Category Archives: Press Fraud

Hillary dropping out of the race no longer a fantasy

Hillary dropping out of the race no longer a fantasy

by Jon Rappoport

September 12, 2016

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

Hillary buckled and fainted at the 9/11 memorial. The video available here at InfoWars, tells the story.

I’ve written about her health problems before, including the blood-thinning Coumadin she’s taking. And the blood clots. And the advisory against flying, because new life-threatening blood clots can occur.

I wrote—and I still say—Democrat power players would go along with electing her even if she was dragged into the Oval Office dead on arrival. They don’t care.

After Hillary’s fainting spell at the 9/11 memorial, the Washington Post, that organ of unquestioned truth, grants that it’s now acceptable to ask polite questions about her health. Well done, boys. You’re really going out on a limb. Thanks so much.

I think it’s time for major media to take an overt stand about Hillary: “She may be very sick, dangerously so, but it’s still a crime to emphasize that because it’s sexist, and besides, untoward publicity could allow Trump to slip into the White House, and besides, our news organization has donated to the Clinton Foundation, and besides, she’s Hillary and we all know and love her and we don’t want to think about something bad happening to her because then we would cry.”

I would accept that statement.

—Hillary’s public coughing fits. The physical instability. The fainting. The handler, Todd Madison, walking out on stage, putting his hand on her, telling her to keep talking, as if she’s forgotten what’s going on. You have to conclude her doctors have tried everything they can to keep her upright and functioning, and if this is best they can do, she’s in bad shape.

Hillary dropping out of the race for the Oval Office is no longer a fantasy. It could happen. If it does, the media will swing into gear and try to demand a delay in the election.

There is no basis for such a demand, because both major Parties can pick their candidate on their own terms. The Democrats, for example, as we’ve seen, can rig the vote and secretly back Hillary from the beginning and cook up propaganda to defeat Bernie Sanders. They can choose a slew of so-called super-delegates who owe nothing to the voters and, instead, support whoever they want to (Hillary). So if she drops out, the Democrat leaders can simply decide, again, without consulting voters, who the substitute is. Kaine? Biden? Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Michelle Obama? Rachel Maddow? Karl Marx?

No doubt, some progressive pundit will suggest Obama should stay in office for a while, because he has the experience, he’s Presidential, he’s done such a magnificent job in his two terms, his mission is unfinished (he must get the TPP treaty ratified), we need him to continue the dialogue on race in the post-racial society, he knows how to bypass Congress with a blizzard of executive orders, he can figure out a way to admit millions more illegal immigrants to these shores, he backs Black Lives Matter, and he knows how to talk about fake employment numbers and pretend they’re real.

The Democrats and their supporters will go on a victim binge: woe is us, Hillary our leader has fallen, we’re crippled (differently abled), we need time to regroup, we can’t be expected to make a snap judgment, who cares about constitutional rules governing elections, this is really serious, we have to decide what’s best for The People—and we have to find a way to pay off Bernie Sanders so he stays in hiding and keeps his big mouth shut.

I, for one, would like to see Trump vs. Bernie. Socialist vs. Capitalist. They could do three debates on Globalism and its horrendous effects on America, at which point the public would realize they both claim to perceive the gargantuan threat, albeit from different angles.

power outside the matrix

Hillary was the unabashed queen bee of Globalism.

At any rate, you can bet that, as we speak, media giants are taking private briefings on how the election season would proceed if she drops out. They’re preparing their talking points and tall stories and outright lies. All somehow culminating in a Democrat Party victory this November, come hell or high water.

“After Congressional leaders begged President Obama to stay on for several months, he reluctantly agreed, saying: ‘Well, I do have sixty or seventy executive orders drawn up and ready to go, so perhaps I could bring the country a little closer to the future we envision. We’re all in this together.’”

Jon Rappoport

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

Vaccines, ISIS, Benghazi, Federal Reserve, major media

Vaccines, ISIS, Benghazi, Federal Reserve, major media

Sources: Free Press, NASDAQ, Business Insider, BBC, Forbes.

by Jon Rappoport

August 29, 2016

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

Every wonder why and how major media can cover up enormous scandals about vaccines, Benghazi, the creation and funding of ISIS, the complicity of the federal government in drug trafficking, the failure of the $2 trillion war on poverty, the private Federal Reserve banking cartel?

33 years ago, 50 companies owned 90% of US media.

Now, 6 companies own 90% of US media.

They are: Comcast; The Walt Disney Company; 21st Century Fox; Time Warner; Viacom; CBS.

Here are their 2014 revenues. Comcast, $69 billion. Disney, $48.8 billion. 21st Century Fox, $40.5 billion. Time Warner, $22.8 billion. CBS, $13.8 billion. Viacom, $13.7 billion.

Note: Viacom and CBS are part-owned by National Amusements, under Sumner Redstone. 21st Century Fox is owned by the Murdoch Family Trust.

