Category Archives: Press Fraud

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2017

In these pages, I’ve emphasized that mainstream news often fails to follow up on their own stories.

They publish a shocking account of a scandal, and then they drop it like a hot potato.

Why? There are several reasons, but the most important is: the scandal is too revealing. It indicts an institution or organization that, in the long run, must be protected.

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

Here is a sample of the 2014-15 stories:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Here is one reason why. If the press outlets continued to search out every aspect of the story, they would come upon numerous prosecutors who routinely relied on false FBI lab reports in trials. Some of those prosecutors would be exposed for knowingly accepting fake evidence from the FBI, in order to make their cases.

The scandal would spread like ink on a blotter.

Major media news picks their spots. They choose to pound on certain stories day after day, in an effort to convince the public of certain “facts.” They studiously refuse to dig and keep digging on other stories, hoping the public will forget.

Remember this, forget that.

Journalism schools don’t teach their students that this is the way to do news. After graduating and finding jobs, young reporters catch on.

They catch on and go along.

That’s how their ideals crumble and disintegrate.

That’s how they become agents and blunt weapons for their bosses.

That’s how they become alcoholics and denizens traveling through a dim underworld of lies.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

For most people, the notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America

And the solution that almost no one appears to want—why are people allergic to solutions that work?

by Jon Rappoport

August 18, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

My tech partner and producer has made several notes on the latest episode of black-white conflict in America, Charlottesville:

“Classic two-pronged Maoist tactic…. (a) shock troops on the ground causing violence and then (b) a sophisticated and coordinated…propaganda push by the parallel rogue state complex of Media, Academia, Hollywood and sold-out politicians. Historically huge. The Police standing down as the [third] element.”

“The violence puts the [television news] viewer in an altered state to receive the propaganda.”

Black vs. white. Nazis vs. liberals. Antifa vs. Alt-Right. Cut the dividing line any way you want to, factor in covert funding by people like George Soros, and you have a formula for escalating conflict between various sectors of society. Thus, driving more chaos.

Present the “sides” in the conflict as somehow representing the entire population of America. That’s the key.

This op is as old as the hills.

As for solutions, let’s start with a revelation about government funding for inner-city programs in St, Petersburg, Florida. The Tampa Bay Times reports:

“…the Tampa Bay Times set out to assess the region’s progress since the turn of the century, analyzing two decades worth of data on income, housing, demographics and crime.”

“Though the city has helped steer hundreds of millions of dollars into the neighborhoods around Midtown since 1999, they remain stuck in poverty.”

“Adjusted for inflation, the average household’s income has gone down.”

“Property values in the neighborhoods have dropped. Only 43 percent of homes in Midtown and Childs Park are owner-occupied, a rate that’s steadily declined since it was 60 percent in 2002.”

“Today, almost half of the region’s renters spend the majority of their income keeping a roof over their heads — nearly twice as many as in 1999.”

“In 2002, the crime rate was four times higher in Midtown and Childs Park [inner-city neighborhoods] than in the rest of the city. In 2014, it was more than five times higher.”

And then, the capper: “From 1999 to 2015, St. Petersburg helped steer over $210 million in private and public investments toward trying to improve life in the Midtown area, city documents show.”

$210 million, and this is what they have to show for it.

You really have to design failure in order to make $210 million worthless.

The answer?

Realize, first of all, that people tend to reject solutions if they haven’t heard about them before.

One solution here would be a program I’ve written about before, and it could be enacted for a tiny fraction of the $210 million that has gone down the drain:

URBAN FARMS.

Across the country, many such operations are underway. They’re happening. Local people are growing and eating their own food. Some of this food is also sold for profit.

—There should be many, many urban farms in the St. Petersburg inner city. Plots of land where local residents grow and trade and eat their own fresh, clean, nutritious food. It is a revolutionary act.

Initiate 50 of these farms. The government provides initial funding. The residents themselves will expand their operations into profit-making ventures; they’ll sell the excess food.

I’m estimating that for less than $5 million, the whole program can be launched—as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured down unaccountable “investment” rat holes.

The residents of inner-city St, Petersburg would have a real economic stake in their own survival and success, and they’d escalate the power of their demands for safe neighborhoods—safe from gangs and thugs and drugs.

Clean fresh food.

Improved level of health and strength.

Community involvement.

Increasing production.

Profits.

