Category Archives: Press Fraud

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.

A world waking up: damage after vaccination

A world waking up: damage after vaccination

It’s no longer an “anecdote”

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2016

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

The medical cartel has a puzzle palace. Inside this structure, words are woven in secret, to confuse, distract, and evade.

The most important wing of the palace is engaged in explaining away the cartel’s own crimes.

Here is an example of how their gnomes operate. Follow the circular pattern closely: “We never call vaccine damage by that name. No. We say that, in order to prove damage, people must show a vaccination led to an official disorder. Well, we own all the disorders. We define them. So, when we want to, it’s easy for us to ‘prove’ that vaccination doesn’t lead to a disorder. Therefore, we can say the damage never happened.”

If you’re confused, you’re supposed to be. It’s stage magic.

Meanwhile, in reality…

Despite massive efforts to keep the lid on, more and more people are waking up to the brutal fact of severe and sudden damage after vaccination.

Bob Wright, the former CEO of NBC, just gave it voice in his new book—in his account of what happened to his grandson. Robert De Niro, who has an autistic son, is now pushing people to see the film, Vaxxed (trailer). De Niro isn’t just talking theory. Obviously, he knows his son suffered life-changing injury from vaccination.

Other parents have been speaking out for years. Their true stories are now taking on new urgency.

Of course the parents know. They were there. They knew their children. They knew what they were before and after vaccination. They saw the tragic change. It’s no mystery.

Wherever there are honest reporters, it’s time for them to step up and do what they once believed was their mission.

We are in a shift away from the morbid lies of the medical profession and its allies. They’ve been acting as agents of deception. They’ve been performing as actors in a grotesque play. It’s time to close that play down.

Whether you call vaccine damage autism or encephalopathy or developmental delay or some other cooked-up name, the central event is the same: a child was vaccinated; the child was severely injured. The child’s brain and nervous system took a heavy, heavy blow.

There are no mitigating circumstances or clever terms to cover up the fact.

The children and the parents are the living evidence of harm.

Don’t let this go. Don’t let the truth slip away.

Under the surface of daily life, there are many, many of these children and parents.

The media ignore them and will ignore them as long as they can. But the media day of doom is dawning. They censored the truth. They protected the crimes and criminals. They pretended to know “science.”

When I began working as a reporter, in the early 1980s, one of the first sources I went to was a doctor in Los Angeles. As we talked, the subject turned to vaccines and the claim they strengthened the immune system. I asked him how he could possibly believe vaccinating a baby, whose immune system had hardly begun to develop, could produce protection. And how could he imagine giving vaccines to people barely hanging on to life in poverty-stricken countries—their immune systems disabled and on the verge of collapse—would provide protection against disease.

He sat and stared at me.

Obviously, he hadn’t ever considered these questions.

Finally, he said, “This is science. It isn’t a common-sense subject.”

That was an illumination.

I suppose, if he were suddenly confronted with a group of mothers, who knew their children’s brains had been damaged by vaccination, who had been there at the moment it happened, he would say the same thing.

And his answer would reek of the lunacy of a madman on the loose.

exit from the matrix

Let me suggest a parallel to the breakout film, Vaxxed, which exposes deep fraud at the CDC, where the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism was covered up. Vaxxed was recently censored at two film festivals—-it was labeled “dangerous speech.”

You’re standing under an awning on a rainy street at night. You’re looking for a cab. You see, 20 feet away, under a streetlight, a man killing another man—and you quickly take out your cell phone and film the murder.

A police car pulls up, two officers get out, put the dead victim in the trunk, and usher the killer into the front seat of the car. The car moves away.

The next day there are no stories in the press about a murder. You visit a police station and report what you saw and where. You’re told nothing happened. There was no killing.

You go home. You think about it. You visit the biggest newspaper in the city and sit down with a reporter and show him what you filmed.

Without pause, he says, “You’re endangering lives. You’re attacking the reputation of the police. They protect the citizens of the city. If people lose faith in law-enforcement, there’ll be nothing but chaos.”

“But what about this?” you say, pointing to your cell phone.

The reporter shrugs. “It’s easy to fake footage. People do it all the time. Don’t bother taking it to a television station. They’ll never show it. They censor false images, and they should.”

You spend the next few days looking at the face of the killer in your film and searching online for that face.

Finally, you find it.

It’s the face of the most prominent doctor in the city.

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.

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2016

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

In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent/consensus in the population.

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

I want to extend that concept here, particularly as it applies to science.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future—that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses. It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to pretend there is already a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject—when there isn’t.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US moon missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions are true. I’ll call this set X.

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of space-capsules.

Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate.

The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

And at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet—and then a consensus among them comes into being overnight, by implied threat and coercion.