Here is a partial list of media outlets owned by the big six companies: Universal Pictures, NBC Universal, USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, ABC Television, ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Walt Disney Pictures, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Sports, National Geographic, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, HarperCollins, CNN, CW, HBO, TBS, TNT, DC Comics, MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, CBS Television Network.

Identical parrot-like reporting, on so many major news stories, across the board, now requires the cooperation of only six companies.

To put it another way, there is ironclad agreement to cover up the truth.

There are two dominating wire services which feed all these news outlets: Associated Press and Reuters. The Associated Press is a non-profit owned by TV, radio, and newspaper outlets in America, many of which outlets, of course, are in turn owned by the big six companies.

But…the six companies controlling US media have a monumental problem. They’re a clumsy, slow-moving, complacent giant. Time and time again, they fail to perceive their own preposterous flaws. Even with CIA assets on board, tailoring stories, and shrinking down points of view, this giant has become exceedingly vulnerable to so-called alternative media.

Ordinarily, when faced with such alternatives, a giant invents controlled opposition and portrays it as “the rebel,” when in fact it’s simply a watered-down version of the mainstream. But in this case, there are too many independent media outlets and reporters to control.

The big six shapers of mass reality are becoming prisoners of their own game. Increasingly they’re being recognized as fabricators of information-bubbles that often bear little or no resemblance to what is actually going on in the world.

Perceptions are changing. What was once a hugely convincing mural painted on a wall a hundred miles long, avidly watched by populations and accepted as Reality, is now seen as a series of self-referring interlocking data packets, disconnected from true news about the men who are literally stealing the planet.

Indeed, these big six companies are allies of the thieves. They are in the Club.

Once this is understood, the decline of big six credibility is unstoppable.

The big six create caricatures of political leaders (who are already caricatures), handpick experts who will confirm a story’s pre-selected bias, telescope events into a few details that misdirect the public, pretend a consensus exists when it doesn’t, slide by with generalities and worn out homilies, and even at this late date expect to be believed.

As these strategies are more widely understood, the decline of big six credibility accelerates.

The Matrix Revealed

The big six do everything in their power to give the audience a theatrical presentation of the news, while trying to make it appear there is nothing theatrical about it.

As this is seen, their credibility becomes a joke.

“And now, for our top story tonight, we go to (field reporter) in (distant city).”

The field reporter knows nothing of consequence about the city he’s in, nor has he searched out a single item about the story himself. He may as well be speaking from a network studio in New York. And, by the way, his information is actually centered in New York. It consists of incoming wire service reports, phone conversations with government PR people, updates from biased law-enforcement officials…

Lights, camera, action.

Let the farce begin.

But the show is closing.

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.

Media lie about Hillary’s severe health condition

Media lie about Hillary’s severe health condition

The rat poison problem

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

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

Major media are rushing to do damage control on Hillary’s health. They’re trying to lay down the concrete of a fake consensus that she’s fine, because her doctor issued a positive report in 2015. (See here).

But one of the bottom lines is: she’s suffered from dangerous blood clots. And the treatment is blood-thinners, which are given to reduce the possibility of a fatal clot.

Hillary is taking Coumadin, also known as Warfarin.

It’s a rat poison. It kills rats by causing them to bleed out internally. This is a fact.

Therefore, the prescribing doctor and the patient walk a tightrope. How much Coumadin is too much? How little is too little? Too much, and life-threatening bleeding can occur. Too little and fatal blood clots can occur.

Therefore, Hillary is being monitored VERY closely, on a weekly basis, with tests. But the tests aren’t mathematically precise. The monitoring isn’t ironclad science.

And since Coumadin is highly toxic, serious liver damage is a consequence, especially when the drug is given long-term, which is the case here.

Media outlets are going with, “Well, her doctors know what they’re doing. They’re issuing positive reports. They’re giving her a clean bill of health.”

Nonsense.

You put someone on Coumadin, long-term, and you’re rolling the dice. In her case, this treatment is back-against-the-wall, last-line-of-defense.

If her past blood clots were somehow interpreted as minor or incidental, long-term Coumadin would never be the treatment of choice.

This patient, Hillary Clinton, is very high-risk.

The last thing you would want this patient to do is engage in day-to-day, high-stress activity. You would definitely not want the patient to fly in airplanes, because that activity can exacerbate her condition. Lethally.

power outside the matrix

Her major media allies (and they are, of course, many) have no genuine interest in her health risks. They would be able to handle her as President, even if she turned out to be dead on arrival.

Her closest aides, and her husband, are aware of all these facts. They’re shrugging them off and pressing for a victory in the election this fall. That’s the game plan, come hell or high water.

But the blood clot problem and rat poison problem aren’t going to go away.

Any honest doctor will tell you that.

Whether Hillary has Parkinson’s, whether she has trouble maintaining her balance, whether she has “brain-freezes”…yes, these are all subjects for discussion. But either way, the blood clots and the Coumadin are putting her on a cliff’s edge.

