Category Archives: Press Fraud

Netflix House of Cards: politics without redemption

Netflix House of Cards: politics without redemption

Hail to the destroyers

Dark night of the soul

Politics=the pretense of Rescue From Above

by Jon Rappoport

March 14, 2016

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

“The gift of a good liar is making people believe you lack a talent for lying.” President Frank Underwood, House of Cards

This is a series worth watching. Season 4 has just been released.

The language of politics is the language of lying, and it’s hard to recall any other piece of modern fiction about politics that reveals this fact so forcefully and nakedly.

President Frank Underwood; his wife Claire; Will Conway, his opponent in the upcoming election; numerous other characters moving in and out of that orbit—they lie, and they lie all the time, and they especially lie when they profess humanitarian motives, when they express sympathy and caring, when they proclaim hope for a better future. The Good, in fact, is their front-and-center cover story. Whenever The Good is the subject (and when isn’t it?), they pretend to care, but they only and always pretend—because accumulating power is their only desire—and you see the double-faced charade on the screen again and again, until you accept the lying language as business as usual. As the way things are done.

The House of Cards writers are relentless about exposing how political language is used. They don’t back off. They don’t leave any loopholes.

President Frank Underwood is the chief faker.

At the end of season 4, he and his wife, Claire, have made up their minds that their potential exposure (past crimes) is too great to finesse: they must go on an all-out attack. As a grand diversion.

They will “make terror.” They will evoke terrorist high-panic in the American public, and then wage war against the terrorists. They’ll play both sides against the middle.

At last, they know what they must do, and they’re at peace with it. It’s the final answer. Up until now, they’ve only gone part of the way. That didn’t give them protection. So they’ll finish the job.

Their logic is predictable, given what politics is really all about. The only issue is: how far will they go? They have come to the conclusion: there is no limit.

The public, of course, cannot accept such an idea. The public is always fooled on that score. The public always wants to believe The Good is emanating from their own leaders. That is the public’s version of logic, and it too is predictable within a naive bubble of ultimate faith and hope.

House of Cards doesn’t bother exposing how the press aids and abets this faith. It focuses on the main players within the political establishment. In doing so, it teaches a lesson: those players can enlist sympathy, even as they commit one crime after another. Those key players have charm. They have intelligence. They have magnetic force. They are projections of “how to play the game.” They are determined not to lose. They refuse to accept the nets closing in around them. They don’t back down. They never give in to the urge to surrender. They never believe their own lies—they are, thus, much smarter than the public.

At the same time, the viewer sees how transparent these players are. They fall far short of being geniuses. In a half-sane world, they would have been banished to a desert island long ago. But this is not a half-sane world. The People want Hope. They’ll do anything to believe it’s available, from an external source.

Well, this is the external source: Frank and Claire Underwood. A rolled-up duo of implacable hatred. As Claire finally says: “I’m done appealing to the hearts of people; that doesn’t work; now I have to bring out the fear; build it; stoke it.” She isn’t whistling Dixie. In her position as the First Lady and Frank’s vice-presidential running mate, she can do something about it, and she intends to. The two of them will do it together.

House of Cards has nothing to do with gender politics in the usual sense. Claire’s star is rising. She is taking over the reins from her husband. Her coldness has come to equal, and even surpass, his. He, in decline, needs her to stay alive, to function. She is equal to the task.

The silent invisible character in House of Cards is the public, the population, with its unquenchable desire to believe, to hope, to wish—and to fall for the con.

In recent years, we’ve seen several Presidential candidates who haven’t followed the usual script. They haven’t played up the “rescue from above” tune. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Trump. Regardless of what you think of them, they’ve broken the mold.

They’ve begun to make the House of Cards paradigm of politics a bit shaky.

But back to RESCUE FROM ABOVE…

Chicago: are jobs and money better than poverty and protests?

As protestors shut down the Trump rally in Chicago, the divide and conquer op in America reaches a new level.

And where in all this is Obama’s promise of Hope and Change? Nowhere.

Jobs have been fleeing America for a long time now. It’s the Globalist “free trade” plan, and it’s made more poverty and more discontent, right on schedule.

It’s come to the point where many people don’t even want a fix, don’t even want a reversal. They only want to protest. They only want a change from despair to anger.

They want to be a permanent underclass dependent on the government (rescue from above), and at best they seek a new President who will make that dependence more comfortable—as if that were possible.

They no longer see jobs tied to money as a solution. It’s not acceptable to them.

If that is an organizing principle, if that brings people together, then you have…what? You have violence. You have destruction. You have a growing revolution with no aim to change things for the better. In that atmosphere, the only government capable of surviving is a government which promises more Something for Nothing.

And Something for Nothing always has conditions. They add up to greater top-down control, “on behalf of the people.”

“We will give you more. In return, do what we tell you to do. We care. We know what’s best. We work for you. We feel your pain.”

That’s the current sales pitch, of course, but it will rise to new heights.

The one candidate who exemplifies it is Bernie Sanders, who, in his lifetime in Congress, has accomplished virtually nothing.

The subliminal message coming out of Bernie is: “All business is bad. All capitalism is bad. All free enterprise is bad and unfair. Adults are unfair to children. The problem can be solved by government.” Rescue from above.

How that works is a mystery, because it doesn’t work. It never has.

The stark reality is: government doesn’t create jobs over the long-term. Unless you want the USSR. Then everyone has a job. A bad one. Bad job, bad pay, mediocre mindset. No one may rise higher than his neighbor. To do so would be offensive.

In a country like America, you could sell that program as a worker’s utopia for about six months. Until the naïve realized it was very much like living in a slave camp with a cell phone and Facebook.

If I were Bernie Sanders, this is what I would say: “Here is my plan. Here is my rescue from above. Every person in American over the age of 17 who doesn’t make $35,000 a year will get a government check to make sure they do make $35,000 a year. Anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year is a thief and a crook and a capitalist. So whatever they make in excess of 50K will be taken away from them. In addition, every child in America can attend college, regardless of grades or background, for six years. No charge. Every child will get a college diploma, even if they don’t attend classes. For every protest you attend while at college, you’ll receive half an ounce of prime weed. If you hold a Kill Capitalism or I Don’t Need no Stinkin’ Job sign at eight rallies, you’ll receive a virtual reality headset.”

On the basis of that statement, I would expect Bernie rallies to draw upwards of 100,000 people.

Forget socialism. We’re past that. Nobody works. Bring on full-bore automation in every company in America.

Schools have one and only one goal: remove personal ambition from every mind.

“Yeah, I remember it like yesterday, even though it was so long ago, my child. That night in Chicago was the beginning of the real revolution. We started to realize what we really wanted. Nothing. Everything. Know what I mean? We were crazy then. We had to be. That night is why you have this great 150-foot square apartment in an affluent section of town, and the virtual reality and the free drugs and the sleep machine and the protest schools and the no-classes and no teachers…”

“That night is why you have the 250 vaccines in you and the hospital complex that takes up half the Southwest, where you go every year to get your updated psychiatric diagnosis and the gold badge you proudly wear that tells everybody what condition you have, so you all have something to talk about…”

All is well.

