, because the public hasn’t viewed the government as a reliable source of knowledge about natural health.

When Big Media and the Pentagon are suddenly showing up like Greeks bearing UFO gifts, beware.

They may spread lies from wall to wall, or they may tell a bit of the whole truth and try to shut down the rest. Whatever they are doing, they’re selling a fake.

And lest we forget, the Pentagon is in the business of inventing threats. Everywhere. Will they now release new UFO “information” designed to promote “alien threats,” thus underscoring the need to expand the Department of Defense’s power? Or conversely, will they present a kind and gentle approach, in order to convince us the Pentagon is made up of good people lending a helping hand? Either way, they win…

If they can maintain control of the narrative.

That’s how propaganda works.

Who is OFFICIAL, and what is their OFFICIAL position? That’s the key.

In the blink of an eye, after a hundred thousand people have been digging into a mystery for decades, a force which people accept as OFFICIAL can hijack the mystery and explain it any way they want to. It’s aliens, UFOs, a Russian dictator, ISIS, criminals from an opposition political Party.

It doesn’t matter. It only matters that the OFFICIAL group has the (hypnotic) faith of the public in its pocket.

The group can even win over some of those independent investigators, who breathe a huge sigh of relief and say, “Finally, we’re getting the truth. OFFICIALLY.”

This acceptance is automatic.

“Oh, they obtained metals from UFOs and they couldn’t figure out what they were composed of. So the materials came from another planet. And a businessman has them in his warehouse. I don’t need to study them. The materials are OFFICIAL.”

That’s mind control par excellence.

Bow the head and bend the knee. We’re good. At last.

I’m not saying the story is fake or real. I’m saying when a stimulus gains an immediate response, the intended response, propaganda wins. The operatives pop the champagne corks. They done their job.

A year ago, the New York Times would have laughed at the very notion of someone trying to sell them this story. But now, the stars suddenly align, the reporters are sober and a bit breathless. They turned on a dime. The ship has sailed.

“Well now it’s different. Now we have a credible source.”

Really? A former employee from the Pentagon, the agency that’s “lost” trillions of dollars?

An employee named Luis Elizondo, who has this bio posted on his new company’s website, To the Stars Academy? Read his bio carefully:

—“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East.”

Wonderful. Of course. We can believe him. He’s official.

The question is: Official What?

High-level intelligence spook.

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.