Politics aside, the refusal of major media to bring this into the light on a serious basis is insane.

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.

US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?

Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

by Jon Rappoport

August 1, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS.

I urge you to dive into her multi-part series, Fraction Magic (Part-1 here). Here are key Harris quotes. They’re all shockers:

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

“This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.”

“GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.”

“Instead of ‘1’ the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.”

“Weighting a race [through the use of GEMS] removes the principle of ‘one person-one vote’ to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.”

“All evidence that [rigged] fractional values ever existed [in the GEMS system] can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the [rigged] decimals will fail to reveal they were used.”

“Source code: Instructions to treat votes as decimal values instead of whole numbers [i.e., rigging] are inserted multiple times in the GEMS source code itself; thus, this feature cannot have been created by accident.”

A contact who, so far, apparently wishes to remain anonymous states the following about the history of the GEMS system:

“The Fractional vote [rigging] portion traces directly to Jeffrey W. Dean, whose wife was primary stockholder of the company that developed GEMS. He ran the company but was prohibited from handling money or checks due to a criminal conviction for computer fraud, for which he spent 4 years in prison. Almost immediately after being released from prison he was granted intimate access to elections data and large government contracts for ballot printing and ballot processing.”

power outside the matrix

I see no effort on the part of the federal government, state governments, or the mainstream press to investigate the GEMS system or respond to Bev Harris’ extensive analysis.

It’s not as if media outlets are unaware of her. From shesource.org, here is an excerpt from her bio:

“Harris has been referred to as ‘the godmother’ of the election reform movement. (Boston Globe). Vanity Fair magazine credits her with founding the movement to reform electronic voting. Time Magazine calls her book, Black Box Voting, ‘the bible’ of electronic voting… Harris’s investigations have led some to call her the ‘Erin Brockovich of elections.’ (Salon.com)… Harris has supervised five ‘hack demonstrations’ in the field, using real voting machines. These have been covered by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and in formal reports by the United States General Accounting Office…”

So far, her analysis of GEMS seems to be labeled “too hot to handle.” Press outlets prefer to report the slinging of mud from both Presidential candidates’ camps. Meanwhile, the actual results of the coming elections—including Congressional races—appear to be up for grabs, depending on who controls GEMS.

Jon Rappoport

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

Television news illusion: “reporter in the field on location”

by Jon Rappoport

June 21, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

All mainstream television news is built on transitions from one item to another. These transitions are called blends or segues. For example, the anchor in the studio goes to a “reporter on location” where “the news is happening” in real time.

However, in many cases, the anchor in the studio already knows what the reporter on location is going to say. That field reporter could just as easily be sitting in a public bathroom a block away from the studio, for all the good he does. Or he could be sitting in the studio in front of a fake backdrop. It’s a con.

But the sense of transition from one place and person to another imparts the sense of importance. The viewer thinks, “They’re going right to the spot where the shooting occurred an hour ago.” Yes, but the shooting, or whatever actually happened, is over. Or if it’s still in progress, the field reporter is getting his information directly from the police—he could have accomplished that with a phone call from a thousand miles away.

No network news operation allows a reporter in the field to discover something unofficial on his own. That’s verboten. It can get him fired.

So if the reporter on location wanted to tell the truth, he would say, “I’m standing here on a street corner five blocks away from the shooting, and I have nothing new to report. The cops just held a press conference, and they merely said the event was under investigation. I could have told you that while I was in bed back in my apartment. That’s it from here at the moment. I’ll be back with more meaningless updates as they occur. Stay tuned.”

Then the anchor back in the studio would say, “Thanks, Craig. I already knew about the press conference where nothing of substance was mentioned. You added zero to that zero. But you’re there. That’s what’s important. You give the illusion of live presence. We’ll be back after this break. Now we have to sell pharmaceuticals you don’t need. Stay tuned.”

Both the anchor and the reporter in the field earn their paychecks by making the viewing audience feel they’re “transitioning” from one important place (the studio) to another (the street corner). That’s the key. Here one minute, there the next. Most of the time, here and there are as vital as someone posting a video of himself sleeping.

“Now we go to Cairo, where street protests are taking place. Our reporter, Jeff Hassenfeffer, is there. Jeff?”

Cut to close-up of people milling about on a street. They’re yelling, shoving, and running. Jeff is standing in front of them. But who are these people? What are they really doing? Why are they there? What’s the issue? Do the protestors understand it? Are they trying to overthrow the government? If so, would it do any good? Would the new government crack down even harder than the old one? Are all these milling people know-nothings? Are they mere fronts for a new dictator in the shadows? The “reporter in the field,” Jeff, doesn’t know and doesn’t care. He’s there. That’s the important thing.

“Thanks, Jeff. Wow. People in the street. A revelation.”

Again, the reporter in the field isn’t doing any actual digging to come up with independent information. He’s there because he’s wearing a tan shirt with a lot of pockets, and he has a reasonably nice face, and his voice is a strong baritone. In college, he sang “Fiddler on the Roof.”

