Category Archives: Press Fraud

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.

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.

Trump, violence, MoveOn.org: it’s 1968 all over again

Who backs both MoveOn.org and Hillary?

Do anti-GOP convention street protesters plan to incite violence?

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

“Do you think the builder of false realities tells you he’s going to deceive you?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

History comes around again to bite you like a louse in a hotel-room bedsheet, long after management was supposed to have sanitized the place.

In 1968, 10,000 anti-war protestors at the Chicago Democratic Convention went up against local police and National Guardsmen. The violent riots had a reverse effect.

Americans, aghast at what they were seeing on their television sets, turned out in droves a few months later and elected Republican pro-war candidate Richard Nixon.

It was odd, to say the least, that the protest groups chose to show up at the Democratic Convention. The hand-picked Presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, was in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, but the Republicans were a greater threat in that regard.

The days of violence in Chicago made Nixon giggle. He couldn’t have asked for a better show.

And now we have MoveOn.org, funded in part by George Soros (see here), ramping up their nationwide protests against Trump. They’re clearly pointing toward the Republican Convention in July in Cleveland (see also this).

Their whole strategy depends on how much blame for their protests and violence can be successfully attributed to Trump himself—which is the clear media strategy. The standard line is: Trump started this whole thing with his incendiary statements about immigration and Muslims; therefore, everything that happens after that is his fault. He is the prime mover. The protests are merely a response to him. “The blood is on his hands.”

If that can be sold, and if the action in Cleveland in July can rise to a new height of violence, then a significant number of fence-sitting voters would decide to opt for Hillary, who will, of course, position herself as the peacemaker and the uniter.

It doesn’t matter that she’s never met a war she didn’t like (or could invent). She’s the “calm force that will lead the nation into eight years of collective tolerance and sanity.”

In other words, Hillary stands to benefit the most from the planned and highly organized attacks on Trump.

It’s not hard to trace a connection between Soros, one of the money men behind MoveOn.org, and Hillary Clinton. Just for starters, as Politico noted, on 1/31/16 (“George Soros donates $8 million to boost Hillary”):

“George Soros in December donated $6 million to the leading super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, marking the return of the billionaire financier as among the biggest givers in all of American politics. The massive check brings to $8 million the Hungarian-born investor’s total 2015 giving to pro-Clinton groups.”

Apparently, though, these obvious connections don’t rate major coverage in mainstream media.

Let’s see: the man who funds the group who is organizing protests against Trump is also funding the candidate who stands to gain the most from the protests. No, nothing important here. Just a coincidence.

The 2016 election season in America is devolving to resemble what happened in 1968. It remains to be seen whether the ‘68 reverse/rebound Nixon victory will now turn into the Hillary victory.

Hillary, Soros, MoveOn, and their media allies (the useful idiots) are betting it will. They think it’s their game to run and control.

How far could the anti-Trump forces go this summer? How far could they go in pushing an agenda of “societal change,” which demands a government-centered solution for all ills and problems? “The government must transform America on behalf of equality”—whatever that generality is supposed to mean.

The basic thrust of these forces would be to raise government power to new heights, fantasizing that it would somehow be turned toward “broad positive outcomes for the underclass.”

Well, for instruction, we can look back to another event that occurred in the summer of the 1968, in Paris. Most Americans don’t even remember it, but it was a searing stroke across the landscape. Its vision, if you can call it that, extended further than anything that could happen now in America—and the stunning outcome is one of those “teachable moments.”

From Wikipedia (“May 1968 events in France”):

“The volatile period of civil unrest in France during May 1968 was punctuated by demonstrations and massive general strikes as well as the occupation of universities and factories across France. At the height of its fervor, it virtually brought the entire economy of France to a dramatic halt.”

“The unrest began with a series of student occupation [of colleges] protests against capitalism, consumerism and traditional institutions, values and order. It then spread to factories with [Leftist union] strikes involving 11 million workers, more than 22% of the total population of France at the time, for two continuous weeks.”