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the surface of the situation: “The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons/Fleishmann findings. They tried, in vain, to point out that the failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. But no matter. Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist—and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

For years (and even now), the basic news about climate change/global warming is: there is a consensus. The science is settled. The scientists agree that the science is settled. The scientists agree that the scientists who agree are correct. This, despite the fact that you can still find impressive lists of scientists who don’t agree at all. But they are shut out of the news.

The same construction of consensus applies to the safety of vaccines.

The same construction of consensus applies to the “overwhelming success of the practice of modern medicine.”

Predatory corporations who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects need special protection and cover? Invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is the agent of destruction. But they are keeping their mouths shut now and rolling with the tide.

However, that tide is turning. In many arenas of science, journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall.

What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here.

A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news—and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide. An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were a coincidence.” And people are laughing the press out of court.

power outside the matrix

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed (trailer), is a good example. The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate one such vaccine.

The film’s subject is false consensus.

And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher, William Thompson, is essentially shouting, “I was part of the consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that. Don’t fall for this notion that the best minds agree. The best minds conspire to concoct agreement out of thin air.”

The media are collapsing into their own swamp.

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.

Vaccine damage, the hidden truth

by Jon Rappoport

April 17, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Warning: Don’t read this article if you want to avoid feeling an unpleasant sensation in the pit of your stomach.

The issue here is: refusing to believe an uncomfortable fact.

An unpleasant fact.

A devastating fact.

There is a simple formula that describes how the public refuses to believe an uncomfortable fact.

It goes this way:

“Well, if that were true, then…”

It’s a statement that suggests a person is standing at the edge of a cliff. And if he accepted some particularly unpleasant fact, he’d suddenly fall off.

Another way to look at it: if he accepted this fact, it would lead, by contagion, to him admitting there were other very uncomfortable truths. And then, by extension, like branches quickly growing out of a tree, a whole host of multiplying shocks would become known.

So it is, in the area of vaccines.

The experts, like preening peacocks, assure us that the shots are amazingly safe. After all, they’ve done the studies. They’ve published the studies.

There is widespread fraud in those reports, because, for example, of the short follow-up period—as if adverse effects could only occur in a 72-hour window, or over the course of a few weeks. Who decided that? Who made that arbitrary rule?

And then, most importantly, studies are not real life. We have seen glowing assessments of medical drugs in print, but when they are (like Vioxx) released for public use, people start dropping like flies.

In the case of vaccines (in real life), the one system for reporting human damage is broken. Completely broken. It’s called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It’s run by the CDC and the FDA. (My readers are aware of how many crimes and lies I’ve laid at the door of those two august agencies.)

Who can make a report of an adverse vaccine-reaction? A parent, a doctor, a nurse, a nurse practitioner. You can see the problems right away.

How many parents even know the VAERS system exists? How many parents have the knowledge or the will to follow through and submit a report? How many parents will dare to suspect that a vaccine has injured their children? How many doctors or nurses who administer vaccinations are eager to report cases of children who incur obvious brain damage from the shot THEY GAVE?

So…for doctors and medical experts to claim vaccines are safe in the real world? They’re pretending they know what they don’t know. They’re faking it.

But if that were true, then…

That’s right. If that were true, we would have no proof that vaccines are safe.

Therefore, when the government advises and nudges and even demands that people line up for vaccinations, the government is in the dark about safety. Completely in the dark.

But if that were true…

Then the entire population is at risk.

That’s right.

Let’s go back to those pre-marketing studies, which are done on vaccines in order to gain FDA approval. Who conducts the studies? The vaccine manufacturers. And who stands to profit from the sale of the vaccines? Ever heard of conflict of interest?

And have any studies been done to assess the risks of giving multiple vaccines? After all, the CDC schedule keeps getting longer and longer. I can find no evidence of well-formed clinical trials assessing the safety of shooting people in the arm with multiple vaccines. Does that seem like an oversight? A horrendous hole in the “science” of vaccination?

But if that’s true, then…

We would, again, have no proof that vaccination is safe.

Correct.

Now, from the historical record, we do have many, many disturbing examples of what has happened to people after vaccines have been approved. Here are just a few:

What about this? “Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.

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

What about this? “… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987.

What about this? “A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.

What about this? “Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu. GPs will be first in the line for the jabs when they become available but many will decline, even though they will be offering the vaccine to their patients. More than two thirds of those who will turn the jab down believe it has not been tested enough. Most also believe the flu has turned out to be so mild in the vast majority of cases that the vaccine is not needed. Last night Government experts criticised GPs who decide not to have the jab, saying they will put vulnerable patients needlessly at risk. A week ago, a poll of nurses showed that a third would turn down the opportunity of being vaccinated against swine flu. News that medics are unconvinced by the need for a vaccine will cause grave concern to patients who will be invited for the jab over the next few months. A poll of doctors for Pulse magazine found that 49 per cent would reject the vaccine with 9 per cent undecided.” Daily Mail, 8/25/2009.