Rescue from above is the grand pretense and the grand op.

It can be packaged and sold in so many ways.

exit from the matrix

After 30 years of working as a reporter and digging into scandals which were falsely sold on the “rescue” basis, I gave a talk at a conference in California, and I presented my alternative. I said:

“I’m selling you to you.”

That’s my pitch.

I’m selling what you are, underneath it all, and what you can be, and these are things only you know. I can point to them.

But I can’t and won’t try to pile up what you should think and what you should decide and what you should do.

You have two great capacities: the ability to reason and analyze; and the infinite ability to imagine.

Imagination takes you into your own future and opens it up without limit. Then you can decide how you want to invent it.

Imagination is everything that doesn’t already exist.

Imagination demolishes all versions of waiting around for rescue from above. Imagination is the fire. The great adventure.

Imagination is you inventing what was previously unknown.

Imagination is independence.

Every person has imagination and, therefore, the potential for independence.

If “politics” has anywhere to go, that’s where.

That’s where the lying and the manipulation and the crimes can stop.

With the individual.

When the illusion of rescue is replaced by imagination and creative fire, then all things are possible…

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: why the elite media were completely wrong about his chances

Trump: why the elite media were completely wrong about his chances

by Jon Rappoport

March 2, 2016

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

Because they live in a bubble of their own making. That’s why.

And in that bubble, everything about America is manageable. Things can get worse, but then they get better. Money is tight, then it’s loose. Employment figures drop, then they rebound. Wars start, and then they end.

Looking at the country and the population through the wrong end of the telescope, these media creatures feel themselves positioned high above the madding crowd. To them, phrases like “street smart” and “savvy” are the closest they get to anything real.

Occasionally, they remark that people are restless “out there” and looking for a change—as if Obama, with his massive slogans, somehow supplied that need for eight years and solved the whole problem for a while. As if the problem was simply a psychological kink that needed to be worked out.

So naturally, these down-their-nose puffed-up media morons didn’t notice that “things” were actually getting worse, the employment figures were being cooked, month after month, the Globalists with their trade treaties were stealing the whole economy, and had been for decades. Naturally, they didn’t notice that a normal political “correction” wasn’t going to fix America. They didn’t notice that, in a nation where, at minimum, 40 million immigrants already live, people were getting tired of being told they had to be more generous and let the southern border of the US swing open and stay open, or be labeled outright racists. The media puffballs didn’t appear to notice that the political Left was becoming more comfortable with the idea that all private property (except their own) was some sort of crime and ordinary straight-ahead non-crony capitalism was another crime, and earning a living on one’s own was yet another crime, because entrepreneurs and small-business owners “didn’t build that.” They didn’t notice, in other words, that the Left was nudging political discourse and public opinion and “morality” in the direction of funneling more and more of the population into the arms of the central government, as a permanently dependent class. Or if they did notice, they assented to it, because it was trendy and “humane.” They didn’t notice that huge swaths of America were sick and tired of overwhelming federal authority. They didn’t notice that the overwhelming majority of gun owners weren’t shooting people, and resented being lumped in with killers, and objected to efforts to squeeze their 2nd Amendment. Nor did the media morons notice that large elements of the population weren’t buying into psychiatric mental disorders or pop psychology as a way of life in a kinder gentler (drugged) society, but instead were determined to live their own lives with forward-looking energy. The media morons failed to notice that the attack of political-correctness creatures was being sloughed off and laughed off by increasing numbers of people who had no intention of censoring themselves.

Therefore, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise that Donald Trump, whom the media created as a cartoon of final judgement (“You’re fired!”—The Apprentice), would start firing all sorts of people in real life, with success.

But it did come as a surprise.

Because the media puffballs couldn’t imagine that a loose-talking devil-may-care-character would emerge on the scene and speak to the needs and frustrations of so many Americans—and bypass them, the media kings.

It was unthinkable.

Even worse, some Americans who didn’t agree with Trump and didn’t believe he was for real were still liking him, simply because he was cutting across the grain, he was talking back to media and telling them where to get off.

He was violating secrets of the media temple, matter-of-factly saying vaccines could cause autism, and promising to pin the blame for 9/11 on the real killers. He was refusing to go along with the gun-control crowd. He was blowing up the acceptable garble called political discourse. He was talking dismissive smack at his Republican opponents and at Hillary. He was saying the Globalist trade treaties were national sabotage and economic suicide.

He was his own media outlet.

And his ratings were soaring.

After Super Tuesday, he hit the top of the charts.

Exit From the Matrix

“But we’re the town criers. We announce the news to the townspeople. We take our orders from the princes and kings and spread their messages. We’re the eyes and ears and mouths of the public. We set the boundaries. We determine priorities and proprieties. We’re the civilized ones. We maintain order. We re-invent language. We decide what can be debated. We choose the representatives of each side. We own the space of The Discussion.”

Not today.

Trump—fake or real—has given the people a clue.

It doesn’t have to be the way it was.

A cowboy can parachute out of the top of his own tower, and as he descends past his financed and re-financed and formerly bankrupt suites—talking, always talking—as he floats past the mafia-controlled concrete of his structure—talking, always talking—he can broadcast a code to the frustrations of millions of unknown people; and they will respond, because the very media that has been hating them all these years is, somehow, wriggling and moaning at the end of the cowboy’s whip.

The media should have known this was coming, but the media never knows. Pale and dead, it imitates a world of its own making.

Exposed, that’s all it has.

Jon Rappoport

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

Hello, world: is your government driving you crazy?

Politics, the god Hermes, and the big joke

Suppose, against all odds, enlightenment is funny and funny works like magic because it is magic

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: If, as you read this article, you think I’m saying ‘don’t worry, be happy’ or ‘just laugh it off’ or ‘forget all the suffering in the world,’ you’re viewing it from the wrong angle. The 1968 riot at the Democratic National Convention was very serious, and it did nothing to shorten the war in Vietnam. It might have prolonged it. In this article, I’m talking about a basic psychological and spiritual inhibition that keeps people from a kind of mass reaction they believe is unthinkable—but a reaction that would change reality in a revolutionary fashion, if it came from their deepest core…

I could write a few thousand pages as a mere introduction—but I want to focus on one factor: what people project into their leaders.

Yes, I know, that sounds a bit odd. But stay with me. I’ll make it pay off.

For example, in the US, Republican voters and supporters project a huge amount of faith and energy into their Republican leaders. If you could see this, you would be watching a stunning “light show.” I’m talking about streamers and arrows and rays of energy.

And in this particular light show, there are messages: defund Planned Parenthood; cut off money for massive migration programs; stop Obamacare funding; don’t give money to the climate change payout program; stop bankrolling sanctuary cities.

That’s what these Republicans want from their leaders. That’s what they’re projecting with great insistence.

And this isn’t some kind of misplaced crazy light show, because guess what? Republicans control the US House of Representatives by a wide margin. Republicans: 246. Democrats: 188.