There is one thing a field reporter can do. By accident. He can interview a witness to an event who says something that departs from the official scenario. “There were three shooters, not one.” But this momentary flicker is shut down, never to appear again.

When the field reporter shows up at work in the studio the next day, someone will say, “Good interviews. Good job.” But what that means is: “You interviewed people. They said something. Anything.” That’s all.

People have accused CNN of faking on-location footage during the 1991 Gulf War, and later in the coverage of Sandy Hook. Regardless, all the information on the War and the school shooting came from official sources. The field reporters weren’t discovering news—they were taking dictation.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I interviewed several researchers at major universities, and also spoke with a public information spokesman at the CDC, who relayed my questions to researchers and then came back to me with answers. I was doing this from a one-room apartment several thousand miles away, using a phone. That’s all I needed. I could have been standing in front of a building on the Harvard campus, or outside the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, with a television camera recording me—as I spoke on the phone—but what difference would it have made? I needed to document the official (false) position on AIDS, and I did.

Mainstream network television news is all about building illusions, and the transition from studio to the field is one of the cornerstones. The viewer is treated to a vicarious sense of traveling. In a moment, he goes from New York to Afghanistan. Therefore, something important must be happening.

But it isn’t.

That’s the joke.

Occasionally, when a breaking story is deemed “super-huge,” the network anchor will go to the scene and set up shop. That’s the pinnacle. He himself, in all his glory, stands on a street corner or a hill overlooking the corner, and says what he would have said back in the studio. Now the audience is riveted. “The man showed up. He’s there. Look. This is big.”

In this case, the trick isn’t location. It’s dislocation. It’s on the order of pulling up to a gas pump, getting out of your car, and suddenly seeing a movie star at the next pump. The star doesn’t belong there. He belongs on a movie screen. But he’s there at the pump. Dislocation.

Exit From the Matrix

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

The national network anchor is standing on a street in a town in Connecticut. He’s supposed to be in a studio, but he isn’t. Viewers are fixated.

The anchor came down out of his castle to mix with the common folk.

“Look, Fred, he’s on the street. I didn’t know he could do that. He’s breathing the same air we do.”

“Shh. I’m watching. Maybe he’ll hand out dimes to the peasants.”

“He looks a little tired.”

“Of course he’s tired. He’s been standing there for a half-hour. He’s on location. That’s got to be as exhausting as going down into a coal mine and working all day.”

Twelve hours later, the anchor is back home, in the studio. He still looks a little worn around the edges. He has a makeup assistant who knows how to create that effect. And of course, coming across as a bit world-weary is something the anchor has been practicing since he was twelve.

“And now we go to our Jeff Hassenfeffer in Tel Aviv. Jeff, exactly where are you?”

“Hi Brian. As you can see, I’m not in Tel Aviv. I’m in bed in my apartment on 110th Street. Sorry about all the beer bottles. We had a party a few hours ago. Anyway, let me bring you up to speed. I’m watching FOX. They’re reporting on the terror attack there. They’re getting their information from the Israeli PR people, just like we are. So it seemed easier to stay home. Here’s the latest Israeli press release…”

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.

Mind control achieved through the “information flicker effect”

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

I wrote this piece in 2012, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. I re-post it now, because it equally applies to the Orlando shooting.

No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The topflight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring.

The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience.

So when the police privately tell reporters, “We chased a suspect into the woods above the school,” that becomes a television fact. Until it isn’t a fact any longer.

The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole “suspect in the woods” angle.

Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it.

Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods.

That old thread has gone down the memory hole.

What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. On-off switch. It was on, now it’s off.

This is a break in logic. It makes no sense.

Which is the whole point.

The viewer thinks: “Let’s see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesn’t exist. We don’t know his name. We don’t know why he’s off the radar. We don’t know whether he was arrested. We don’t know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess I’ll have to forget all about him. I’ll just track what the anchor is telling me. He’s telling the story. I have to follow his story.”

This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adam’s brother was found dead. No, that’s gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, that’s gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons.

At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to “stay in the loop.”

But this flicker effect does something to the viewer’s mind. His mind is no longer alert. It’s not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved.

“How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut?”

“Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle?”

“Or was it really a rifle?”

“I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isn’t the anchor keeping track of him?”

All these obvious and reasonable questions (and many others) have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story.

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewer…passivity.

He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders.

This is mind control.

The television anchor doesn’t have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an ever-increasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible.

He knows how to do that. That’s why he is the anchor.

He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless non-sequiturs.

And the viewer pays the price.

Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed.

Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. He’s watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating.

The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars.

The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable.

Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldn’t permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer.

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative.

Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer.

Interesting how they never disagree.

Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened.

What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive?

But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them.

They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off.

And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis.

Why?

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next fix.

“Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now I’m bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. I’m listening. I’m watching. Tell me a story.”

And the anchors oblige.