Of course, governments don’t tend to favor solutions that actually work.

Such solutions reduce citizen dependence on government.

If a certain president in the White House put this urban farm project into effect—not only in St. Petersburg, but in other inner cities across America—and if resistance developed, that president would have a powerful means of exposing the disruptive resistance as a conscious campaign to keep making these neighborhoods fail, IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE AN EXCUSE FOR RACIAL CONFLICT.

A clue: professional paid disruptors, and their duped allies, are hired to expand failure in inner cities and exclude workable solutions that benefit one and all.

Bottom line: there are always solutions that lift people up. Sidelining and canceling and distorting and misdirecting and betraying those solutions is the full-time job of operatives who have a hidden agenda. These operatives want failure. They want to use failure to blame some group(s) for the chronic problem—thus expanding unrest and anger and division.

MAINSTREAM NEWS WILL NEVER REPORT EXTENSIVELY ON LARGE AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.

THEREFORE, MANY, MANY CITIZENS (HYPNOTIZED VIEWERS) WILL NEVER BE “TUNED” TO SOLUTIONS.

LARGE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS WILL ALWAYS SEEM AND FEEL “STRANGE” AND OUT OF PLACE.

That’s called mind control.

That’s called passivity.

That’s called surrender.

It’s staged over long periods of time.

One estimate has it that, since President Lyndon Johnson declared a national War on Poverty in 1966, some two trillion dollars have been poured into inner cities of America, with a result that looks quite like the impoverished neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, Florida.

No one has the accounting books. No one has kept track. No one in the federal government has been able to stop the insanity.

Again, innovative solutions are not the aim of big and bigger government.

That aim appears to be: losing.

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.

Lying Australian press and the Vaxxed scandal

Lying Australian press and the Vaxxed scandal: what they’re not telling you about film producer’s visa cancellation

by Jon Rappoport

August 11, 2017

(Part 1 of this story here.)

FACT: Recently, the film Vaxxed (trailer) was shown in locations across Australia.

FACT: The film exposes horrendous and criminal scientific fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control.

FACT: Vaxxed features the 2014 public confession of William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher.

FACT: Thompson states that he and his colleagues falsified data to make it appear that the MMR vaccine has no connection to autism, when in fact the vaccine does raise the risk of autism.

FACT: The film’s producer, Polly Tommey, came to Australia with the film and spoke with audiences at showings.

FACT: The Australian government, upon her exit from the country, canceled her visa.

Why?

Here is one version of the story, from the Australian press, about Polly Tommey and a colleague, Suzanne Humphries. Herald Sun, August 7-8: “…[they] entered the country on false visas…it is believed they did not declare their intentions to work…”

It is believed? By whom? Three drunks in a bar? A ghost in an attic? A paid public-relations hustler for a vaccine manufacturer?

Well, here is the actual statement of the Australian government canceling Vaxxed producer Polly Tommey’s visa. Here’s the actual statement, signed by an anonymous government official who scribbled his unreadable name at the bottom of a document issued on August 8th at 10:45 hours:

“Ms. Tommey stated in her subclass 651 visa application that the purpose of travel to Australia was ‘business’ however there is no further details [sic] as to the business she intended to undertake. Given this visa does permit the holder to undertake business visitor activities, I give a little weight in Ms Tommey’s favor.”

I see. So Polly Tommey DID state her intention to work. The press story was entirely misleading.

The document continues, with its real bombshell, under the section titled, “Evidence for grounds of [visa] cancellation”:

“Open source information indicates that Ms Tommey is a prominent anti-vaccination activist in the United States of America…”

“I am satisfied that if the wider Australian community became aware of Ms Tommy’s intended activities…her presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community.”

“’Good order’, in the context of 116(1)(e) is concerned with actions by a visa holder which have an impact on public activities…including the risk of an adverse reaction by certain members of Australian society…Therefore, it appears Ms Tommey’s presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community and I am satisfied that there is a ground to cancel your [Tommey’s] visa under section 116(1)(e).”

My, my.

“Certain members of Australian society” might react adversely?

Who are they? Vaccine-company CEOs? Three drunks in bar? A few snowflakes who are “triggered” by the presentation of ideas they haven’t been trained to believe?

This towering government document, this gibberish is—“Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Decision Record of Visa Cancellation under Section 128 of the Migration Act.”