“The student occupations and wildcat general strikes initiated across France were met with forceful confrontation by university administrators and police. The de Gaulle administration’s attempts to quell those strikes by police action only inflamed the situation further, leading to street battles with the police in the Latin Quarter, followed by the spread of general strikes and occupations throughout France. De Gaulle went to a French military base in Germany, and after returning dissolved the National Assembly, and called for new parliamentary elections for 23 June 1968. Violence evaporated almost as quickly as it arose. Workers went back to their jobs, and when the elections were finally held in June, the Gaullist party emerged even stronger than before.” (emphasis added)

In other words, government power rose to a new height. That was the outcome. That was how this towering rebellion came to a close.

If, in the summer of 2016, the “forces of change” in America stage vast protests and initiate violence, on the pretext that they are trying to defeat Donald Trump, the result will be a mandate for federal government to assume more control.

Hillary Clinton, would certainly embrace that mandate with open arms.

She would be the Nixon and the De Gaulle.

She would call her power agenda “uniting the people” or “equality together” or “it takes a village” or “respect for diverse points of view and cultures” or “a new day for America.”

Whatever she calls it, it would be 1968 all over again.

power outside the matrix

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Everybody knows that chunk of wisdom. But how many people are willing and able to remember what they need to, in order to understand what is unrolling before us now:

—Designed protests that, no matter what they espouse, will deliver more power to government, under the banner of a better life for all.

And if you salute that banner, I have condos for sale on Mars. The summer nights are heavenly.

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.

ISIS attacked Brussels? The US created ISIS? Therefore?

ISIS attacked Brussels? The US created ISIS? Therefore?

by Jon Rappoport

March 23, 2016

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

I want to acknowledge two researchers and reporters, whose work cuts deeply into the ISIS mirage: Tony Cartalucci and Brandon Turbeville. In a half-sane world, Cartalucci would be the international editor of the New York Times, if the Times were a real news outlet.

If we accept the premise that ISIS attacked Brussels, then the next question is: what is ISIS?

Who is behind it? Who supplies it? Who funds it? Who sustains it?

Brandon Turbeville, writing at Activist Post (“Congress Votes To Fight ISIS By Funding ISIS To Fight Assad”, 9/19/2014), states:

“Obama’s plan [is] to ‘detect and degrade’ ISIS…the reality is that the plan is nothing more than a plan to…destroy the Syrian government to benefit of ISIS and other fundamentalist groups that the United States has created, funded, trained, and directed since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.”

Cartalucci, in an article titled, “In Syria, There No Moderates” (9/2013), writes:

“…there were never, nor are there any ‘moderates’ operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as ‘divided’ along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention [in Syria].”

Turbeville writes:

“Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard [NY Times] wrote in April, 2013 (“Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy”), ‘In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce…Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government…Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.‘” (emphasis added)

In other words, the “moderate Syrian rebels” are a fiction no one could fail to notice. The US funding has always gone to ISIS.

power outside the matrix

I could cite much more from Cartalucci and Turbeville, who effectively argue that ISIS is a created tool of the US government and its allies. I strongly recommend you read and study their work.

As far as the Brussels attacks are concerned, if we assume that ISIS was responsible, the whole scenario is turned upside down after analyzing the basis of ISIS.

The Obama administration (jointly with the Bush administration) should be announcing: “Well, we keep ISIS alive. Unfortunately, things happen. One of those things is Brussels.”

And then you could go on to query the sincerity of the word “unfortunately.”

Articles by Tony Cartalucci:

Brussels Attack: The True Implications of ISIS Links (3/22/2016)

ISIS: US-Saudi Plague Reaches Indonesia? (1/16/2016)

America’s Fake War on ISIS Grinds On (3/22/2016)

Turkey: The Islamic State’s Second Home (1/18/2016)

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.

5 threats Trump poses, and 6 plans to stop him

Underneath all the familiar charges leveled at Trump, there is one that has the shadow government deep in thought.

Trump: the loosest cannon.

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2016

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: When I say “GOP,” I also include “Globalist.” Both major Parties are in the pocket of Rockefeller Globalists (Bilderberg, WEF/Davos, CFR, Trilateral Commission).

—Here cometh the loose-talking cowboy and hustler, walking into the saloon; The Donald; and the customers are cheering.

Cheering?

What?

What went wrong? What in the world went wrong?

The first 4 threats Trump poses:

Threat One: The way he talks. It isn’t measured sing-song generality, which is the standard form of hypnotic prose in America for both politicians and media. The rise and fall of empty words isn’t his style, and believe me, that is disturbing to the establishment.