These few references to vaccine disasters are but a drop in the bucket, of course.

If these and other such references are true (and they are), then…

Doctors and medical bureaucrats are telling massive lies about the safety of vaccines. They aren’t just ignorant about safety.

Correct.

And if that’s true, then…

How can we trust these people?

How can we trust the major media outlets that give overwhelming support to these people?

We can’t.

When mothers tell the world that their children, after a shot, are never the same again, they aren’t “providing anecdotes,” contrasted with “scientific studies.” The mothers are giving us a much more reliable account of what vaccines are doing than the fakery of the “science.”

But if the mothers are right (and they are)…

And if the experts are lying through their teeth about vaccine safety (and they are)…

Then Reality is not what we’re told it is.

It’s the opposite of what we’re told.

And this isn’t merely an intellectual glitch.

Every day, lives are on the line.

Every single day.

I’ll leave you with a fantastical piece of “science” from the government VAERS website — VAERS Data page. It centers on the use of the word “coincidence.” If this doesn’t convince you that truth has been hijacked, I don’t know what will:

“More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

“These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination.”

Do you see the diabolical criminal sophistry?

“Some infants will experience these medical events [seizures, death, etc.] shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.”

By coincidence.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Yes, you see, an hour after the baby was given the vaccine, he also contracted a raging case of meningitis, or his parents also, coincidently, fed him a poison, or a bio-warfare germ floated in the window and settled on his tongue, or a flash of light from a distant galaxy struck him in the eyes and blinded him. Therefore, reputable scientists are unable to determine whether the vaccine caused the damage.

This is what government scientists and bureaucrats are selling terrified grief-stricken parents whose child’s life has just been destroyed by a shot in the arm.

This is policy.

This is what you shouldn’t question, because if you do, you might experience an unpleasant sensation in the pit of your stomach.

“Yes, Your Honor, the child was standing in the middle of the street, and a car did come over the hill and strike him, but it would be a grievous mistake to assume the car caused the damage the child incurred. Something else could have happened at the same instant, something of which we’re unaware. I’m prepared to give the court a list of 50 possible other events…”

They, the scientists and the doctors and medical bureaucrats, are, indeed, prepared.

They’re fully prepared, without a shred of conscience, to explain how their attack on your child’s life had absolutely nothing to do with them.

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.

Zika fake science back in the news; con artists at work

Their media androids dutifully record a “breakthrough”

by Jon Rappoport

April 16, 2016

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

Is it about science or money?

US health agencies want more than the $600 million they’ve allotted to the “war against Zika.” They want $1.9 billion. Why not? They always want more money.

To make their case, the CDC has pushed out a new Zika study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): “Zika Virus and Birth Defects — Reviewing the Evidence for Causality”. (For the CDC’s conference call with the android press, click here).

Before commenting on that study, let’s recall a devastating statement the NEJM’s former editor, Marcia Angell, issued in 2009, after she had headed up that non-science machine for 20 years:

“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.”

As criticisms of fake science go, this one, from an elite insider, ranks near the top of the list. It is a direct accusation of widespread fraud. Otherwise known as lying, cheating, massaging data, hiding data, and so on.

In other words, the NEJM has been publishing studies and reports that, regardless of their convincing language, are “cooked” to appear true when they most definitely weren’t.

Therefore, right up front, a new Zika study published in the NEJM is highly suspect, to say the very least. There is no reason to accept its data, methods, or findings. Except perhaps as an article of religious faith. But medical journals aren’t supposed to be religious publications, the last time I looked.

The new NEJM study on Zika aims to eliminate doubt that the Zika virus causes microcephaly.

Until now, that doubt was widespread. Even the World Health Organization was making careful statements: “…although no definite causal link has been established between Zika and microcephaly (babies born with smaller heads and brain damage), we believe there is a connection…” That sort of thing.

The new NEJM study is supposed to erase, once and for all, that “maybe.”

But it doesn’t. It’s not even close. Because when you wade through the rather dense language, what you see is an attempt to show a correlation between the presence of the Zika virus and the occurrence of the birth defect.

Correlation is not causation. And that’s just the beginning of the problem.

Even on the basis of correlation, nowhere in the study do we see anything approaching a high degree of association. You would expect to find evidence that in, say, 80 or 90 percent of cases, the Zika virus was found in babies who developed the defect. That evidence isn’t there. Well, how about a 90-percent correlation between microcephaly in the baby and Zika found in the mother? Not there, either. Again, not even close.

