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.

What you’ll never read about virus-research fraud

The rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

There are very few investigators on the planet who are interested in this subject. I am one of them. There is a reason why.

In many articles, I’ve written about the shocking lack of logic in the curriculum of advanced centers of learning. When I attended college, I was fortunate to have a professor who taught logic, and taught it in a way that appealed to the minds of his students. In other words, for those of us who cared, we could not only absorb the subject matter, we could think with it; for example, we could approach an area of knowledge and track it back to its most basic premises. And then we could check those premises and see whether they were true and correct. If they were incorrect, we could then challenge many accepted notions that followed from those basic untruths.

That is one of the payoffs of being able to deploy logic.

With this introduction, let me bring up the issue of disease-causation. How do researchers decide that a given virus causes a given condition?

There are many twists and turns involved in answering the question, but before being able to engage in such a discussion, a more basic factor has to be considered:

Has the virus in question ever been isolated and identified? More simply, has it ever been found?

Obviously, in order to eventually say virus A causes condition B, you have to know you’ve found, discovered, isolated virus A from some tissue sample removed from a human being.

I’m not talking about tests run on people in 2016, to decide whether they have virus A. I’m talking about the first time, the first time ever a researcher said, “I’ve found a virus we’ve never seen before. I’m calling it virus A.”

So, for example, with all the chatter about people with Ebola in recent years, the question would be: when was the first time a researcher said, “We’ve verified the existence of a virus we’ve never seen before, and we’re calling it Ebola.”

When was that, and by what procedure was this discovery made?

For many people, it’s unthinkable that scientists would say a given virus is causing many people to fall ill—and yet that virus had never really been isolated and identified—but who knows what you find out when you go down the rabbit hole?

Let’s consider HIV, the purported cause of AIDS. Independent reporter Christine Johnson conducted a magnificent and shocking rabbit-hole interview with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…” The interview was titled: Does HIV Exist?

I’ll highlight part of the exchange, because it’s so telling and instructive. Keep in mind that what Eleni Papadopulos is saying about HIV could apply to any virus — including zika.

The interview takes up a few complex procedures, but if you read through it several times, you should be able to sort out the key points:

Christine Johnson (CJ): Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos (EP): There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”

—end of interview excerpt—

This is shocking, to say the least.

How can researchers or doctors say that HIV is causing AIDS, when the correct procedures for finding HIV and identifying it were never followed in the first place?

“HIV causes AIDS. Of course it does. But, oops, we never proved the virus exists.”

“Of course it exists. It has to.”

“Yes. Right. But we never isolated it. We never demonstrated that it exists.”

“This conversation is counter-productive. Let’s move on.”

“Yes, we must move on. We never spoke of this.”

There is no rabbit hole. Of course not.

That gaping entrance with the tunnel that goes down and down and down? Must have been some construction project that was abandoned. Or it’s just an illusion. We need corrective lenses.

Sure, and if enough people keep saying this, they’ll all forget the logic that keeps staring them in the face.

Almost two years ago, I sent the CDC a FOIA request: provide me with evidence the Ebola virus has ever been isolated from a human being and identified. I’ve never heard back.

I’ll close with another example: SARS. In 2003, this “dreaded epidemic” swept across the world. Quickly, it became apparent it was a dud. In Canada, a microbiologist, Frank Plummer, who was working for the World Health Organization (WHO), wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by what he was seeing. Fewer and fewer people diagnosed with SARS showed any trace of the coronavirus, which WHO claimed was the cause of SARS. Plummer was essentially saying people with SARS didn’t have SARS. That was a major scandal, but the press wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It raised an even more basic question. Had WHO researchers ever actually found this coronavirus in the first place, or had they asserted its existence based on scanty (or no) evidence?

No one in major media asked or cared. They went along with the “epidemic” story, and when it died, they moved on to other matters.

That strategy is what passes for logic esteemed fourth estate.

power outside the matrix

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.

Zika, Florida, NSA Hillary emails, Obama signs Dark Act

Zika, Florida, NSA Hillary emails, Obama signs GMO Dark Act

Give us your urine

by Jon Rappoport

August 2, 2016

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

Every day in the news business is a fake day.

Headlines and articles smear lies, cover stories, distractions, diversions, and phony parroting across the landscape. And headlines that would reveal important truth are omitted.

The gullible buy in and submit themselves to prime-A mind control.