Big-time politics and news in the US must be delivered in hypnotic cadence—otherwise they fall apart, because they have no inherent substance. But everything Trump is advocating is carried on the waves of far different rhythms—casual, direct, non-teleprompter, jump-around, zig-zag, off the cuff; as if, out of some bygone era, he’s saying: “Hey kid, here’s a dime, run down to the corner and get me a newspaper, and here’s a nickel for yourself…”

Blown dry, androidal, high-flying, empty, sentimental, super-clean, sing-song—these are qualities drilled into, or already possessed by, successful pols and media stars. Trump cuts across and buries that style. He’s a disruptor, and he violates the cardinal rule, which is:

Don’t wake the children.

I can’t emphasize too strongly what a threat that poses to the status quo, which can only sustain itself through a tacit agreement, on all sides, to engage in trance-inducing speech.

On top of all this, Trump is delivering messages that are beyond the pale, according to current standards of political correctness. Another jolt.

Trump is doing one of these:

“Listen, folks, they’re all lying to you. You know who I’m talking about. Last month I was in Cincinnati and this reporter came up to me, I could see she was all ready to do me in, you know? She had this big question she wanted to ask me, like she was going to kill me with it—I’ve known lots of people like that, you have, too. People all over the country are out of work but all she can think about is her pet question…jobs, we’ve got to bring them back…I’m calling those companies that went overseas and telling them, pack your bags and come back or you’re going to face…(pointing) he knows what I mean…I can see it on your face, what’s your name?…I’ll bet you know someone close to you who was thrown out of his job, or maybe you were…”

Trump comes across every which way. Right side up, inside out, sideways.

Threat Two: He gets in the face of media personalities and slaps them down and topples them from their pedestals. He doesn’t bow. He doesn’t play the game. On a moment’s notice, not by script, he attacks when ruffled. He doesn’t care. This amounts to a declaration of war against media hegemony and media hypnosis. This is akin to a person telling a hypnotist, “Hey, take that pendulum out of my face, you idiot. I don’t need to go to sleep. I’m awake.” Media are supposed to be the providers of every slice and tidbit of information that’s important. They’re the eyes, ears, and mouths for the public. Trump is telling them to shut up and go away. His attitude flies in the face of the Program.

Threat Three: He knows what Globalist trade treaties have done to destroy jobs in America. He knows the American economy hasn’t come back after the 2008 crash. He doesn’t care who has signed on to these treaties. He says he’s going to make new deals and change the landscape and bring back jobs.

Whether he will or not, whether he can or not, he’s exposing the Globalist agenda, as well as the politicians on both sides of the aisle who have surrendered their minds and souls to it.

This Globalist agenda is the real third rail of politics, and Trump is not only stepping on it, he’s licking his fingers and putting his hand on the electricity and living (so far) to tell the tale. Once again, he doesn’t appear to care.

Is he for real? Is he a fake? Regardless, he’s talking about what is supposed to remain hidden, and he’s clicking with people all over the country who have lost their jobs to the insane trade policy of the Rockefeller forces.

This is verboten. This can’t happen. But it is happening.

And he isn’t going into a long song and dance about the theory of Globalism. He’s keeping it tight and simple. He’s keeping it emotional. He’s actually speaking a real language real people can understand and want to understand. In other words, he’s committing a grave crime.

He’s telling people their jobs and money and prosperity have been stolen and he’s going to get them back.

Threat Four: Immigration. In a nation that already has 60 million immigrants living here, which makes it the number one “importer” of immigrants, per capita, in the world, and generous to the hilt by most standards, he’s saying: yes, but now there is a problem, a very serious problem—and he’s going to solve it. The problem is crime, drugs, potential terrorism. And since the federal government admits it has no proper screening program to spot terrorists, he’s going to put a pause on allowing Muslim immigrants to enter the US. What could the man say that is more politically incorrect?

Whether you agree or disagree with any or every item of his proposal, consider what he’s wreaking on his comfortable liberal opposition—the people who believe open borders should be endless and forever, people who would never, under any circumstances, put a ceiling on it, because they only care about being seen as tolerant and kind and generous and self-effacing and wonderful…people who would, if necessary, walk down streets naked in the rain carrying whips and flagellating themselves to prove their motives are pure.