By its brand of logic, many, many people could be banned from Australia for causing an adverse reaction in “certain members” of “the Australian community.”

How about banning a man with a moustache? There are those who don’t like moustaches. How about banning a woman after she had a bad facelift? Bad facelifts can be visually troubling. How about a priest who tells his flock the only way to God and salvation is through the Church? How about an American tourist wearing checkered pants, a pink and purple shirt, and an orange fedora lugging a giant bag of golf clubs and holding a tiny yapping dog?

As you can see from the government document, maintaining “order” is the primary obsession. No matter what. Keep the sheep in line.

“We don’t want any outsiders coming in here with disruptive ideas. And that goes for internal control, too. Don’t say anything that punctures the status quo.”

Vaccination is a holy of holies. People must get jabbed. People who point out dangers are heretics.

Questioning the Church of Vaccination is a sin.

But the whole point of the film Vaxxed, and the whole point of what producer Polly Tommey was doing in Australia, impacts that Church—because the film reveals a “priest,” CDC researcher William Thompson, confessing that sacred doctrine has a giant hole in it. Thompson and his colleagues cooked data to make it seem the MMR vaccine is safe—and it isn’t safe. That’s the revelation.

The Australian government doesn’t want citizens to know that. It doesn’t want ANY public conversation around the issue. It wants to push people into abject surrender.

That’s why they canceled Polly Tommey’s visa and banned her from the country. That’s why they want to keep her out.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

My interview with CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson: not fake news

by Jon Rappoport

August 7, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

Here is the piece in full:

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

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

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

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

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

The problem was, the CDC was concealing another scandal.

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

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

What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 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—

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

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

But it gets even worse.

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

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

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

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

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Notes on covert information-ops

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

Ops involving information take many forms.

For example, let’s start with a simple “Sunday School” version that any child could learn in an hour. A smear campaign can be carried out by highlighting people who, on their own, already claim an “extreme position”—and then falsely tying those people, by association, to the person who is to be smeared.

Then there is the moving smear. When one charge you level at a person is proven false, or questionable, you add another one, and you keeping moving and piling on from many quarters.

This is more or less how the Russia-Trump story is being handled.

Let’s go to a “labeling op.” In this situation, public persons are pictured and given titles and attributes which, on closer examination, are false.

For example, former Wall Street lawyer, and supposed “socialist,” Eric Holder, rose to the position of US Attorney General. After his service in government, during which he prosecuted no one, no bank, for crimes committed in the 2008 financial meltdown, but instead judged them too big to fail and deserving of massive bailouts, Holder returned to the same Wall Street law firm to reap his rewards for services rendered.

Barack Obama, supposed “peace president,” carried out his two terms while waging war the whole time. As the left-wing Guardian reports, “[I]n 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

If you have the press at your disposal, it’s rather easy to limit revelations like these to a few articles, and mainly portray politicians with false labels that are the opposite of what they actually are.

Now let’s move to a more complicated information-op. You claim the discovery of a new disease. You name it. You list the symptoms, which turn out to be identical to old disease—cough, fatigue, fever, weakness. You state you’ve found the virus that causes the new disease and this virus has never been seen before. No convincing proof of the existence or action of the virus is offered. But a vaccine and drugs are developed to “fight the virus and prevent it from causing harm.” Of course, the “new disease,” which is the old disease, has a shelf life of three or four days in a person who is not already immune-compromised. It fades out by itself. Over time, thousands of journal papers are written about “the new virus.” Eventually, no one cares. The new virus has become an old virus. Time to discover another “new virus.”

Here is a political information-op. Over the course of 80 years or so, two giant superpowers flex their muscles and their intelligence agencies at each other. Each intelligence agency puts out complex reams of true and false information about the enemy. Each agency sends “defectors” to the other side. Most of them “confess” to information which is false. This gives rise to a blizzard of reports assessing the value of the confessions. Each intelligence agency conveys false information to its own people, as well, to test for leaks and identify possible traitors. Eventually, the oceans of information generated for 80 years become impossible to evaluate, relative to truth and falsity. The “illusion-producers” are caught in their own illusions. Anyone with a shred of understanding knows this, but the game goes on anyway, in the overall labyrinth.