They deal the drug.

But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction.

And the drug deal is consummated.

Welcome to television coverage.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segue (transition) that leads to…the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story:

Give up the guns.

In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers don’t ask why law-enforcement agencies are so massively armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper.

Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers also assume the television anchors are government allies and spokespeople, and aren’t those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable?

Therefore, isn’t the government also kind and honorable?

In case you think the public is too stupid to emerge from its trance, and would never be able to follow a line of rational discourse, if by some miracle television anchors presented one, I disagree.

During my investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, I encountered several local citizens who were exceedingly awake, alert, and helpful. Again and again over the years, I have had help from private citizens in my research.

This is why I’ve always supported the idea of citizen grand juries, convened to investigate crimes in the area where they live. Tasked to discover the truth, wherever it leads, such people would suddenly display surprising skills. Opportunity is all that is necessary.

The media put people under, flick the on-off switches that short-circuit logic. The media practice hypnosis. The media work for surrender of the mind. The media present boggling absurdities that put the mind to sleep. The media appoint themselves as the final authorities.

This is perverse theater.

That’s all it is.

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.

British MP Jo Cox murdered: now comes the pysop

British MP Jo Cox murdered: now comes the pysop

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2016

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

“Create a killer? Take someone who’s unstable, pump him up with SSRI antidepressants, fill his head full of ideas about violent action, point him in a desired direction, and stand back.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

On June 23rd, the UK will vote on whether to stay in the European Union (the “remain” campaign) or leave the EU (“Brexit”).

The polls show a marked shift, with Brexit supporters gaining. Then a British MP, Jo Cox, who has urged Brits to remain, is murdered.

The man who is arrested, Thomas Mair, is alleged to have shouted “Britain First!” (Brexit) as he killed Cox. However, now witnesses on the scene are saying they heard no such thing.

Too late. Social media and news media are running with the “Britain First, Brexit killer” narrative.

Here is the psyop formula:

MP Jo Cox wanted to remain in the EU. Her killer was a “Brexit right-wing crazy” who yelled “Britain First!” as he murdered her. Therefore, all people who want Brexit are right-wing crazies. Therefore, vote to remain in the EU.

This is how you demonize millions of people.

Jo Cox=good=remain in the EU. Her killer=leave the EU=all people who want to leave the EU are killers.

And then there is this. The arrested killer, Thomas Mair, is widely acknowledged to have been mentally unstable. Well, read this local news story from several year ago, for yourself:

“Thomas Mair, 46, started volunteering at the park [creating a garden] after learning about the opportunity through the Mirfield-based Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental health problems.”

“He said: “I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world.”

“All these problems are alleviated by doing voluntary work.”

“Getting out of the house and meeting new people is a good thing, but more important in my view is doing physically demanding and useful labour.”

“When you have finished there is a feeling of achievement which is emotionally rewarding and psychologically fulfilling.”

Mair states he had been on medication. Specifically which drugs? SSRI antidepressants are a distinct possibility. If so, that’s a potential clue, because these drugs are known to push people over the edge into violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The same violence can be generated by suddenly withdrawing from the drugs.

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the former president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. In a 1999 interview with me, Tarantolo stated: “All the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

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

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

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

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

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

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin-effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature. Can they add up to sudden violence? Just read the list. The answer is obvious:

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

power outside the matrix

Was Thomas Mair, the accused killer of MP Jo Cox, on one of the SSRI antidepressants? Or Ritalin? Had he withdrawn from one of these drugs too quickly, which can make the effects even more drastic? Who was his doctor?

These aren’t trivial matters. They’re vital (though ignored by major media), and they can possibly explain the death of Jo Cox. For decades, the press has been playing on psychiatry’s team, covering up psychiatry’s crimes.

Whether yes or no, the agenda to “remain” in the EU has just gotten a jolt of support.

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 of the meta-criminal

Is the NSA manipulating the stock market?

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Trevor Timm of the Electronic Freedom Frontier dug up a very interesting nugget. It was embedded in the heralded December 2013 White House task force report on spying and snooping.

Under Recommendations, #31, section 2, he found this:

“Governments should not use their offensive cyber capabilities to change the amounts held in financial accounts or otherwise manipulate financial systems.”

Timm quite rightly wondered: why were these warnings in the report?

Were the authors just anticipating a possible crime? Or were they reflecting the fact that the NSA had already been engaging in the crime?

If this was just a bit of anticipation, why leave it naked in the report? Why not say there was no current evidence the NSA had been manipulating financial systems?

Those systems would, of course, include the stock market, and all trading markets around the world.

Well, there is definite evidence of other NSA financial snooping. From Spiegel Online, “‘Follow the Money’: NSA Spies on International Payments,” 9/15/13:

“The National Security Agency (NSA) widely monitors international payments, banking and credit card transactions, according to documents seen by SPIEGEL.”