Then there is the issue, rarely if ever touched on in studies these days, of “how much Zika was found.” Why is that important? Because, in order to begin asserting that a virus causes a condition, you need to discover a very high volume of it in a person. A small amount causes nothing.

The new NEJM study doesn’t explore this vital factor.

So the study is a dud.

It claims that there is a very weak correlation between Zika and microcephaly. That’s it. That’s all.

Nor does the study consider the obvious fact that a condition can have several or even many causes. And what could be causing birth defects in Brazil may not be causing it in the US or Guatemala.

As I’ve clearly established in prior articles on Zika, only a fool or an outright liar would fail to notice the toxic pesticide drenching that takes place in Brazil, the number-one country for pesticide-use in the world. Some of those chemicals are banned in other countries, because they’re too poisonous.

Therefore, in Brazil, a virus that has never been proved to cause microcephaly can function as a cover story. Zika protects, and diverts attention away from, pesticide manufacturers and agri-corporate giants who spray, spray, spray.

And what about medical drugs ingested by pregnant mothers? Again, no recent studies on microcephaly investigate this “protected area.” Given that these medicines kill 106,000 people in the US every year, and maim at least hundreds of thousands more, any rational researcher would be highly motivated to look for a causal connection to microcephaly.

Want another correlation? Try severe malnutrition in the pregnant mother. It’s the number-one cause of immune-system collapse on the planet. Immune-system failure opens the door to many raging infections in the mother and fetus. But no, malnutrition isn’t “medical.” How can you develop a vaccine or a drug to treat it? No money in it.

There is, of course, money in research, and as I said at the top, US health agencies are trying to get more of it from Congress.

The Zika virus was discovered in 1947-8. Since then, it has never been known to cause more than mild transient illness. Suddenly, it’s being blamed for severe and tragic birth defects. On what basis? On no basis.

Who knows how long the virus has been on the planet? 5000 years? 100,000 years? It’s had ample opportunity to spread across the world and around the world many times. The notion that, now, suddenly, it’s traveling, is absurd. It’s already there. And here. And everywhere. It has been here and there and everywhere for a long time.

However, a fiction of “unchecked spread” works, if you’re trying to Invent the concept of a highly dangerous virus that is popping up unexpectedly and making pregnant women give birth to babies with brain damage.

Fear sells.

And the people who sell it control the whole operation.

What about actual science? They’ve never heard of it and don’t care about it.

If you persist in believing they do care about it, you’re doing religion, and you’re in the wrong pew.

Meanwhile, the multiple factors that can actually cause tragic birth defects are being ignored.

In this article, I haven’t tried to cover the full range of “who benefits” from the fake war on Zika; but I should mention one group: the collaboration of companies, research labs, and foundations that propose using genetically engineered mosquitoes on a global basis to cut off future generations of Zika-carrying mosquitoes. Among this collaborating group are researchers who also want to release “gene drives,” mechanisms which sterilize the bugs in the wild. In both strategies, no human safety studies have been done. That is highly significant. The same absence of studies highlighted the original release of GMO crops in the 1990s. We were (falsely) assured then, as now, that no problems would develop.

That’s another article of faith pretending to be science.

power outside the matrix

Why don’t these researchers wear long robes and ornate hats, and wave wands and scepters that emit clouds of smoke? We’d be able to recognize them more easily.

Can we get a simple bill passed to fund the installation of stained glass windows in CDC buildings, and the employment of choirs to intone Gregorian chants around the clock?

Instead of publishing fake studies in journals, CDC priests and their eunuchs could appear on high balconies, overlooking packed plazas, and, in practiced monotone, read summaries of their research from parchment scrolls.

Much better.

Much more honest.

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.

Bang: Robert De Niro wakes up and opens up on vaccines

Bang: Robert De Niro wakes up and opens up on vaccines

After censoring the film Vaxxed, he decides to make a stand

And…

Media won’t reveal medically-caused death numbers

by Jon Rappoport

April 13, 2016

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

On NBC’s Today Show, Robert De Niro just broke his trance and started talking sense about vaccines. He refused to back down and knuckle under. Watch the interview here.

It’s the leading edge of a new storm.

De Niro wouldn’t accept the canned notion that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective and necessary. He expressed doubts. He linked vaccines to autism. He stood with the mothers who know their children were tragically damaged after being vaccinated.

You could say this is too little too late, because the actor already canceled Vaxxed (trailer) at Tribeca, his film festival, but it isn’t too late. Vaxxed is playing in New York at the Angelika Theater (through April 21). It’s going to travel. The demand for it is great.

Again, watch De Niro’s interview.