Here are three current stories I have covered in detail already:

Zika, Florida (one Miami area is the focus): the CDC has issued a travel warning. Pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant, should avoid this area. Feds are going door asking for urine samples, to test for Zika.

But every effort in Brazil, America, Colombia and other countries to link Zika to the birth defect called microcephaly has failed. Utterly. (Zika article archive here)

The correlation between the presence of Zika and cases of microcephaly is so weak, so thin, that researchers have resorted to a bumbling “add-on” analysis. It goes this way:

“If we can find several groups in which Zika and microcephaly are barely connected at all, and combine these findings, we can say they add up to a convincing case.”

In Brazil, embarrassed researchers have simply given up trying to show a correlation between Zika and the birth defect. They simply assert the connection, despite the fact that, at best, Zika is present in perhaps one-fifth of all microcephaly cases.

By any scientific measure, this constitutes counter-evidence that Zika causes microcephaly. But it doesn’t deter the CDC or the World Health Organization. They march on, their message of unrelenting fear fed directly into the brain of the mainstream press, and out into the public. The promise? A blockbuster vaccine, and high profits for Pharma.

Shifting to Hillary Clinton: her email scandal is, at the least, a case of extreme gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. FBI Director Comey said as much, several weeks ago, as he recommended no-prosecution during a global press conference.

“She’s guilty as hell, but we shouldn’t take her to court.”

Comey, acting as if he were, suddenly, a Grand Jury, the US Attorney General, and an appellate judge, misread the Federal Penal Statute—which specifically states that intent to do harm is irrelevant, and gross negligence is the standard—and dismissed a felony case against Hillary out of hand.

Now, Bill Binney, a former high-level NSA analyst who exposed the Agency’s crimes long before Ed Snowden emerged, states that the NSA would actually have all her emails, including the ones which were deleted and never turned over to the Justice Department.

Not only that, the NSA would, as a matter of course, share this information with the FBI and the CIA. In other words, the FBI has been posturing for over a year, in its comments about the missing emails. They could have access to them with a single request.

But mainstream press outlets are ignoring these new revelations. The Hillary case is history. Nothing to see. It’s old news. She’s been exonerated. She’s good to go in her campaign to win the Presidency. That’s the unanimous mainstream consensus.

And finally, Obama has signed the Dark Act, the federal bill which guts the right of any state to clearly label food products containing GMOs. Instead, a new federal standard will be developed—a so-called Q rating system. Under this program, which may possibly be implemented in the next five years, consumers can, if they’re aware, stop shopping and use their i-phones (or an 800 number) to discover what a “Q” means for a given product. Shop all day, check up on four products.

Good luck. Monsanto wins. As I’ve detailed, Obama is the GMO President. He has appointed a whole raft of former Monsanto people to key posts in his administration. He has let more new GMO food crops in the door than any President. This, despite his nudge and wink to supporters during his first run for the White House—signaling that he was on their side, and would make sure they’d know what was in their food. It was all con all the time.

But of course, the mainstream press is giving this zero coverage. There was barely a mention the other day when he signed the new federal bill making GMO labels a cumbersome and useless piece of nonsense.

It’s a good and great thing that mainstream news is dying like a giant corpse who insists on continuing to walk down the street. The New York Times, which keeps re-financing its debt, is showing disastrous numbers for ad-sales revenue this quarter. I’m waiting for the death rattle, when all Times’ front-page stories will center on celebrities and their peccadillos. “Goofy Toofy, Reality Star, shows off her very pregnant shape on a beach in Monaco, in a tiny bikini you won’t believe.” “The British Queen’s fourth cousin’s nephew tries to grow a beard in support of unlimited European immigration.”

Yes, why not go all the way? The Times reporters would love it. Instead of channeling lies out of certified experts, they could make it all up. Low gossip is a lot easier than high gossip.

The Matrix Revealed

Meanwhile, pretending a Presidential candidate is innocent of a felony that could carry a 10-year sentence, opening the way to unlabeled GMO anything-and-everything, and blaming a harmless virus for a birth defect that has existed for centuries—it’s just another day at the office.

“Want to grab a few drinks after work?”

“Sure.”

“What are you working on?”

“A story about how Putin created ISIS when he was fourteen years old.”

“Sounds good. Who’s your source on it?”

“Osama Bin Laden.”

“Isn’t he dead?”

“The FBI just found a few hundred emails he sent to Putin in 1973.”

“Good show.”

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.

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.