“The NSA’s Tracfin data bank also contained data from the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a network used by thousands of banks to send transaction information securely…the NSA spied on the organization on several levels, involving, among others, the [NSA] agency’s ‘tailored access operations’ division…”

The NSA’s “tailored access operations” division uses roughly 1000 hackers and analysts in its spying efforts.

The next step in all this spying would naturally involve penetrating trading markets and, using the deep data obtained, manipulate the markets to the advantage of the NSA and preferred clients.

The amount of money siphoned off in such an ongoing operation would be enormous.

“Looking over the shoulder” of Wall St. insiders would be child’s play for NSA.

Ditto for predicting political events that would temporarily drive markets down and provide golden opportunities for highly profitable short selling.

Like drug traffickers and other mobsters, the NSA could invest their ill-gotten gains in legitimate enterprises and reap additional rewards.

And if the Pentagon, under which the NSA is organized, requires heavy amounts of money for off-the-books black budget ops, what better place to go than their own NSA?

All in all, when you operate the biggest spying and data-gathering operation in the world, the opportunities abound. Yes, knowledge is power, when the distinctions between legal and illegal are brushed off like a few gnats on a summer day.

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.

Brad Thor’s novel, Black List, posits the existence of a monster corporation, ATS, which stands alongside the NSA in collecting information on every move we make. ATS’ intelligence-gathering capability is unmatched anywhere in the world.

On pages 117-118 of Black List, Thor makes a stunning inference that, on reflection, is as obvious as the fingers on your hand:

“For years ATS had been using its technological superiority to conduct massive insider trading. Since the early 1980s, the company had spied on anyone and everyone in the financial world. They listened in on phone calls, intercepted faxes, and evolved right along with the technology, hacking internal computer networks and e-mail accounts. They created mountains of ‘black dollars’ for themselves, which they washed through various programs they were running under secret contract, far from the prying eyes of financial regulators.

“Those black dollars were invested into hard assets around the world, as well as in the stock market, through sham, offshore corporations. They also funneled the money into reams of promising R&D projects, which eventually would be turned around and sold to the Pentagon or the CIA.

“In short, ATS had created its own license to print money and had assured itself a place beyond examination or reproach.”

In real life, with the NSA heading up the show, the outcome would be the same.

It would be as Thor describes it.

We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

It gives new meaning to “the rich get richer.”

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.

We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.

We are talking about the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

The information matrix can be tapped into and plumbed, and it can also be used to dispense choice clusters of data that end up constituting the media reality of painted pictures which, every day, show billions of people “what’s news.”

It’s likely that the probe Ron Paul was once pushing—audit the Federal Reserve—has already been done by those who control unlimited global surveillance. They already know far more than any Congressional investigation will uncover. If they know the deepest truths, they can use them to blackmail, manipulate, and control the Fed itself.

In this global-surveillance world, we need to ask new questions and think along different lines now.

For example, how long before the mortgage-derivative crisis hit did the Masters of Surveillance know, from spying on bank records, that insupportable debt was accumulating at a lethal pace? What did they do with that information?

When did they know that at least a trillion dollars was missing from Pentagon accounting books, as Donald Rumsfeld eventually admitted on September 10, 2001, and what did they do with that information?

When did they know the details of the Libor rate-fixing scandal? Press reports indicate that Barclays was trying to rig interest rates as early as January 2005.

Have they tracked, in detail, the men responsible for recruiting hired mercenaries and terrorists, who eventually wound up in Syria pretending to be an authentic rebel force?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford.

power outside the matrix

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.

No, we’re not in Kansas anymore. But wherever we’ve gone to, the NSA is already there, and they’ve been tapping in, taking out, and using untold bits of data to stage and profit from events of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Time, in that sense, has ballooned, expanded, turned inside out, exploded, and laid itself flat on a table, for close inspection by the eyes of Surveillance Central.

Understanding this, we need to analyze what is happening in the world with a new dimension of criminal reality-maker in mind.

The meta-criminal.

Jon Rappoport

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

A message to Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other sites that expose secrets

Does 2.25 million deaths in America, per decade, at the hands of the medical system, rate as a significant leak?

by Jon Rappoport

May 19, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve reported on a number of scandals concerning the toxicity of medical drugs and vaccines, including shocking death numbers in the US.

These scandals are leaks from inside the National Security State.

If you visit Wikileaks, Cryptome, Public Intelligence, and other similar sites, how many purely medical documents do you find posted?

How many damaging leaks exposing the crimes of the medical cartel do you find?

Very, very few.

Where are the medical insiders who are liberating and passing along incriminating documentary evidence?

Some of the best exposers of political, intelligence-agency, and military crimes are way behind the curve, when it comes to medical matters.

The medical sphere, for various reasons, is far better protected than any other segment of society.

For the hundredth time, let me cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Starfield, at the time, was working as a highly respected public health expert, at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

She concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would add up to 2.25 million deaths per decade.

Laid directly at the door of the American medical complex.