So let me now broach the wider subject of medically caused death and damage, because the background is essential to understanding the medical edifice, and why the media, at the deepest level, must remain silent.

“If instead of drugs like warfarin, dabigatran, levofloxacin, carboplatin, and lisinopril (the five leading killers in the FDA database), the massive numbers of deaths per year were led by gingko, ginseng, vitamin D, niacin, and raw milk, what do you think would happen?

“I’ll tell you what would happen. SEALS, Delta Force, SWAT teams, snipers, predator drones, tanks, and infantry would be attacking every health-food store in America. The resulting fatalities would be written off as necessary collateral damage in the fight to keep America safe and healthy.” (Why the FDA should be charged with murder, Jon Rappoport)

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

So we begin with a few citations.

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding no to both questions.

Here is another citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.

Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA had, until recently, a page on its own website that admits 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. A few months ago, the page was removed.

Why won’t major media report these facts?

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

But there are other reasons.

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

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

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

It would be on the order of Joseph Stalin, who sent 20-40 million people to their deaths, stating that hard work in harsh conditions improved general health.

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

The assuring attitudes of its professional representatives would immediately be taken as rank fraud of the worst kind.

And this would just be the beginning of the trouble.

Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would do great damage to the whole medical system. The fact that the damage is deserved is beside the point. Undermining a basic institution of society is not on the media’s calendar.

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

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

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

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

Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior. They’re all attitude. They snarl and grouse if you push them too far. They assert their position, as if they own their territory, as if they’ve earned their titles.

They remind me of drunks with significant bank accounts. They’re not winos drifting in alleys. Oh no. They imbibe the good stuff. They take pride in that.

The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge. They resemble elite new anchors, who above all learn superior acting skills. The central mission of both professionals: sound and appear utterly convincing.

What would you do if you were an actor working in a major Broadway production, along with several actors who were, in real life, murderers? Every night you go out on the boards and do your turns, and you know the play is, in a real sense, a cover for the terrible deeds your partners are committing.

I can tell you what news anchors and reporters do in that situation. They polish their performance, hoping to establish such a high degree of credibility that the secrets they conceal will never be suspected, or God forbid, exposed.

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

the matrix revealed

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

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

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

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

He has them.

But their monopoly is breaking down.

We’re at the beginning of a new breakout level of truth.

Stay tuned.

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.

Trump and Bernie on the same ticket; take the ride

Trump and Bernie on the same ticket; take the ride

The mass hallucination called 2-party politics in America

by Jon Rappoport

April 12, 2016

(New article up on Outside The Reality Machine. Click here to read it.)

Don’t lose your lunch or your cookies or your marbles. Follow this one to the end.

As Bernie throws charges at Hillary for vote-rigging to gain the nomination; as Hillary solidifies her prurient control of so-called super-delegates (Democrat insiders and hacks), thus overturning the force of Primary voting; as Trump, Cruz, and the Republican leadership heat up an internal war over delegates; as Colorado and other states reject the validity of Republican Primary voting; the hallucination that is 2-party politics in America is on the verge of cracking. And if the crack widens, the foul creatures who emerge will reveal an oozing Hell in broad daylight.

We’ve gone past crazy.

And since that’s so, anything goes. It’s important to understand “anything,” which is why I’m dreaming about an independent ticket of Bernie Sanders, fresh off his rigged loss to Hillary, and Trump, emerging from his stinging defeat at the hands of Republican Beelzebubs. The two enemies on the same side.

Bernie and The Donald. Donald and The Bernie. Can’t agree on much, but who cares. Burn the political house down. Walk away and start a new campaign for the White House.

Left populism plus right populism. Together.

A realistic winner in November, as long as they have a cold-blooded army of pros investigating the voting machines.

Bernie: “I hate Donald, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”

Donald: “I hate Bernie, except for his stance on trade treaties that are stealing millions of jobs from Americans.”

Could be a lot worse.

A lot.

How about this? “The ticket,” a new independent party spokesman declared at a Washington Press Club gala, “is Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. Deal with it.”

Why not?

Remember, the 2-party hallucination is matched by the American-public hallucination. Both sides of the equation represent absolute insanity.

The public is ready to accept the fact (after a few huge protests) that the Primary votes aren’t votes at all. Just a beauty contest. The two parties pick their candidates in whatever way they decide to.

“Okay, you voted, now shut up and let us give you the most corrupt candidates we can conjure. That’s how the system works.”

“Who’s more hideous? A or B? B, right? So let’s give them B.”

Here’s a plus for a Bernie-Donald ticket: the media will gnash and weep, weep and gnash.

“How can you possibly explain running with Bernie, Mr. Trump?”