So when a massive federal spending bill ($1.1 trillion) comes up for a vote, as it just has, Republican Congress members can call the shots. They can respond to all those light rays being projected at them by their supporters all over the land. They can do it in a second. No problem. They can make their people happy. They can carry out their people’s wishes.

But…they didn’t. In fact, they just voted to fund all those programs I just mentioned. They pulled a vast switch. That’s right. That would be like all those Stars Wars characters, with their light sabers, suddenly projecting them through the movie screen right back at their adoring audience in the theater and burning them. What a message that would be.

Has your government ever done something like this in your country? I bet they have.

When it happens, the people, the voters, the supporters, who were sure their leaders would respond to them…well, to say they’re shocked would be a vast understatement.

However, scanning the newspapers and news broadcasts in America today, so far I find no reports of massive Republican demonstrations in the streets. Millions marching on Washington DC? Thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? Four? Two?

One guy in a Star Wars costume with a light saber trying to stop traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue?

Try to imagine the amount of energy and faith Republicans in America have been expending and projecting at their leaders—with this Big Switch as the result.

And then consider this: the Republicans in the US House of Representatives—many of them—never intended to go to war over this massive budget bill. It was never in the cards. They wear special shields, and the shields ward off all the projected rays coming at them from their faithful flock.

It’s not just the Republicans, in case you think I’m taking sides. What about the huge Democratic support for the invasion of Iraq under George W Bush? Did you see a few million Democrats in the streets right after the nearly unanimous Congressional vote to launch the planes and send the troops?

Wherever you live in the world, I’m sure you’ve seen this sort of thing. “Vote for Joe. He’ll do this and that.” Joe wins, and then doesn’t do either this or that. He was never going to. He was always wearing one of those shields that protected him from what his supporters were projecting at him.

This is called a joke.

That’s right. It may be a painful, repellent, nasty, killer joke with horrendous consequences, but it’s a joke.

The structure that is supposed to yield up “what the people want” is actually another structure whose features are unreported.

And the joke is, the people fall for it. Not just once, but over and over, on and on, year after year, decade after decade. It doesn’t matter what the evidence says. They fall for it.

And then, as another punchline, when some of those people stop falling for it and defect from the structure, they’re called strange and odd and weird and possibly dangerous.

“Don’t you get it, you strange person? You’re in a stage play. And your role involves going along with the charade. The real machinations are occurring behind the stage, and they’re not part of the play at all, but we don’t think about that. We keep projecting our energy and desires and faith into our purported leaders. Haven’t you read the script? The play falls apart if we don’t do that. It makes no sense if we don’t do that. A leader isn’t a leader if he doesn’t have adoring supporters who project their hopes and fears and desires and energy into him. That’s the way it works. So get with it.”

Now, possibly you think, when I talk about “projecting energy,” this is just a metaphor. I have news. It isn’t. This is as real as waves breaking on a beach. It’s happening all the time. People are doing it. They don’t want to stop doing it. It’s a habit that, for them, is harder to break than a heroin addiction.

One way or another, everybody is projecting energy. Of course, if they know that, they can decide where and how. They can, as individuals, create those projections in connection with achieving their deepest desires and dreams. In which case, there is a very good chance this would be a better world.

On the other hand, if they remain in the stage play and accept their assigned roles, they get jokes. And they’re the target of those massive jokes. And they don’t laugh. Generally, they go into a state of psychic paralysis, because they can’t figure out what just happened.

They might consult the news to find answers. That’s another joke. In the case of the $1.1 trillion budget bill that just passed the House in the US, they would encounter this: well, you see, the Republicans were trying to show support for their new Speaker, Paul Ryan, who is in favor of the bill, and if they didn’t vote for the bill the federal government would have to shut down because it would have no money for operational expenses, and the bill does allow the US to export crude oil, which is very important.

These are the added punchlines, which ought to send any sane person rolling on the floor with laughter.

You can laugh or cry, it’s your choice. But keep in mind that this joke really belongs to the people who launch it, and they don’t care which way you respond. To them, it’s still hilarious. And when they think about the millions of people who still vote for them, they put in a call for medical staff, because they’re going to laugh so hard they might need oxygen.

Sure, they leave Washington for a while, to “spend time with their families over the holidays,” just in case there is some nasty pushback from loyal voters, but they’re having a very merry Xmas, in part because they’re still chuckling and chortling about what they just put over.

George Burns once said: “In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

In politics, the launching and projecting of the joke is handled by the politicians and the media. They work hand in hand to conceal the fact that it is a joke—which is what makes it so funny to all of them.

I can take this out much farther. Consensus reality, which is the lowest possible common denominator to which the planet can be reduced, in order to suck in the faith and projections of the largest number of people, is its own kind of joke. You can find such an awareness at least as far back as ancient Greece, in the person of Hermes, the trickster god.

Hermes, among his other duties, was the protector of wit. He was the upsetter of apple carts, the vast joker who, in his own way, if you read between the lines, was trying to show people they were living inside a continuum of the big con, the big hustle. He was, you could say, the grand defector. He moved among various realities. He knew the world was a badly written stage play that, on the heels of honest reviews, would have closed down after opening night.

Hermes’ powers were formidable. He had the juice to become king of Mt. Olympus, but he never wanted that job. Instead, he flew hither and yon, tearing holes in consensus reality, for his own amusement, but also to wake people up.

He was not always popular with leaders of the day.

If he were alive in our time, what might he do? I can imagine him trying to engineer, at a State of the Union Address, or during a Presidential debate, a massive amount of laughter from the live audience. Yes, he might attempt to promote a trick like that. All of sudden, out of nowhere, in a trickle, a little stream, then a river, people are laughing. It builds to an oceanic roar. It spills over to the television audience. No one is sure why, but they’re laughing at the President and candidates, and they’re having the time of their lives. On some level of happiness and joy, they’re finally responding to the joke. At last.

They get it.

Hence the old phrase, “He was laughed off the stage.”

Exit From the Matrix

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

And that’s exactly what happens. The leaders are laughed and ridiculed into oblivion. And so is the old consensus itself.

“You know, people have been telling that joke ever since I don’t when, and I never understood it, but now all of a sudden I do. And what makes it keep paying off, those leaders who are stage-center are so serious…wow, they’re killing me.”

Yes, that’s right. Well, they were killing you. It’s not quite the same anymore.

It turns out that, while we thought we were watching (and acting in) one kind of stage play, on a subconscious level we were all sitting in an audience, for the past ten thousand years, watching a tireless comedian doing variations on a cosmic joke, on and on, and there were zero laughs, zero, and nevertheless he kept going—and voila, the place finally exploded.

We had every reason not to laugh. All the suffering and the pain—but when we did connect with the joke, it proved to be enormously effective, beyond anything we could predicted.

Our core NATURAL response, beyond all “common sense,” from the depths of our NATURAL being, repressed for centuries, was titanic laughter, and it sent our esteemed leaders straight to the Outer Darkness.

Who knew? Go figure.

Bam. Pow.

The world starts over.

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.