In the field of archeology/history, accepted time lines of societies are contradicted by numerous discoveries of artifacts and structures all over the world. These structures point to civilizations which have no place in official history books. So they are written out and ignored. Researchers who insist on exploring the artifacts and structures for clues are sidelined and banned from official publications. Vast libraries of studies proliferate, in order to bolster and add details to the accepted (false) story and sequence of world history.

These are merely a few information ops. Such ops exist wherever an official story of importance is promoted.

A serious investigator uses logic and imagination to expose a given op with specifics. Imagination plays an important role, because the investigator needs to conceive of potential strategies “the other side” is using to make its position appear correct and solid. The investigator then explores these possible strategies to find the ones that are actually in play.

This is what I did vis-à-vis AIDS in my first book, AIDS INC. For example, once I discovered that the definition of AIDS in Africa was nothing more than a grouping of symptoms that corresponded to hunger, protein-calorie deficiency, and outright starvation, I conceived a central op:

The virus, HIV, was being used a cover story to obscure decades of forced hunger and starvation.

I confirmed this was the case. How? By examining instances where fertile growing land was stolen from the people by local dictators colluding with giant agriculture corporations.

I also interviewed doctors off the record. They admitted they knew hunger and starvation were causing the “AIDS symptoms,” but they were afraid to speak out, because, as one doctor told me, “My salary puts me close to the poverty level. I can make three times as much money testing for, and treating HIV. That supplements my income…”

Information-ops follow a general pattern.

Brainwash the public by constructing a basic lie.

Confirm that lie with a mountain of false and misleading data.

Sell the lie.

Therefore, hide the truth about what is actually going on.

My Power Outside The Matrix collection provides the tools a citizen investigative reporter needs to dismantle information-ops.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

Measles outbreak in Europe: convenient lies

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2017

There is an invariable first rule of propaganda: know exactly what your agenda is, and then design every statement to forward that agenda.

The World Health Organization is now touting a measles epidemic in Europe. And of course, they’re explaining it with propaganda—it’s the fault of people who refuse to allow their children to take the measles vaccination.

The focus is on Italy, where, “coincidently,” protesters are outraged at a new law mandating vaccination for children. Perfect. “You see? Don’t take the shot and this is what you get. A massive outbreak.”

Well, here is an official report. In Italy, there are 3300 case of measles and two deaths.

That’s the classic and traditional and age-old picture of measles. 3298 children have survived. Kids get measles, they recover, and thereafter they’re immune.

As for the two children who died, you would have to do a very careful independent investigation, to determine what health problems they may have had before they contracted measles. And “health problems” would include prior toxic medical treatment. The actual cause of death isn’t always what health authorities say it is.

In addition to the above, here are two revealing quotes to consider:

“…the window of vulnerability of an infant may be even greater in vaccinated women than in with women with natural measles infection.” (Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 79(5), 2008, pp. 787–792).

Translation: Measles occurring in infants—which is unusual and dangerous—is more likely to occur when the mother has been vaccinated against measles. Why? Because, as a result of her being vaccinated, she no longer passes down, to her child, the natural components of immunity to measles from her having had the disease. And the vaccination she received didn’t confer immunity to her baby.

“Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

In other words, the measles vaccine can create a worse form of measles. This is not the normal form of the illness, from which children routinely recover with the bonus of lifetime immunity. No, this is a severe, atypical, dangerous, synthetic, vaccine-induced disease.

Does all this mean the health authorities in Europe aren’t telling the whole story, are twisting the truth?

I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

To cite just one parallel in the US among many, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) buys and dispenses several billion dollars’ worth of vaccines every year. At the same time, the CDC is in charge of doing key studies to test the safety and efficacy of those vaccines. This unconscionable conflict of interest is an ongoing crime—because there are NO circumstances under which the CDC would ever say that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, since they, the CDC, are a leading commercial customer and purveyor of those medical products. They would be cutting their own throats.

Do public health authorities lie?

Is the Pope Catholic?

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 good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

The good old days: Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley—and Salvador Dali

by Jon Rappoport

July 25, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance is imprinted on viewers’ minds. It’s the news. It must be normal, even if it’s quite insane.

The best of the best mind control is supposedly applied by the three major network anchors. Recall the old trio: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer. They’re all gone now. The junior varsity has taken over. David Muir, Lester Holt, and a permanent CBS anchor to be named later.

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

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding.

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

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

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

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. This is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car-salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings were higher.