“I don’t explain. I hate him, but he’s a pretty good guy. When we’re elected, we’ll argue every point. We’ll hammer it out. We’ll have to. Just last night, we both decided we don’t want any unnecessary wars. That was big. It’s better to defend America than go off attacking people overseas. What else? I think he sort of likes Putin. So do I. So we’ll go over to Moscow and see him and tell him this new Cold War is ridiculous. We’re going to cancel the strategy of surrounding Russia with bases.”

“And you, Mr. Sanders. How can you possibly explain running with Mr. Trump?”

“I hate him. He stands for everything I oppose. But I kind of enjoy talking to him. We’re working on a plan to stop US companies from shutting down factories and going abroad. We want to bring jobs back here. Turns out there are a lot of things we can do.”

“But Mr. Sanders, just a few months ago, you said Mr. Trump was a sleaze-bag capitalist.”

“He is. But I’ve come to realize he has advantages over Hillary Clinton. To your point, he’s somewhat less sleazy. Actually, far less sleazy. I presented him with my plan for worker-owned businesses in America. Not as a mandate, but through tax breaks and minor funding. He wasn’t opposed. In fact, he said he was willing to try that with one of his companies, which I understand is going broke. I convinced him this isn’t some Communist plot. It’s motivating to employees. It’s participatory democracy. And if it works, it’s good.”

“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders wants to revisit the federal bailout of big banks. As you know, he pegged that fiasco at many trillions of dollars—far more than the government was willing to admit.”

“Bernie’s four hundred percent right on that one. We gave away the farm to those bastards. They held us up. It was highway robbery. I’ve been talking about the banks and Wall Street for years. They’re running a long con on the American people. We should get a large chunk of the actual bailout money back. I mean, what do those guys actually produce? Nothing. They sit there and make money make money. I build hotels and casinos and golf courses. I’m a builder.”

“Mr. Sanders, isn’t Mr. Trump unconscionably and disgustingly rich?”

“It makes me sick to think about it. But at least he does put people to work. That’s more than I can say for Wall Street traders. Now, when we get to immigration, Donald and I are definitely on opposing sides. But I’ll admit our screening process to detect potential terrorists coming here is broken. Donald and I have been talking to border officials. They’re honest and hard-working. They’re at the end of their rope. We’ve got to give them help, if we want to prevent what happened in Paris and Brussels from visiting our shores. I’m not in favor of public places in our cities blowing up. Are you?”

“Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders is a declared socialist. How can you put up with that?”

“I can’t. Socialism is the most stupid form of government humans have ever tried. Obamacare is a complete mess. Bernie sees some of the flaws, too. He wants single-payer. I tell him that’ll be far worse than what we’ve got now. I want free competition among companies, so the best plans attract the most customers. Bernie and I are still arguing on this one. But he’s open to the concept that we want a healthcare system that works. What an idea, right? Something that works? And the medical people—we can’t let them off the hook, either. Too many drugs. The big drug companies are killing us with their marketing campaigns. They’re inventing diseases to fit the drugs they’re developing. I think Bernie and I are both beginning to see that. Their lobbyists are feasting off the Congress and the President.”

“Mr. Sanders, what about—“

At this point, the live television feed suddenly goes dark.

Trump’s voice can still be heard for a few moments.

“They’re censoring us. Don’t worry, folks, we’ll pick this up on the Web. Go to our site, ‘Trump plus Bernie’. If they shut that down, you’ll know we’re under martial law. Go to the White House and make your voice heard…”

Trump plus Bernie? Horrible? Unthinkable?

Worse than Hillary or Cruz or Ryan or Romney? Really?

Is the hallucination that “everything is all right and everything is under control and everything is standard” better than cracking the political two-party egg?

Is it?

Is the endless media gloss better than the media desperately trying to deal with Bernie and Donald on the same ticket?

If this country is internally starting to pull itself apart even further, into two battling camps, is it better to put a war-crimes gargoyle like Hillary in the White House, and listen to her babble about national unity—or is it better to shove the two men who represent the great separation out there together?

And if putting those two men out there together on one ticket drives the American people nuts…is the contradiction actually making people crazier or is it starting to bring them back toward sanity?

What’s the fear of two opposing candidates on the same ticket all about?

Is the fear authentic, or is it just a reaction to the fact that we’ve been fed fake unity wall-to-wall forever? Candidates and leaders have been selling us fake unity to cover their crimes and their hunger for control. They’ve been pledging togetherness while they’ve been tearing us apart, because divide and conquer is still the first rule of politics.

Instead of pretending the fake unity is real, why not dump that delusion and put two men who are, in many ways, opposed to each other on the same ticket?

Why not bust the delusion?

Why not let them argue?

Why not let them come to some agreements—because they would.