“Our top story tonight: reasonable robots triumph”

“Our top story tonight: reasonable robots triumph”

by Jon Rappoport

December 19, 2015

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

“The Personnel Chief said: ‘Thin, tall, geeky, bespectacled, somewhat remote, wry, scientific—if you can affect that presentation, you’ll automatically enjoy a degree of success, no matter what you’re talking about. Why? Because you pass the juice test: you’ve got no juice left, and therefore you aren’t dangerous.’” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A few decades ago, “positioning” became a popular concept among public–relations consultants. The idea was, a corporation would invent and flesh out a story about where it wanted to be “coming from.” And then people would, in fact, see the corporation “in that place.”

Major media have long been adept in inventing their position: Objective. Neutral. Fact-seeking. Rigorous. Balanced.

The strongest position, and the one media carve out as a form of self-protection is: “Reasonable people can disagree.”

This is the capper.

It allows media companies to refrain from investigating a vital issue down to its core and discovering the truth, followed by assigning blame to the correct persons.

Instead, newspapers and networks offer the time-honored: “This expert says A, while that expert says B.” End of story, because…reasonable people can disagree.

For example, if several million young children, including babies, are being dosed with highly toxic psychiatric drugs, after being diagnosed with mental disorders based on zero scientific evidence, this would constitute a “vital issue,” yes? An issue that grotesquely impacts the life and health and future of these children. It calls out for deep investigation, truth, and assignment of blame. It calls for relentless pressure from the press.

But, the whole matter can be diverted into: “Expert 1 says A, while expert 2 says B.” A removed position can thus be created for the reporting outlet. No need to investigate to the bottom of the scandal. No need to express any passion whatsoever.

The public, by and large, overlooks the obvious ongoing crime and tragedy, because the media aren’t getting in an uproar about it. “Well, if the news people don’t think it’s that dangerous and immediate, it’s okay. Why worry?”

Media: “We don’t jump the gun. We gather information, we contemplate, we consider, and then we present what we know…”

No they don’t. That’s just their self-invented position. On issues and stories that cross forbidden lines, they postpone, delay, and then offer two opposing views, because “reasonable people can disagree.” Because they can make it look like two reasonable people disagreeing.

Take the issue of Libya after Ghaddafi. After the US disposed of Ghaddafi and wrecked the country, reporters could go over and assemble a huge number of horrific and damaging facts and photos and videos, and their newspapers and networks could pound on this story day after day, and then certain US leaders would come sharply into the crosshairs. But instead, more safely, run a few stories, quote a few experts with different views, and leave it that. Reasonable people disagree.

That’s what media outlets do to position themselves. If they dug and found the bottom truth on any vital matter, brought the correct criminals into focus, attacked them, and exerted all possible pressure for prosecutions—-then what? Then they would be changing their basic position. Then their audience would expect media to keep doing that sort of thing on every vital story. No, no, no. That must never happen.

***Since the public takes many cues from media (the great teacher), private individuals also position themselves as neutral, distant, bland, empty of passion.

God forbid a private citizen, in a “social interaction,” would express a passionate view backed up by evidence. His friends and colleagues would slowly step away, as if he might be contagious, or packing explosives.

“Just remember, Bob, reasonable people can disagree. Don’t fly off the handle.”

This is also a lead-in to political correctness:

“Bob, did you just hear the words you were using? Be nice. You could offend someone.”

Or worse, “trigger” someone.

Media personalities are adept at making any issue feel reasonable. “Well, Jim, although several university scientists are releasing information about the moon being made of green cheese, NASA has published several studies forwarding evidence that the cheese is actually a brand of Moon soil that merely has superficial similarities to cheddar and Fontina. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out…”

Lesson learned. Better to hang back and see what happens, rather than commit, make an assertion, and then get caught with your pants down.

There’s a twist, too. Copying media and PR agencies, you can make the most absurd idea seem possible merely by employing a reasonable tone:

“Look, when computer power catches up to and passes human brain power, the ability to process a thousand trillion pieces of data in .000001 of a second will imply a basic shift. The IQ inherent in that capability will be on the order of 100,000, at minimum. It makes sense to infer that whatever the source of the universe is, it will at that point reveal itself to the new level of intelligence…”

Sure it will.

There is another bottom-line (illogical) conclusion in the overall game I’m describing: the truth is unavailable; therefore, in its absence, above all be reasonable.

Or: “Don’t worry. People commit spiritual, mental, emotional, and psychic suicide all the time. Join the crowd. Appear reasonable. That’ll get you by and win you friends.”

Corollary: If you express emotion that carries electricity, you’re “ranting.” There is something wrong with you. You should seek help.

Media copy scientists in their style of presentation. As if the news is entirely objective: “We ran the experiment in the lab, and this is the result.”

When enough passion has been drained from an individual, it’s guaranteed that he can’t create. He’s immobile. A stone in a garden. A sunset with no sun. In a mild drizzle, he walks calmly, cultivating his ability to pass between drops.

Oh, he wants to create something, with every fiber of his being. He wants to step out of the shadows of his eternal winter and become an artist of reality. But he has the good sense to pull back. He has the good sense to give himself every excuse in the book. He has the good sense to give small praise where praise is due but do nothing himself.

He sits and watches the news. The presentation/tone confirms everything he has accomplished to shape his own personality. And why shouldn’t it? He ingested his basic lessons from the news.

Maybe I could be a broadcaster, he thinks. I could become the voice that describes what is real and what isn’t. I could narrate the stories. I could position myself to be active and outgoing, while remaining passive. I could gain rewards as a high-level android…I could be, above all else, reasonable.

power outside the matrix

In an alternate universe, imagine a freshman course at a college in which the professor delivers this brief talk on opening day:

“Well, I offer my congratulations to you thirty students. You qualify for this class because you can read and write at twelfth-grade level. Believe me, that’s a rarity these days. I’m going to teach you how to focus on an important issue, investigate it deeply, assemble evidence, and draw a conclusion. I’m going to awaken your inherent passion for actual, as opposed to phony justice. I’m going to turn you into writers and researchers who take no prisoners. Because, you see, evidence plus passion is a Great Force. You may not understand that now, but you will. We’re going to turn the media universe upside down. We’re going to crack that egg. I’m going to put you through your paces. Each one of you. This isn’t a training ground for the New York Times or CBS or CNN. This is a training ground for authentic independence. Those of you who want that are in the right place. Those of you who can put aside what you’ve already learned from the media will flourish. Here is another message you may not understand yet: It’s not enough to bellow and shout, and it’s not enough to be ‘reasonable.’ These are both false cover stories that obscure what you can become. I’m going to open a door into your own energy—more of it than you can conceive of right now. If you’re beginning to glimpse that what I’m talking about is power, you’re right. Power. That’s why we’re here. So, without further ado, let’s start cracking the mother egg…”

Our top story tonight: reasonable robots running out of juice.

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.