Based on these four points (I’m saving the best for the end, for later), Trump is a clear and present danger to the political establishment—both Parties and their Globalist handlers.

He’s a “narcissist, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Stalin, a loon.”

The GOP, his own Party, is the first line of defense. They must try to sweep him off the board. What can they do?

One: Change the nominating rules so Rubio and Kasich can easily shift their delegates to Cruz. Right now, for example, those three men have 703 delegates among them. Trump has 671. (Rolling update here.)

Two: Induce a complete deadlock at the Convention and bring in a “compromise” candidate from the closet. For instance, Mitt Romney. Creating that deadlock could involve more rule changes that would strip delegates away from Trump by declaring they aren’t bound to vote for him.

Three: Let Trump have the nomination, but then back/encourage a third-party or independent candidate to run. This would be a person who’d obviously suck votes away from Trump in the general election, giving Hillary a walk in the park to the White House.

Or alternatively: allow a straight-on Trump vs. Hillary contest, and rig enough voting machines to make sure Hillary achieves victory in key states.

Four: Covertly back more riots leading up to the Convention, casting Trump as the cause, as the “divisive one” leading the nation over a cliff. The “law of consequences”—support Trump and this is what you get; you get fear; you get looking over your shoulder as you walk down the street.

Another version of the op: stage a grisly crime and set up a “racist Trump patsy” as the perpetrator.

Another version: stage so many violent protests the message is clear: vote for Trump and this will be a nation in permanent chaos.

Five: If all else fails, the campaign to stop Trump could be taken out of the GOP’s hands, and he would be rubbed out.

Those people calculating the success of any of these five strategies would certainly be considering blowback from Trump’s supporters. The risks are many. Exposure is a virtual certainty.

“Cooler heads” would be saying: “Look, give him the nomination. Hillary’s going to win anyway.”

And if by a miracle Trump somehow gains the Presidency, the sixth option is:

“Let’s get serious.” People with deep knowledge of the political establishment and significant clout would approach him and let him know, in no uncertain terms, that his radical plans are destined to fail. Therefore, compromise is in order. What would President Trump settle for in the real world? What would he give up?

Those are questions whose answers would define his Presidency. He could just step back into his familiar role as the ordinary maker of the ordinary deal.

But before deciding whether to capitulate, Trump might, on the spur of the moment, arrange a sit-down with, say, President Putin. He might lay his cards on the table and say, “Look, this is what I’m trying to do at home, and this is the opposition I’m facing. I think we have issues in common. How can we help each other?”

If that happened, Trump would drive the American neocons out of their minds.

And so now we’ve come to the fifth and greatest threat Trump poses:

His unpredictability.

As President, he could meet with any world leader at the drop of a hat. He could consult all sorts of unconventional sources. He could find out that solutions to national problems are available outside normal channels. Who knows?

Who knows what an un-vetted President, with a large sense of curiosity, might find out, vis-a-vis a number of issues the public is also quite curious about?

This is why men who have operated in the shadows for a long time are truly worried.

Trump has no visible pattern. When he talks, one idea sparks another and then he goes off on a third. A man like that, with the clout of the Presidency, rummaging around in the halls and basements of power and secrets? Are you kidding?

Pick your issue. Chemtrails? Black-budget ops? The extent of NSA spying on US government officials and subsequent blackmail? Extant technologies far in advance of what has been shown to the people? Including suppressed energy technologies?

Might Trump be just the sort of unhinged cowboy who would wander into one of these forbidden areas and start shooting his mouth off?

What does he care about propriety or the rules of the game? He’s Donny Trump who came out the Bronx, where he was hustling commercial buildings; he parlayed his wins into bigger and bigger properties downtown, he went bankrupt three or four times, he dealt with the mafia princes of concrete in NYC, he fired everybody in sight on The Apprentice…

He’s the loosest cannon.

Conspiracy researchers cite their prime reasons for the 1963 assassination of JFK, but there is one possibility they rarely, if ever, mention. It’s just the sort of project a wandering bored-in-the-middle-of-the-night Trump might come upon.

Passamaquoddy.