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

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

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. This is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, could say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he would never tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. That’s the anchor’s job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of “justice served,” while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order to destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

“More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor is happy to deal with this. He’s happy to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old, we already covered that, let’s move along.”

And when it comes to elites, to whom the anchor pledges allegiance, and with whom he occasionally hob-nobs? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, AIPAC, government-allied Big Medicine, and so on? Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

The elite anchor: “Conspiracy? Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Carroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make sure there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

“Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer gave people the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

Elite anchors have a dual aspect. They control minds and they also put themselves in a mind-controlled state, in order to (temporarily) believe in what they’re saying on-air. It’s all self-inflicted.

No need to censor stories from above. The anchors have a finely honed sense of what is permissible and what isn’t.

In early human societies, the story teller was a principal figure. He wove the tribe’s experiences into a coherent whole, and built layers of cosmology. Story tellers formed an elite priest caste and spun official metaphysical doctrine.

Today, people feel the same need for narrators: the anchors. Although these front men for the news no longer use metaphysics to control the masses, they do covertly obey the old rule: tell only part of story.

Guard the rest from public view.

In ancient times, the rationale for hiding key secrets was explained in terms of stages of privileged initiations into “the magic.” Today, millions of people are led to believe their news narrators are giving them everything there is. Other than anchors’ stories, there is nothing. So in this secular media religion, viewers think they have only two choices: swallow the news reality, or face a cold vacuum.

Their bottomless need for a story teller survives.

But…

Came the Internet.

And then the whole world turned upside down.

The networks began to realize they were made out of eggshells and cardboard, and the holes and fractures and disintegrating pieces were out there, on television, for all to witness.

As a veteran reporter who quit the business and went online told me, “Network mind control is expensive. You have to keep doing it every day. And that’s without competition. Now, competitors are everywhere.”

It takes a village. The “it” in this case is network news and the village is the staff and crew. But the village is experiencing typhoons. Once upon a time, crazy surreal mainstream television news required no apologies. But that entitlement has peeled away and blown offshore.

Independent online news outlets are catching up to, and in some cases, surpassing MSM audience numbers. And the content is quite different.

For one thing, the content often features devastating critiques of elite news. For example: The Washington Post, once considered (by the uninformed) an unimpeachable source, is presently owned by Jeff Bezos, the billionaire boss of Amazon. Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide cloud-computing services to the CIA.

This is more than a crippling conflict of interest. It’s a death rattle. Every story the Post publishes about the CIA, and every story that has a named or unnamed CIA source is as reliable as an antelope’s press agent justifying the extinction of all lions.

The NY Times’ daily attacks on Trump for his supposed Russian connections? Well, in 2015, the Times published a devastating piece detailing the Clintons’ role in selling 20% of US uranium production to Putin. But the Times conveniently refuses to follow up on its own story. Needless to say, if Trump had played such a decisive role in enriching Putin and transferring a top national-security resource to Russia, he’d already be wearing a prison jump suit and awaiting a firing squad.

Day by day, elite mainstream news is fading.

This is what happens to elitist authority, no matter how skillful their production.

Hypnosis leaks.

It’s not a perfect seal.

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.

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election

Yes, Bill Clinton ASKED Russia to interfere in a US presidential election

by Jon Rappoport

July 18, 2017

Press outlets are now reminding us that President Bill Clinton interfered in the 1996 Russia election that brought Boris Yeltsin to power for a second term.

This is by way of saying, “Well, if Putin helped Trump win the 2017 election, so what? The US did the same thing in Russia.”

That’s an interesting but not terribly strong argument. However, there is another piece to the 1996 Clinton op, and it is explosive and quite relevant.

Let’s start here, with the 1996 leak of a document detailing a meeting between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. Sean Guillory, writing at jacobinmag.com, states:

“According to a White House memo leaked to the Washington Times in March 1996, Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed to support each other in their respective reelection bids.”

We are talking about mutual interference. President Clinton helps President Yeltsin win, and President Yeltsin helps President Clinton win.

Bill Clinton asked the president of Russia to interfere in a US presidential election.

Digest that.

The Washington Post (2/26/96) reports on “…a memo written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, according to White House press secretary Michael McCurry. It [the memo] recounted talks between Clinton and Yeltsin earlier this month when both leaders attended an anti-terrorism summit in Egypt.”