Republican Presidential debate an exercise in mind control

Republican Presidential debate an exercise in mind control

Let’s find an alternative universe

by Jon Rappoport

December 16, 2015

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

If a human mind were composed of a dozen eggs, and you soft-boiled them, broke them open, and let the goo run all over the plate, down on to the table, soon dripping on to the floor, that would be mind control, in the sense that you’re creating meaningless chaos, where no thought is important or makes sense or adds up to a cogent point.

That was the CNN-hosted Republic Presidential debate, with what was it, nine candidates sounding off, interrupting one another, and mentioning Trump so often it seemed like they were afflicted with a one-note samba syndrome.

You could conclude CNN, a Democratic stronghold, wanted the chaos, to throw the Republicans into an exceedingly bad and foul light, but other recent Presidential debates, hosted by other networks, have come across in the same basic fashion.

The problem starts with networks hosting these lunatic events. Since when does a debate need a moderator who controls and asks all the questions? Since when does a network need to have any role at all?

A debate is supposed to be two people contending over an important issue.

For contrast, consider the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas face-off—when apparently citizens still had a semblance of intelligence. Both men were running for a US Senate seat in Illinois. In those days, state legislatures chose US Senators.

But the issue in the debates was slavery, so the interest was intense and it was national. Here was the agreed-upon format: seven debates in seven Illinois towns over the course of three weeks; in each debate, the opening candidate would speak for 60 minutes, his opponent would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would return for 30 minutes.

The debates drew large crowds. Chicago newspapers had stenographers in each town. The stenos took down every word, and newspapers across the nation printed, in full, the texts.

Those were debates. No one with sprayed hair was in control. The men talked. And talked.

If you could transport the CNN Republican debate back in time to one of those Illinois towns, the audience would conclude, in short order, that all the participants were insane, possibly suffering from brain damage.

“These people are running for…what did you say? President??!!?? You’re joking. This a joke, yes?”

What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the state of the country in 2015? A country that actually acquiesced in a “debate” of this sort?

What do you think the 1858 audience would conclude about the two political parties, in 2015, who permitted such debates, and about the general electorate who expressed partisan support for either party?

“And in your time, 2015, no third or fourth party of any strength has arisen to sweep these mad Democrats and Republicans into the dustbin?”

No, the Lincoln-Douglas debates didn’t settle the issue of slavery. Something called the Civil War broke out. But that fact doesn’t excuse what these crazed Presidential debates have devolved into.

I’d really like to see one of these 2015 Presidential candidates take the podium and speak for 90 minutes about a single issue. You’d have to have support teams standing by to administer oxygen and possibly meth, just to keep them upright.

We’re talking about a candidate staying on point, on one issue.

“I remember my grandmother telling me, when I was nine, you can do it, you can be anything you want to be. I’d like to thank Mrs. Gallbladder, my third-grade teacher, for spending time with me when I—people say we should have a balanced budget, but they just don’t understand how economics—there weren’t any emails, well there were but none of them compromised—ownership of the means of production isn’t—better schools for our children—attacking terrorists by insulting them isn’t—equality isn’t just for—my father was President and so was my brother but—I made great deals to put up those hotels—when I look at a human brain on the operating table, I know what this universe—this isn’t the first time a woman has tried to win the Presidency but—“

Goo and more goo running everywhere.

Reporters and PR flacks and party hacks seizing on a few words of the opponent and highlighting them on social media. “Can you believe he slipped up and said Afro-American?” “Did you see that fly on his nose?” “A red tie with a blue suit is supposed to look Presidential?” “I counted. He interrupted nine times.” And these are the more intelligent tweets.

On the other hand, the current TV debates preclude the possibility of something dangerous happening. For example, in a real contest, suppose the single issue was Syria and a candidate stepped up to the podium and said:

“During my remarks in the next sixty minutes, with no interruptions—yes, we’re going back to a much older format—I’ll be the making the case that the current US administration has essentially created ISIS, in part for the purpose of overthrowing the present government of Syria. Consider this fact alongside our declared ‘war’ against ISIS. This is more than an outrageous contradiction. It’s an intentional deception, and a crime of the highest order, considering what ISIS has been carrying out in terms of the destruction of human life. Now, I’m not just saying these things. I have evidence in the form of documents, which I’ll be explaining in detail. Some of these documents and reports are already public. Others are not. I also have statements, on the record, from US military officers and Pentagon executives. So bear with me, stay with me, I’m going to take this one step at a time…”

There are many ways to keep this sort of thing from happening. The easiest way: never let a true debate occur.

Give Rand Paul 90 uninterrupted minutes to explain what his father was explaining? The criminality of the Federal Reserve? Are you kidding?

And just in case you think the American public is so addled they wouldn’t be able to follow such a presentation, I have a secret for you. At first, it would be a problem, yes. But if more and more true debates took place, a change would bleed in. People would begin to wake up. They’d find themselves, bit by bit, intensely interested in the proceedings.

After all, part of the reason the public is brainwashed springs directly from the fact that so few politicians or media people tell the truth or explore any issue in depth. Reverse that trend and the mind begins to reassemble itself.

How about something like this? Crossing party lines, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul debate, seven times, as Lincoln and Douglas did, the following: “What is socialism, and is it good for America?”

If either candidate were unable to do more than spout vapid generalities and programmatic fumes during his seven hours, it would surely become obvious.

How about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, in the same format, debating the question: “Describe in detail the best immigration policy for America.” If their seven events turn into a Niagara of opposing non-sequiturs and self-inflating jive, so be it. It’ll be on parade for all to see.

the matrix revealed

Seven hours. Quickly, all Presidential candidates would discover their usual manner of presentation doesn’t stand up. It doesn’t make the grade. That would be a good thing. Maybe we find out that no one currently running for President can remain coherent. That would be a very good thing.

And maybe someone emerges from the shadows, someone most people have never heard of, and he can pass the test with flying colors. He can make sense, he can make a case, he can present details and specifics, he can inspire confidence, he can paint a picture of what America and freedom and true justice are all about.

Because he has the time. Because he has the courage and the intelligence. Because he makes people remember what they really want.

Would that be terrible? Would that be treasonous? Would that be dangerous?

No.

That would be waking up out of amnesia.

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.

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Dear WaPo: I’ve got some ‘fringe’ for you right here

Washington Post whines: ‘fringe’ news entering mainstream

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2015

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

It’s a terrible thing. Really. The pure and sanctified blood of mainstream news is now infected. Where is the protective vaccine? Quick, call the CDC.

Washington Post, December 11, Paul Farhi, “Thanks to Trump, fringe news enters the mainstream”:

“Trump finding common ground with [Alex] Jones is in keeping with Trump’s own rocky relationship with facts and credible information during the campaign. Many of Trump’s more controversial assertions since he declared for president have come from the murky swamp of right-wing, libertarian and flat-out paranoid sources that have proliferated and thrived as the Internet and social media have grown.”

Got it? The germs are multiplying.

Even the Washington Post, center of all that is good and right and true and holy about the news, is under siege. What can be done to protect WaPo from The Fringe? Is it time for Bob Woodward to write a new book? Do they need surgical masks? Hazmat suits? Should they flee underground and turn the whole operation into a level 4 virus lab with steel vaults and air seals?