For some 90 years, it’s lain fallow, up in the state of Maine. The basis of it is quite simple. It’s a way to provide energy for the people that doesn’t involve conventional resources buried under the ground:

Off-shore turbines.

Taking advantage of the daily difference between high and low tides, ocean water literally turns the wheel and produces electricity.

For decades, utility companies and governments in the US and Canada and town councils and all sorts of other players have fought and delayed and blocked Passamaquoddy. JFK’s interest in it started when he was a Massachusetts Senator, and when he was President he ordered a report on its status. He was more than interested in it.

He saw the implications. If off-shore turbines in Maine could produce a great deal of electricity, how many other inlets off the coast of America could fit that bill? And why only in America?

Since JFK’s death, technical research has been done, in fact, on very small turbines that would sit in the flow of rivers and yield up electricity for small communities all over the world.

Bone-headed academics have declared that water-turbine energy isn’t cost effective. The truth is, with a tiny fraction of the government money and a fraction of the favors and loopholes that have been bestowed on the oil and nuclear industries, water-turbines could change a great deal of the energy picture today.

I point this out as merely one example of the sort of secret a properly vetted US President isn’t supposed to query or expose. Presidents know the rules of the game. In most cases, they behave.

But suddenly…an intruder in the Oval Office? A man who is either pretending to be, or is, a rabid populist? A man who loves to talk and talk and talk in front of his people? A man who doesn’t seem to assess consequences in the way that other groomed candidates do? A man who has no discernible pattern?

“Listen, everybody, I just found out about something JFK was working on. It’s fantastic. In fact, it’s super-fantastic. Let me tell you all about it. Those media jerks and professors will say it doesn’t work, but President Kennedy, who was a truly great guy, thought it would. Some super-educated friends of mine have been studying it and they agree. They’ve got a whole lot of degrees and credentials behind their names…It’s called Passamaquoddy…”

There are people in the shadows with a great deal of power who couldn’t care less about the morality of Trump’s stance on immigration. What they do care about, what they do guard are the boundaries of this propped-up fantasy world of scarcity we live in together. That is their first concern.

The idea of a sitting President hunting and pecking and stumbling around in secrets whose exposure would crack that system puts their teeth on edge.

What about this strange man, Trump, who, for whatever reasons, likes to stick his hand in dark places and pull rabbits out of rabbit holes?

That would be a cause for great concern.

That would be a threat that demands action.

To grasp this situation, you have to look past the op to divide America into two warring camps. You have to look past the media piling on as they try to make Trump into the destroyer of all human civilization. You have to look past the attempt to elevate his enemies into saviors of humanity. You have to look past obvious strategies to bring in agents to stir the pot, step up violence, and threaten peaceful communities.

According to the unspoken rules of political life in this country, no un-vetted President must ever move into the White House. It must not happen. Presidents have to understand their roles and their assignments.

Trump isn’t merely another puppet set up to hand the election to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. At the start, Hillary’s allies may have seen it that way, encouraged him, helped push him out on the national stage. But then things spiraled out of control.

Once in a while, that happens. A plan falls apart and the supposed dupe takes on a life of his own. He exceeds the limits. He strikes a nerve in the public. He starts listening to himself and realizes he might actually believe in his own ideas.

As of now, the men who operate the levers of this country at several upper strata see Trump as a wild card.

And they don’t like what they see.

They don’t like it at all.

power outside the matrix

In his better moments, this crazy cowboy seems to have a penchant for solutions that actually work. He isn’t mired down in standard actions designed to yield up more stagnation and more despair.

That makes him both unpredictable and dangerous, because there are real secrets that have been buried over the years—secrets that could restore prosperity and abundance for populations.

He might be crazy enough to unearth them and hold them up and talk about them, and new allies might come to his aid.

This is what is at the bottom of elite fear about the candidate who was never supposed to jump up out of nowhere.

Don’t assume such a threat could never, ever come in the form of a wise-cracking self-inflating hustler from way back. Don’t assume there is some correct archetype of the person who will blow the lid off the grave of secrets. This isn’t a spy novel in which the hero fits the reader’s fantasy. This is the American Empire, and it has been ruled, for a long time, by lunatics.

It might not be a surprise that a wild-talking cowboy exposes a few of their holy of holies.

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.