Why not show the American people that endless whining and moaning about issues and differences is best displayed by taking the differences to the top of the political food chain, in the form of two men who might actually believe at least some of what they’re saying?

Let them argue, disagree, and try to hash out their problems with each other. In full view.

At the very least, it will create a pause in the mind.

The public mind, such as it is, will spin wheels and break cogs, and flip and grind and stop—because it can’t process the new situation, because it can’t deal with an actual dialogue between two enemies. Because it can’t conceive of the possibility that it’s viewing two extremes having voices in the same space, out in the open, on the same ticket. Because the public mind has been tuned to thinking that never the twain will meet. Because the public mind wants the conflict to seethe and boil under the surface rather than on the surface. Because the public mind wants non-resolution. Because, yes, the public mind wants to moan about what can never be resolved. Because the public mind is a mad insane child who can’t be satisfied and wants it that way. Because the public mind is a vast loser. Because the public mind is an artifact, a synthetic substance molded from a thousand personal dissatisfactions into exactly the kind of Mass Victim our politicians need and desire.

exit from the matrix

And even for those who have escaped the left-right, black-white, yin-yang, ding-dong status quo, who have seen through the divide and conquer formula and the two-political-parties- with-one-head ruse; the prospect of seeing two men who are apparently on opposite ends of the spectrum put their cards on the table in public, together, and go at each other, in order to come to some understanding—that would be a relief. That would be a start of something interesting in a White House that has, for decades, been rigged to disable the country and the people and the world.

If there is a sliver of a chance of turning fake share and care into real share and care…why not?

Break the trance.

Shake and bake.

Put those two boys on television every night and let them go up against each other, all out, while running together on the same side.

Make the impossible possible.

Shred the “this-or-that” set-up.

Explode the American political cover story.

Bernie AND The Donald in 2016.

Yin plus yang equals what?

Take a chance, for once, and find out.

We already know the sum of fake reality plus fake reality.

Jon Rappoport

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

My Boston Globe fake front page on Hillary

My Boston Globe fake front page on Hillary

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2016

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

As you surely know, the Boston Globe has printed a fake front page depicting what will happen if Trump is elected President.

Here are the headlines:

Deportations To Begin;

Markets sink as trade war looms;

President Trump calls for tripling of ICE force; riots continue;

US soldiers refuse to kill ISIS families;

New libel law targets ‘absolute scum’ in press.

Fair enough. The Globe found a way to increase its circulation, at least for a day. The editorial page people had a few drinks and cooked up a cutting satire.

For the sake of balance, a fake Hillary front page is in order, and I’m stepping into the breach. The Globe is free to use my work. I didn’t need a drink. The headlines wrote themselves:

President Hillary: ‘Guess what? I’m Dick Cheney on badder steroids’;

President Hillary assures nation she’ll find a new war ‘right away, better than Libya’;

Hillary: ‘I love the smell of Benghazi in the morning’;

President Rodham Clinton admits she and Bill had long death list—states, ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’

President Clinton takes off the gloves: ‘the cocaine flowed like water at the Mena airport, so what?’

Hillary installs Huma as First Lady;

Hillary turns Dept. of Agriculture over to Monsanto—‘it’s simpler’;

Hillary: ‘Why are Globalist trade treaties a problem? Turns out I’m really good at putting Americans out of work’;

Hillary admits she knew Bill was abusing women for decades; ‘it didn’t seem to bother him’;

Hillary shocker: ‘Bill gave US weapons tech to China for campaign donations, and you’re worried anyone in the world could read my emails?’

Hillary’s solution to feeling the little people’s pain: half an aspirin;

Image credit: Anthony Freda

President Rodham Clinton private phone call: ‘They think they know what a monster is? Guess what? Wait’ll they get a load of me. Women? Who gives a XXXX about women?’

President Clinton admits she’s a witch, says that’s what America needs right now;

President Clinton ponders a ceiling on immigration at 180 million; says suffering and pain for ordinary Americans will improve their resiliency;

Hillary says if women want to use her as a symbol, it’s fine with her, there’s a sucker born every minute.

And so forth and so on.

It’s only fair.

Have a nice day, have a nice Presidency.

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.

I review a mind-control review of Vaxxed

I review a mind-control review of Vaxxed

Vaxxed opened this weekend at the Angelika Film Center in New York, after being censored at the Tribeca Film Festival.

—My analysis of how a conformist film critic operates, starting with the basics, which of course involve mind control.

Where did the word “official” come from?

by Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2016

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

Mainstream media is all about what the audience wants to hold on to.

The audience wants stability.

When you boil it down, this means they want something official.

Stable=official.

The actual substance of the news dries up like rain on the street after the sun comes out again. Gone. Doesn’t matter. As long as the audience feels they’ve received the Official Word.