Well, dear WaPo, I have a piece of fringe for you. I know you need more readers, and this is a killer. Literally. If you set your hounds loose on it for six months or so, you’ll drag out some of the most explosive material you’ve ever seen, and you’ll be able to print two editions a day. Readers’ll fight with each other to grab issues of the paper off the stands. Watergate? Bill and Monica? Sunday picnics compared with what I’m offering you. And it’s definitely fringe, because you and other mainstream outlets have never covered it with any emphasis. Ready?

The US medical system kills 225,000 people a year. That’s 225,000. Which means 2.25 million killings per decade.

Put that up against wars, so-called epidemics, terror attacks, car accidents, Trump, libertarians, Jones, paranoid right-wingers.

Source number 1:

July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Association, “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, respected and revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield broke it down this way:

106,000 deaths per year from the effects of FDA approved medical drugs, and 119,000 deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Annual total? 225,000 medically caused deaths in the US.

Source number 2:

BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012;344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. “Anticoagulants cause the most serious adverse events, finds US analysis”

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.”

And here is the dagger. 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 medical drugs. Boom.

But wait—source number 3:

A page on the FDA’s own website, which you can access by going to startpage.com and searching for “Why Learn about Adverse [Medical] Drug Events (ADRs)”.

The quote (caps are not mine, they’re the FDA’s):

“Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly/100,000 DEATHS yearly/ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths.”

Source number 4:

The following quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.

Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

“…appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death…About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.

“They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.

“Deaths from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.”

Source number 5:

A 2009 email interview I did with the above-mentioned Dr. Barbara Starfield. Here are a few excerpts:

JR: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

BS: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency)…

JR: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

BS: NO.

JR: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

BS: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

JR: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

BS: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

—end interview excerpt—

Dear Wa Po, consider these gifts. Your leads. You can take off from here. You can suck it up and incorporate a piece of fringe and make it go mainstream, and in the process, if you handle it well, set your reporters loose to drag out every doctor and medical bureaucrat who knows the truth but has been hiding it, you’ll have the biggest story in your history. By far.

106,000 annual deaths in the US from FDA approved medicines. 225,000 annual deaths from the overall practice of mainstream medicine in the US. That’s 2.25 million deaths per decade. 2.25 MILLION.

power outside the matrix

Wait. What’s that, WaPo? You don’t want to cover this story with breaking updates every two days for a year? You don’t want to expose the US medical system? You don’t want to show how bringing more Americans under the umbrella of Obamacare automatically ups the number of deaths? You don’t want to bring in more readers than you’ve ever had? You don’t want to blast this story in front-page headlines? You don’t want to take something from the fringe? You don’t want to?

Well, in that case, I guess we’d know where you stand.

It isn’t the fringe that bothers you, it’s the truth.

I don’t blame you. With an operation like yours, you need protection from the truth on so many levels. You do need masks and air filters and steel vaults and seals. And you need drug-ad money. You need continued access to lying official sources, who would drop you in a second if you dove in and worked this fringe story. I get it. I really do.

You have no courage. You have no guts. You’re sick and dying on the vine.

That happens to institutions. They think they’re forever, but when they abandon whatever ideals they’re supposed to have, they disintegrate.

Some funerals are quick affairs. A half-hour and they’re done. Others, like yours, are marathons. They drone on for years, decades.

I’m not attending yours. Never liked zombie events.

But just in case somebody at your paper still has genuine curiosity and balls, I can be contacted.

I’m here, on the fringe.

Jon Rappoport

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

What is Donald Trump doing to media reality?

What is Donald Trump doing to media reality?

by Jon Rappoport

December 11, 2015

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

“Even if Trump is a prop-figure set up to sweep the other Republican candidates off the board and pave the way for Hillary to win the election, something else is going on. Something deeper and much weirder.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Donald Trump, a figure of authority? A folk-hero? A man who can say anything, get away with it, and become more popular? How did this happen? How was Trump sculpted, if you will, to become what he is now?

NBC once loved him. Let’s not forget that. They set up The Apprentice for him. There he sat, a Pope of business, a genius of goof, deciding which contestants moved on and which were expelled into the outer darkness with their luggage. The tasks the contestants strove to complete were ridiculous. They ended up (winners and losers alike) looking like demented and humiliated kiddie-props in a parody of “the business of America is business.”

(“Okay, your assignment is to make signs, stand on a street corner, and sell yak dung.”)

No problem. For several seasons, the television audience adored the show. “You’re fired” became Trump’s signature. And of course, now, during the Presidential campaign, he’s doing the same thing—firing everybody he can think of. To say this is appealing to millions of people is a vast understatement.

Trump is firing politicians, candidates, media, the GOP, immigrants, government bureaucrats, trade representatives and their deals. Wherever he casts his eye, there is somebody to dump.

Trump began as a media creation. They embraced him as a brash, interesting, weird cartoon—and he went with it.

He came across like a happy greedy child playing with toys—hotels, casinos, apartment buildings, golf courses. Then he’d allude to his own brilliance in being able to maneuver the deals that brought the toys into existence.

The media loved this. They loved his crazy hair. They loved his wives, his marriages, his grin, his unselfconscious babble. They kept building him up.

“When I’m President,” he says now, “I’ll make better deals. For America.” Well, he’s already been popularized by media, if only in a Disneyesque animation, as the king of dealmakers. It fits.

In the middle of this campaign storm, Trump and the media are joined at the hip. The media created him, and now they can’t shake him off. He’s a fascist, he’s a racist, the pundits say, but it doesn’t matter. They keep trying to dig his grave and put him in it, but there is no funeral. The more they attack him, the more excitement they generate.

If it turned out The Donald were a closet hermaphrodite, would it really matter? Or would his followers say, “Wow, that’ll show those LGBT fanatics.”

Now, throw into the mix how large numbers of people feel about open borders, terror attacks, gun control, and the export of American jobs overseas—their guy, Trump, is reflecting those feelings with unmistakably decisive remarks, without a teleprompter, without sing-song political-android vagueness…so you have a super-potent catalyst roaming the countryside, blowing people out of their passive minds.

Trump isn’t manipulating the media, he isn’t sitting around thinking of ways to stir up their hatred, he isn’t a Hillary with teams of lizards calculating which issue she should pounce on at any given moment, he isn’t a Jeb huddling in his own pool of tears with a few billion bucks, planning his comeback. Trump jots down a quick note on a napkin, puts it in his pocket, strides through a crowd, gets up on a stage, and lets it rip. Everything he says reminds him of something else and he goes with the latest thought. His speeches look like a roadmap of a bee’s zig-zag through a pasture.

The media are suffering from the Frankenstein Effect. They invented Trump, and now he is taking them to a place they don’t want to go.

He’s already trekked into no-go zones. For example, he’s said that of course vaccines can cause autism. What happens, for example, if tomorrow he suddenly changes his current message on ISIS (bomb them, censor them online) and says of course the US government created ISIS and now the Obama administration is patting itself on the back for stepping up military action against its own partner? What happens if he starts pounding on that tune?