“The memo, as quoted in the [Washington] Times, said Clinton pledged to work with Yeltsin to maintain ‘positive’ relations with the United States as both men seek reelection this year. One way to do this, the memo quoted Clinton as saying, is for Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. Clinton said ‘this is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ the memo said.”

We had a US president, Bill Clinton, specifying HOW the Russian president could help him win a second term as US president.

Let that sink in.

The Associated Press reports, on March 28, 1996: “Citing a classified memo, the Washington Times reported yesterday that Clinton had promised Yeltsin to back his re-election bid by formulating “positive” policies toward Russia…On a matter important to his political supporters in Arkansas, Clinton asked Yeltsin to stop restricting poultry imports. ‘This is a big issue, especially since 40 percent of U.S. poultry is produced in Arkansas,’ Clinton said, according to the memo…On Monday, Vice President Al Gore announced Russia was lifting the ban, which was imposed because of the suspicion that U.S. chickens are not inspected sufficiently for salmonella, which causes illness.”

Clinton promises to back Yeltsin in his effort to win the presidency of Russia.

In return, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLINTON’S POLITICAL SUPPORTERS, Clinton asks Yeltsin to lift Russia’s ban on importing chickens, particularly since 40% of US poultry is produced in Arkansas, Clinton’s home state. And lo and behold, Yeltsin does comply with Clinton’s request for help in winning the 1996 US presidential election. Yeltsin lifts the ban on importing US poultry.

Both president agree to interfere in each other’s election.

And it gets worse. The major chicken producer in Arkansas is Tyson. The Fiscal Times reports, on 2/2/16: “…consider a largely forgotten financial scandal that directly involved Hillary Clinton during 1978 and 1979.”

“Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than one year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.”

“…Clinton’s initial trading also had a serious irregularity…her $1,000 initial investment was well below the $12,000 deposit required by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for the first trades she executed. So not only did Hillary make an extraordinary profit for a novice investor, she did so without following the rules applied to less well-connected traders.”

There is much more to say about the relationship between Tyson Chicken and the Clintons, but we’ll leave it there for now.

So there is a precedent of Russia interfering in a US presidential election (by stark invitation)—and nothing happened to the US president, Bill Clinton, who asked for the interference. Nothing.

Clinton was, of course, upset when the memo of his meeting with Yeltsin was leaked. But here is how he spun his objection:

Washington Post, 2/28/96: “[Clinton Press Secretary] McCurry said Clinton and [National Security Advisor] Lake considered the leak to be far more sensitive than the typical anonymous disclosure that is commonplace in Washington journalism. ‘The president feels like he ought to be able to sit down with the president of Russia and have a private conversation,’ McCurry said.”

Clinton and Yeltsin agreeing to interfere in each other’s presidential election was ignored, as if it were of no concern. The big issue was the leak of the memo. Private and highly felonious deals between two superpower chiefs of state? No problem.

To repeat: this 1996 memo-scandal of enormous proportions didn’t make a dent in Bill Clinton’s second term in office. After a brief press blast, and a round of “I’m shocked” within the Beltway, the roar died and vanished.

If a comparable memo were unearthed from the Trump team today, impeachment proceedings will begin in a matter of hours, and the press would be booking seats for the firing squad.

Soros-paid street soldiers would lift Barack Obamas up on their shoulders, break down barriers at the White House, and carry him into the Oval Office.

We need to revisit the old saying, “It’s not the conspiracy (that hurts a political criminal), it’s the cover-up (of the crime).”

There needs to be an addendum. “It’s not the conspiracy, it’s the coverage.” Meaning press coverage.

If a politician commits a major crime and the press coverage dies out, the politician gets away with it. If the press keeps hounding the politician endlessly, he doesn’t get away with it—even if there is no solid proof he committed a crime in the first place.

power outside the matrix

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

Jon Rappoport

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

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

If the EU goes down, all life ceases to exist

by Jon Rappoport

July 16, 2017

I’ll get to the European Union in a minute, but first a bit of background.

System building—how do you do it? In particular, how do you build a perverse structure?

There are three sequential steps:

One: Secretly create the system.

Two: Once it’s up and running and established, act as if you’re a mere participant in the system.

Three: Claim that the system is absolutely necessary, and without it, things would collapse.

When those three steps have been accomplished, you can add other flourishes. For example, sometimes you can get away with saying the system was never created at all; it arose organically because there was a need for it. That’s a good one.