106,000 of those annual deaths, as Starfield reports, are the direct result of medical drugs

Aside from the genocidal death toll, Starfield’s findings also reveal massive fraud in all medical journals that routinely publish the glowing results of clinical trials of drugs.

How could such trials open the door to the marketing of drugs that kill, according to Starfield, 106,000 Americans every year, unless deep, continuing, and abetted research fraud were the order of the day?

Indeed, Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

The FDA, of course, is the single government agency responsible for certifying drugs as safe and effective, before their public release is permitted. Yet the FDA takes absolutely no responsibility for the deaths.

Can you imagine the feeding frenzy, if, say, some leaker in the Pentagon passed along a political/military document to Wikileaks that showed the Dept. of Defense was poisoning to death, like clockwork, a hundred thousand of its own soldiers every year?

Let’s stop this insane nonsense of separating one whole set of government crimes from another, simply because the propagandized priests in the white coats are above reproach.

We’re not living in 1950 anymore, and this isn’t Kansas.

In 1988, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I stated that medical covert ops are the most successful methods for pacifying, debilitating, and controlling populations, through toxification, because these ops fly the flag of political neutrality.

They appear to favor no king, dictator, president, government administration or partisan position.

Their propaganda is all about healing and helping.

In fact, the medical cartel is, in the long run, the most effective branch of political repression, from one end of the planet to the other.

It favors top-down control by those in power, whoever they are, whatever they claim to stand for.

Consider this: when Ed Snowden released NSA documents that showed the extent of government surveillance on populations, no one from the intelligence establishment made a serious case that Snowden’s revelations were false. Instead, they attacked Snowden for exposing “methods” of “the war on terror.”

However, in the medical arena, leakers would be afraid that doctors, medical bureaucrats, public health agencies, government leaders, drug-company fronts, and major media outlets would, all at once, deny the validity and truth of the leaks—despite the fact that the truth is there for all to see.

In other words, the best protected cartel in the world—medical—would act in a far more Orwellian fashion. It would say: the truth is not the truth, the facts are not the facts, 2 and 2 do not equal 4—and the cartel would get away with doing that.

This is the kind of clout we’re talking about when it comes to medical matters.

Over the years, I’ve alerted mainstream reporters to the Starfield review, cited above, and other confirming published studies that reveal the horrific extent of medical destruction. Those reporters who bothered to get back to me issued blanket denials. They essentially said, “Yes, I see the evidence and the facts, but the facts aren’t facts. What’s happening isn’t happening.”

Now we’re talking about some heavy brainwashing.

By comparison, it makes the quality of the scandal around Snowden seem like a Sunday lunch in the park.

A few years ago, I had one reporter, who exposes political leaks, tell me: “I don’t mess with medical stuff. It would ruin my credibility.”

Indeed. Another indication of how powerful the medical apparatus is.

Recently, the Washington Post highlighted a new study that puts “medical errors” as the 3rd leading cause of death in America. There hasn’t been any significant follow-up. There hasn’t been an explosion of outrage. So even when exposure occurs, the brainwashing factor is so strong it makes no difference. It’s just another ho-hum day in the news business.

That’s mind control par excellence. That’s tremendous protection of criminals.

That’s like a crime boss saying, “Yeah, I kill 225,000 people every year, but it’s an accident”—and nothing happens.

He goes his merry way, and everyone praises him as a humanitarian.

Talk about inventing and selling false reality.

This one is at the top of the charts, and it stays there.

power outside the matrix

I could stop here, but I’m going to take this one step further, because, as you can see, I’m talking about mind control. So here is the vital add-on:

From the dawn of history, humans have been particularly vulnerable to statements about being saved, being rescued, being given gifts from above, from selfless altruists. And behind those statements, when there is an organization involved, a top-down organization, the threat level rises considerably.

Leaders have always recognized that if they match their pronouncements and assurances with the population’s unflagging hope of being saved, they, the leaders, win. They win big.

Even in societies where overt human sacrifice was practiced, the cover story involved some kind of healing and rescue. The good gods would see the sacrifices and intervene to produce “better days.” Better life for all.

This is what was sold, and this was what was bought. For many people, the times have not changed. Make them a promise of rescue, and they’re in. They’re floating in a hopeful trance.

A hypnotic induction has been performed, and it works.

The controlled subject responds with gratitude.

At that point, you can engage in complete contradictions, rank absurdities, and doublespeak.

The trance will hold.

As my old research collaborator, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview, “People want dreams. When they lose faith in their own ability to dream about the life they want, they’ll accept someone else dreaming for them. That’s what hypnosis is. Someone else dreaming for you. This is the subconscious sub-text: he gives you a fantasy about being saved from the despair of being cut off from your own dreams, and you accept it. You accept a substitute. That’s hypnosis. That’s mind control. That’s believing you can live in someone else’s creation forever…”

If I were the head of an institution of higher learning, I would engrave that quote above the gates, and I would build a four-year course that explores the implications of the quote in every dimension of human existence.