Wild card, joker in the deck, loose cannon, cowboy don’t even begin to describe what Trump is becoming. His supporters are also celebrating a revolt against political correctness, and Trump is their man. Carefully assess what you say before you say it? Are you kidding? In this sense as well, the media have created their own problem, acting as shills and cheerleaders for correct language—and now that op is coming back to haunt them.

Here’s another tidbit. For the past 20 years, the media have been gargling and sputtering and uttering mealy-mouthed he-said he said “reports” about the effects of Globalism on American jobs. Trump has taken that creature out to the barn and shot it. He’s talking about rescinding the trade deals that have been forwarding Globalism. Does he mean it? Does he understand what such an effort would take? His followers think so.

Waiting in the wings: If Trump addresses residents of inner cities, directly and often, and tells them he will bring back jobs for them (whereas no one else will), who knows how much trouble he could stir up in the ranks of the Republican and Democratic parties, and who knows how much support will pour out of those decimated inner-city communities.

This isn’t Rand Paul or Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders talking about Globalism. This is a billionaire marshal riding into town and promising to flash coin. This is the host of The Apprentice saying, “I can fire, but I also can hire.” This is a wide-screen IMAX cartoon saying, “I’m real. I’ll bring back prosperity.”

How do the Sunday morning news-talk hosts and their guest experts stand up against him? Trump is shrugging and summarily announcing, “They’re jerks.” He’s blowing away the media who made him, and they can’t undo what they’ve birthed.

The conventional wisdom is Trump will fall when the media uncover something truly horrible from his past and blast it out, day after day. You mean saying the Internet needs to be censored and many immigrants must be deported isn’t enough to sink his ship? So far, apparently not.

And scandals and possible scandals have already been aired. There was the accusation that he raped his wife Ivana. She eventually defended him and said no. Four of his companies have declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. According to Salon, he was a figurehead for a company called ACN, which operated as a pyramid scheme. Trump denied having anything to do with ACN. There are ongoing legal actions against Trump University in New York and California, claiming the University committed fraud and deception against students in its real estate curriculum and hustled them for millions of $$.

This last potential scandal carries the most danger, in part because the NY case is headed up by the state Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, who has filed a $40 million lawsuit against Trump. Former students have filed two class-action suits against The Donald.

And yet…all the above-mentioned scandals have already been covered in the press, and Trump’s poll ratings haven’t suffered.

What’s going on?

Originally, the media created Trump as a celebrity and a phenomenon. They made him big. A very big and wild and weird cartoon. Now they’re trying to destroy him. But they can’t make him small and inconsequential because, again, they made him big and wild and weird, and the audience accepted him on that basis, in that image. The audience already took him in, already accepted and digested him. Media creations are hard to reverse when they’re cartoons. People love cartoons. Can anybody make Mickey Mouse vanish? Can anybody make the Simpsons forgettable?

The case of another famous cartoon is instructive: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He rode to victory, in 2003, and won the governorship of California based on his media-image as an all-powerful animation. It wasn’t until he was serving as governor that the picture faded. Only then did people realize he was just another politician. His infidelity, his fathering of a child with the family housekeeper, was the ultimate torpedo—but that scandal erupted long after his super-gloss had already dimmed.

Notice this: as The Arnold was running for the governorship in 2003, it was already on the record (1977) that he had used steroids (they were legal then) and had participated in orgies. Just several days before the election, the LA Times and CNN broke a story about “Gropegate.” Several women came forward with accounts of breast-grabbing, buttock-grabbing. Another woman said Schwarzenegger had tried to remove her swimsuit in an elevator.

On Election Day, Arnold won by over a million votes. He beat out his closest competitor by 17 points.

Disney built an empire based on cartoons. John Wayne built a career being a cartoon. Comic books, graphic novels, and the movies based on them are blockbusters. Twelve days before the opening of the latest Star Wars movie, people are already camping out at theaters.

Meaning? People want to see reality reduced to extremes. One reason: they’re annoyed by subtleties. Another reason: they really believe that, at bottom, when the smoke and mirrors are removed, the world is a drama of light vs. dark, good vs. evil. If you think you can make that idea go away, you’re crazy.

And suppose on some level this drama is, in fact, playing out. Suppose a man riding in on years-worth of media-inflation says, in no uncertain terms, he can win that war. Suppose he actually believes it. Suppose he appeals to millions of people in a way that no other politician on the scene can, because he communicates in a loose direct conversational style, instead of droning on in the usual political cliché carved out by public-relations idiots for candidates who can’t escape sounding and looking like androids. Suppose his version of being a cartoon is “I’m the most honest guy you’ll ever meet.”

Suppose, among the blizzard of his statements and remarks, he is pinpointing several deep ongoing crimes of government, crimes other candidates are terrified of touching.

Suppose for decades now, the whole standard media-PR charade of national elections has conspired to outrage and sicken the American public.

Suppose Trump appears to be the opposite of standard.

Suppose the public is so fed up with this election charade they’d excuse their man, The Donald, if it came out that he’d dropped his mother in a volcano on Xmas Eve.

Suppose the media, who are trying to destroy Trump, have no one to blame but themselves, because they’ve been supporting thousands of political lies and liars for a long, long time using language no one cares about anymore.

Whereas the big, wild, and weird man coming into town is speaking in a different tongue.

Suppose, therefore, this is a clash of dimensions the media simply cannot understand.

In that case, what are we set for?

The people who hate the Trump the most continue to miss the point that he is coming with a different language, and his train and their train are passing, on different rails, in the night.

Once a Donald Duck, you last forever. Don’t underestimate that. Give Donald a fiery sword and a mission and a new and different quack, and you’ve got something that grabs the American subconscious and delivers a shock to the system.

“A cartoon came alive? He’s coming to town? He’s on television? He’s running for President? Get out of my way, I have to see this. I have to be part of it.”

After all, American society has turned into a cartoon. Yes, it can be vicious and painful. It can deliver terminal blows. But it’s an animation. When a piece of it suddenly detaches itself and steps forward into the light and talks, you better believe people are interested. Accept it, don’t accept it, Obama was one of those pieces, Bush was a piece, Clinton was certainly a piece. But none of them was as strange as Donald Trump.

power outside the matrix

If somehow he wins the nomination, it remains to be seen how he’ll fare against that “woman sketch” named Hillary Clinton, a venal and vengeful and entitled caricature trying to keep her Shriek under control as she barrels down the road, smoke coming out her ears, toward the Oval Office.

It seems like a long time ago that one of the biggest networks in the world put Trump in a throne before a national audience every week—where he said over and over again, “You’re fired, you’re fired, you’re fired.” Is it really that surprising he can do the same thing now and find a huge audience?

The network, NBC, was Dr. Frankenstein. They brought Trump to life, and then he broke away, turned around, and attacked his masters.

It just so happens millions of people also want to attack NBC and the other networks and major news sources in this country for their wall-to-wall lies, their arrogant sense of entitlement, their insider clubby presumptions, their sold-out alliance with government and corporations, and their refusal to listen to the concerns of every-day Americans.