Official=a slave signaling admiration for his master. It’s the Stockholm syndrome writ large.

Let’s go to the scorecard: the two Latin roots of the word “official.” Opus (work), and facere (to do or make). “To do work.” Seems rather harmless.

But somewhere along the line it was inflated—for instance, “holding office”; “he held an office in the government.”

And, as often happens, when the Latin moves forward into the medieval period, when the Church takes hold, the concept is made gaseous. In this case, “to do work” becomes “divine service.”

Yes. As in the divine right of kings to rule, to make laws, to call the shots, to issue orders.

Official looms large.

Let’s say I run a major media outlet. It would be in my interest to make distinctions between “official” and “meritless.” Who wants meritless or conspiratorial or dissenting or odd or weird or in-the-minority? Those categories are worthless, and pointing this out bolsters my superior status and position. I am reliable. They are not. That’s how I play the game.

I’ve talked to many mainstream reporters over the years. They know almost nothing important about what they’re reporting on. Some of them have high IQs, but they’re dumb as wood when it comes to the content and nature of the issues they convey to the public. And this is on purpose. There is no reason to have acute and deep knowledge. It doesn’t fit the format. Their work involves looking and sounding convincing, which is a different kind of job.

It’s actually a hindrance to know too much. It gets in the way.

Their job is to come across as official.

For instance, in a review of the just-released film, Vaxxed (trailer)—and I’m not going to dignify the reporter by mentioning him or his outlet—the Gibbering Fantasist (reviewer) states that the director of the film, Andrew Wakefield, is a doctor who had his license stripped in England. In other words, Wakefield is “unofficial.” It doesn’t matter why his license was taken away, or whether some grave injustice was committed in that regard. Don’t bother looking into that mess. It’s enough to say “the source of the film” wasn’t official.

The Fantasist (reviewer) also mentions that the subject of the film, William Thompson, a CDC whistleblower who confesses to extreme scientific fraud, who gave the MMR vaccine a free pass and concealed its connection to autism, is not seen walking and talking and sitting in the film. The audience only hears his voice. Thompson is therefore “unofficial.” No mention is made of the fact that Thompson, since his 2014 confession in writing, refuses to be interviewed by the press. That’s irrelevant. (And do I need to point out that radio news is audio only—with no faces?)

The reviewer further states that the audio clips of whistleblower Thompson in the film were recorded during telephone calls—without Thompson’s permission. By implication, this is supposed to mean that Thompson’s revealing audio confessions are also unofficial. Of course, many news stories have come from recorded phone calls—but in this case, they’re suddenly not “admissible.”

The reviewer mentions that the producer of Vaxxed, Del Bigtree, speaks in the film. Since that is purportedly unusual, it’s “unofficial.” It can be discounted and ignored.

What’s left? Not much. The film is not credible because it’s not official. Why didn’t the reviewer just come out and say that? He could have written a one-sentence article.

He could have called the CDC, which is exposed in the film, and asked for a statement. An official one, of course.

He could simply have exclaimed the Official Word on vaccines: “They’re all safe and effective! That’s all you need to know!” And then headed out for a drink.

Or he could have written this: “I’m giving you the official word on an unofficial film. The film has no status in the mainstream. Don’t bother seeing it. It’ll fill your head with unofficial thoughts, and you won’t know what to do with them. That’s what unofficial material does. It leaves you in the lurch. My job is to remind you where your mind should live, which is where everyone else’s lives. That’s where you want to be. If you think you can be anywhere else, you’re on the verge of going delusional, and that’s dangerously dangerous.”

Indeed.

The Fantasist Reviewer manages to avoid mentioning that the whistleblower, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, did an astonishing thing by coming out of the heavily guarded scientific closet and confessing to fraud on a scale that is staggering:

He and his colleagues permitted a highly dangerous and destructive vaccine to remain in use.

But why should the Fantasist mention it? Thompson committed an unofficial act.

He committed it in arena where only the good and true and humane and dedicated and brilliant and competent and caring and dutiful and self-sacrificing and life-affirming medical authorities are supposed to rule.

Thompson stuck a knife in the heart of all that.

And Officialdom must not acknowledge it, on pain of death.

Therefore, it doesn’t acknowledge it.

exit from the matrix

No. Instead, news operates this way, to paraphrase Orwell:

“Tonight, on a street corner, a citizen accosted a news reporter. The following exchange took place. Roll the video.”

Citizen: “2 and 2 equal 4.”

Reporter: “No. They equal 5.”

Citizen: “Why?”

Reporter: “It’s official.”

Citizen: “Oh. I see.”

Reporter: “No you don’t. But it doesn’t matter.”

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.