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.

TPP, TTIP: Obama’s secret trade deals vs. Trump and Bernie

TPP, TTIP: Obama’s secret trade deals vs. Trump and Bernie

by Jon Rappoport

May 2, 2016

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

The press refuses to state the obvious: two US Presidential candidates who couldn’t be more different are on the same page when it comes to Globalist trade treaties.

Trump and Bernie—the gunslinger fast–talking cowboy and the programmatic socialist.

If the press did connect the dots, it would be admitting that millions of Americans from both candidates’ camps recognize the danger of these treaties—and pumping up that revelation would bring a major threat to the Globalist water-boy in the White House.

He is Barack Obama. When a preliminary vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) stalled in Congress last year, Obama and his team jumped on the phones and stayed there night and day trying to drum up support. And now, when the UK is considering an exit from the European Union, thus throwing a large monkey wrench in the US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Obama flies to London, where, shockingly, he lowers the boom on the British government and the public, warning that an independent UK would have to stand at the back of the line when it comes to formulating a separate trade pact with the US.

Obama, as you might remember, was tutored on foreign policy, after his election in 2008, by Zbiggie Brzezinski, the intellectual water-boy for David Rockefeller, the king of Globalism, Planet Earth.

Brzezinski once wrote (1969):

“The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

These Globalist trade deals are, indeed, exercises in eliminating nations and turning over the economy of the world to mega-corporations.

For example, as The Independent reported (“What is TTIP? And six reasons why the answer should scare you,” 10/6/2015), the TTIP embodies Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), whereby corporations can sue governments when their profits are endangered.

For instance, Monsanto could sue the EU for refusing to accept the import of GMO food crops, thereby enabling a Monsanto end-run around Europe’s tight restrictions on GMOs.

The Independent:

“There are around 500 similar [ISDS] cases of businesses versus nations going on around the world at the moment and they are all taking place before ‘arbitration tribunals’ made up of corporate lawyers appointed on an ad hoc basis, which according to War on Want’s John Hilary, are ‘little more than kangaroo courts’ with ‘a vested interest in ruling in favour of business.’”

A nation has its own court system? How quaint. How outmoded. Let corporations take over.

Here are other agreements embedded in the TTIP Treaty—which by the way, is a super-secret contract very few people are permitted to read as negotiations now wrap up. The Independent cites several leaked points:

Under the TTIP, the provincial European notion of testing chemicals for safety before unleashing them on the population would be bulldozed by the superior American method: drench the people, ignore the consequences, and invent a consensus that the chemicals (e.g., pesticides) are harmless. Good luck with the consequences, Europe.

There would far less monitoring of the clinical trials of new medical drugs. Translation: pharmaceutical companies would be able to conceal trials that reveal devastating harm. More chemical assault against the populations of both Europe and the US.

Food safety and environmental standards would be compromised on both sides of the Atlantic.

European public services (water, health, education) would open their doors to privatization by US companies looking for ways to turn these services into profit-making enterprises—at higher prices. Big Pharma, with its load of toxic drugs, would exploit new markets by infiltrating nations’ public health services.

Consider the recent astounding action of US Trade Representatives in Europe. Using the TTIP negotiations as a blunt weapon, US Trade Reps pressured the European Union (EU) to modify its stance on pesticides.

The Guardian (May 22, 2015) headline and tag says it all:

“EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal… US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal”.

Note: this repressive and criminal action didn’t even involve a treaty that had been ratified. The pressure was all about the so-called positive economic impact the TTIP would have, when passed, for Europe. And in the face of that fictitious money benefit, and the threat of its removal (by ditching the TTIP negotiations), who would dare curb the import and use of chemicals that achieve something as “minor” as disrupting human endocrine systems and causing male infertility and cancer?

This is the sort of judgment we can look forward to, if the TTIP is ratified.

All this is what Obama is pushing. All this is what Hillary Clinton is pushing. At least some of this is what Trump and Bernie are criticizing.

the matrix revealed

The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), another of the blockbuster trade treaties on the table, involves 12 member nations in the Pacific region. The TPP contains similar provisions for mega-corporations: the ISDS tribunals that supersede national courts; the shifting of controls on chemical safety to corporations; greater roughshod international intrusions by pharmaceutical and GMO/pesticide companies.

It’s a grotesque frame-up and set-up masquerading as a more equitable global economy.

And of course, implicit in all these trade treaties is the exporting of jobs from countries where wages and costs are higher to countries where they are lower—as low as possible, with as few environmental regulations as possible, with as few unions as possible. Where the rule of thumb is: Down and Dirty.

It’s more than interesting that the biggest voting bloc in the US—the sum of Trump and Bernie supporters—are solidly against these Globalist treaties. But there the supporters are, on opposite sides of the fence, glaring at each other, while Hillary Clinton rides her horse down the center stripe, her blood-soaked hands on the reins, promising a united future for America.

Yes, united, under corporate Globalist management.

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.