These media giants have been creating reality for the masses.

A revolt is in progress against that reality and its perpetrators.

A large number of Americans have come to the aid of a man/media-creation who, in his own way (love it or hate it), is leading it.

What else would you expect to happen?

You’re fired, you’re fired, you’re fired.

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.

Abortion and population: an open secret

Abortion and population: an open secret

by Jon Rappoport

December 1, 2015

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

There are various estimates of the number of US abortions performed since 1973, when the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade. Most estimates are in the range of 54 million.

The website, abort73.com, offers statistics on abortions in the US. These figures are taken from two sources: the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute (AGI):

“Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 32.9% of all abortions in 2011; women between 25-29 obtained 24.9% (CDC).”

“Women in their 20’s have the highest abortion rates. (CDC)”

“51% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions, and teenagers obtain 18% (AGI).”

Now let’s look at a US birth statistic. WebMD, May 5, 2015 (“U.S. Birth Rate Hovers at All-Time Low, CDC Reports”):

“Birth rates for women in their 20s declined to record lows in 2013…”

It doesn’t take a complicated analysis to show that the declining birth rate for women in their 20s is connected to the number of abortions in that same group.

Yes, there are certainly other reasons for declining fertility in both women and men, including the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment; but the link between abortion and declining birth rate, as revealed above, couldn’t be more obvious, and it shows that men and women are still able to make babies.

So why isn’t this link between abortion and declining birth rate mentioned, highlighted, and discussed widely in mainstream news reports? The answer to that is also obvious:

Abortion is part of a different agenda.

Officially, reporters are supposed to bring up abortion in the context of a woman’s right to choose, or as a long-accepted practice currently opposed by some recalcitrant traditionalists, or as a subject that has provoked violence. And that’s it.

Linking abortion to declining birth rate is “off-topic.” It could make the reporter seem like an opponent of abortion. It could “engender the wrong perception.” It could cause unfavorable publicity for media outlets. Therefore, don’t touch it.

Mainstream journalism is, in many cases, reporting by agenda. The writer or broadcaster knows which agenda he is supposed to represent. Therefore, he fits his facts into one of those compartments. Or, if the facts won’t fit any of the favored compartments, he opts out altogether. He moves on to another story.

If pressed in a private conversation (and I have done this with reporters over the years), he’ll mention “uncomfortable facts” or “misleading facts.”

By “misleading,” he means: his audience will get the wrong idea. His audience will infer that he, the reporter, has “wandered off the reservation,” is now “a loose cannon,” is a “lone wolf,” is no longer reliable. Much worse, the reporter’s editor will begin looking at him in a different way. “Why is he submitting this story? Doesn’t he know he’s asking for trouble? Is he shifting his overall political position? Is he trying to drag me (the editor) into a controversy? Doesn’t he understand our established boundaries?”

Nobody from the publisher’s penthouse makes a call to squash the story. The word doesn’t come down from on high. It doesn’t need to. Everything is settled at ground-level. If the reporter won’t play ball, he’s relegated to filing stories on flower shows and fund-raiser picnics, or he’s out the door with a black mark next to his name. The call from the penthouse is the rare exception. In most cases, the people who restore order are the editors who thoroughly understand the subject of agendas.

Abortion? Declining birth rate among women in their 20s? The connection is as obvious as the nose on your face. But “obvious” doesn’t add up to a published story, not when it crosses firmly established lines.

power outside the matrix

The news business has always worked this way, but these days, the pressure is at all-time levels, because so many readers and viewers can’t, or refuse to, make proper distinctions. If they sniff the faintest possibility that one of their sacred premises might, in any conceivable universe, be receiving an indirect poke in the ribs, they start screaming.

Education being what it is now, Adoring or Screaming appear to be the only two options.

That’s why intelligent people, millions of them, are deserting mainstream news for alternatives. They see no reason to participate in an operation that panders to lunatics.

Meanwhile, mainstream news outlets are pushing the same old boulders up the same old hill, their employees panting and praying that their efforts will produce paychecks that sustain them into retirement. Many of them won’t make it.

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.

Dr. Starfield’s revelations: shock of shocks

by Jon Rappoport

November 25, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year, like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million killings per decade.

Wouldn’t you think we’d hear about it? Wouldn’t public health agencies make a big, bigger, biggest deal about it? Wouldn’t they call it a pandemic to end all pandemics?

Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the world? The churches on roaring business highs?

Well, on July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield‘s review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:

* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.

* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.

I’m aware that independent research puts those death figures much higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield’s work because no mainstream reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the credentials of the journal that published her findings.

And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn’t aggressive, and it faded out quickly.

And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. We are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and effective.

The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?”

It states: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly.” And “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” (The capital letters are the FDA’s, not mine.)

The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming devastation…but take no responsibility for it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.

What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

NO.

Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?

I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.

—end of interview excerpt—

The Matrix Revealed

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

Comment: Hyping death is a media industry. But it cuts two ways. The people who do the scare-propaganda also delete the uncomfortable truths, like those Dr. Starfield describes above.

As always, media are fronting for an agenda.

They are selectively inventing reality for the public.

Reality-invention is the biggest business in the world.

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.

Every television newscast: staged reality

by Jon Rappoport

November 16, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

“The news is all about artificially manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut, school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does government have the Constitutional right to incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other sources? Who invents money?

Is the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?

What happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?

When researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products takes over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

“Hello. I’m staged reality and I’m doing ads to promote me.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

power outside the matrix

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths.”

Now consider the recent “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases, and no deaths.

In the case of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce bills in legislatures that cancel legal exemptions from vaccines and cancel freedom of choice. It’s time for more medical fascism. It’s time to paint parents who don’t vaccinate as terrorists. It’s time to paint their children as little biowar weapons loose in the community.

It’s time to advance the medical police state.

And oh yes, it’s time to divert attention away from the fact that even conventional researchers and the CDC admit this year’s flu vaccine is geared to the wrong virus and is useless (but you should take it anyway).

The designation of “outbreaks” and “epidemics” is arbitrary. “We’ll take THIS as an epidemic and we’ll ignore THAT as an epidemic.”

It’s very much like marketing, because it is marketing.

“Let’s see, Bob. Which one of the items in our sales catalog should we push hard this quarter? The bikini or the leather boots?”

“You know, we haven’t hyped the measles vaccine for a while. How about an outbreak of measles? Can we sell that? Focus on the kiddies? We’ll need about 100 cases, we’ll say they all came from one source, like a playground or an amusement park, and we’ll claim it’s very, very serious…”

“Do we have a good front man to go on television and promote the fear factor? How about that maniac who thinks any kid can handle 10,000 vaccines? Or the schmuck from UCLA. Maybe a woman doctor, a mother with three kids. You know, soapy dopey.”

When the propaganda pros decide which way to go…they issue a statement, a press release, and this release is picked up by the news shows:

“Medical experts are criticizing parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the proven benefits of vaccines.”

There are various forms of mind control. The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind. That’s quite a trick.

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.