THE EU IS SUCH A SYSTEM.

The propaganda: “It wasn’t planned from the top. It came about as a response to the need for peace among nations, the need for a common market and a uniform currency, the need for an end to brutal nationalism, etc.”

Actually, the EU was created as an extension of World War 2 by other means. Hitler’s dream of a united Europe was accomplished, with a reborn Germany as the economic powerhouse. But other key players were involved: the Vatican, the City Of London, Swiss banks, etc. And after 1973, the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Globalists all.

The EU’s current support of the migrant flood into Europe is a case of: this is how we erase borders, destroy the traditions of separate cultures, take down separate nations once and for all, and make Europe into a single entity.

Brexit was “a disturbance in The Force,” but it is being used to advantage by the EU. In actual game theory (not the ludicrous version taught in universities), you must have threats to the system, in the wake of which the system survives. This “proves” the structure is sound and necessary, and continues to meet the needs of the people.

The EU is painted as a kind of heroic soldier who has endured many battles. This picture sells.

As time passes, expect more and more news stories featuring the propaganda theme, “The EU is on the comeback, stronger than ever.”

The truth is, the EU could vanish tomorrow, and the individual nations of Europe would find ways to connect, cooperate, and do business.

In fact, one or two adventurous countries could change the face of Europe (which tells you why the EU tries so hard to pass so many binding regulations that apply to all its members). Here is an example:

Suppose one European country decided to cancel all the odious EU regulations restricting the sale and use of nutritional supplements? Suppose the whole area of nutrition was turned over to the free choice of every citizen?

You can bet your bottom franc or pound that this nation would suddenly undergo an economic renaissance. Nutritional companies by the hundreds would set up shop. Citizens from all over Europe would move there. Jobs would multiply. In turn, this country would become a haven for all sorts of natural health practitioners and their clients.

Watching this happen, other European countries would follow suit. Suddenly, health freedom would become an economic tiger.

Big Pharma, one of the driving forces behind the EU, would be exposed as a pernicious monopoly. Never a bad thing.

Who knows how many other areas of the economy (aka free market) would suddenly reappear, free of repressive regulations?

What about GMO crops? From what I can discover, 50 GMO crops are permitted in Europe. A nation can submit a request to the EU to ban a GMO crop, and the EU makes the final decision. Suppose—if the EU vanished—one country stood up on its hind legs and declared: “We are banning ALL GMOs. If you live here, all your food will be non-GMO. That is our commitment.”

Do you think that might result in many people moving to that country?

Do you think the mega-agri GMO corporations favor the EU? Of course they do, because they believe that, in the long run, they can exert sufficient influence to have their way—whereas on a continent of separate and autonomous nations, the risk factor would be higher.

All ruthless mega-corporations embrace the EU. That is their preferred system: predators cooperating with other predators. Eventually, you look at the EU and the worst corporations in Europe, and you can’t tell the difference. They’re blood brothers.

Breaking up and dissolving the EU would smell very much like freedom, if enough citizens could remember the scent.

The EU is betting it can sustain control; its program of opening borders and letting in what amounts to a massive crime wave will somehow be given a pass by Europe’s traditional population. The EU is betting it has reduced the people of the continent to such a degree of passivity that any insult is accepted.

“The people don’t want freedom, they want the system.”

That’s a risky gamble.

The EU is showing its teeth for all to see. It’s essentially assaulting the population and daring it to rise up in rebellion.

Which is another aspect of real game theory: launch a series of insults and challenges and tests to those under your rule and see if you can grind them down further and further.

Europe was the cradle of individual liberty. Not China, not India, not Argentina, not Japan, not Bolivia, not Egypt. Europe. That’s why the Globalist EU has Europe in its sights and wants to flatten it.

The Matrix Revealed

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

The biggest systems of control are often built after the biggest wars. Those who engineer and finance those wars, on both sides, understand this. They draw up those systems, in the ashes of the prior conflict. It was always their intention. Just as key members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with designing the Union Nations before World War 2 was finished, key Globalist players were already laying out the roadmap to the European Union at the same time.

You could say World War 2 was instigated and fought for the very purpose of bringing in these huge systems of post-war control.

War creates the perceived need for the systems.

Make no mistake about it, the ultimate plan is to erase all separate nations and turn them into distant memories.

Freedom would be the other distant memory.

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.